User talk:Dhett/Archive 2

re User:76.199.87.51 report to AIV
Please could you sign/date your final warnings (with the four tildes "~"), it makes the admins job easier. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ps. ip blocked for 48 hours.

Drewgu111
Drewgu111 sent me an e-mail regarding the issue. I examined the contributions, and even asked for an offline CheckUser and I assumed (from his reply) that he confirmed that the IP and Drewgu111 were the same person. I'm reviewing the block now. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

12.74.157.98
In reference to the vandalism this person inflicted on KXAS-TV -- I've contended with this person several times before, over several IPs. He would go to these TV station articles and vandalsie them in the same fashion, then sign the article as if it was his own work. He also vandalised highway-related articles, insisting that the wording is displayed EXACTLY as displayed on the signs. To see what I mean, check the history for KSDK -- many of the recent IPs have been his. Too bad he doesn't have a regular account, or they would've all been flagged as socks. -- azumanga 03:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: KAMR-TV's cable slot
The main reason some people thought that the cable slots were useless information is that the person adding these was not giving specific information, and often saying that the cable slot goes for the entire market. That aspect was gotten some editors riled up, leading to their reversal and the IP's blockings. Personally, I don't mind them, as long as they are specific to the cable system and the city (in KAMR's case, ch.5 on Suddenlink in Amarillo) -- they can;t just say something like "channel 5 in the Amarillo market", as the market encompasses numerous systems in a three-state area. Maybe if we have a clearer standards and position for this... -- azumanga 12:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Many "Rebafan"s...
...have been indef blocked :) Of course, he will return, but for now, we can take a break.  Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer  T:C 20:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What's with Dingbat's obsession with user names starting with Rebafan{number here} of late? WAVY 10 Fan 13:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dude, just came back to the computer and seen your post on my talk page. I will keep an eye on the Recent Changes list to make sure no more "Rebafan"s pop up.  Sorry again....NeutralHomer  T:C 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Was checking through the "Rebafan#" names and Rebafan15 is an "new account" as of 2/9/07. - NeutralHomer T:C 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the only one that doesn't ahve any contribs that I can find. I wish there was an easier way to search through like-named usernames then....


 * "Rebafan1", enter, "Rebafan2", enter, "Rebafan3", enter....


 * Either way, I would keep an eye on "Rebafan15". Take Care...NeutralHomer  T:C 01:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability Standard for Radio and TV Stations
After being struck down in his attempt to have the articles on radio stations WRNY and WRRC deleted, Mr.Z-man has made an attempt at changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations. This is a REALLY bad idea. This puts not only the work of WP:WPRS, but the work of WP:TVS, and potentially Wikipedia itself at risk. We need to let Mr.Z-man know that changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations is a bad idea...REALLY bad idea. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and obviously he isn't done. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I let you know about this. I hope because I let you know you don't get in any trouble.  Sometimes I think Wikipedia is a big migraine. - NeutralHomer  T:C 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Chin up, my friend!
I know this latest cr@p over notability is causing you to wonder if Wikipedia is worth it, but don't let it get to you. We've been through this before with Sandstein and others questioning notability, with A Man In Black and others questioning fair use images, with copyvio accusations, and with article deletion noms, but reason and logic have won out before, and I believe that they will again. We're dealing with a lot people who are ignorant to the special circumstance that broadcast stations work under, but when exposed to the facts, they usually see the light. Those who don't at least see our determination. Besides, I'd be willing to explain my POV 100 times if I didn't have to deal with Dingbat again!! ;-) dhett (talk • contribs) 09:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hee! Thanks for the note, Dhett. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability "Thing"
I argued my points the other day but it seems like Mr.Z-man ain't backing down (or just doesn't care) so let me know how the whole things shakes out. I figure the "proposal" will pass and the work done by WP:WPRS and WP:TVS members will be deleted en masse (which is why I am seriously considering created an independent wiki for radio, TV, etc.) and there is nothing I can really do. I have stated my points and I still think this will open up a box they won't be able to close.

Anyway (for I start to ramble) please let me know how it all plays out and what the final consensus is. Take Care and Happy (early) Thanksgiving....NeutralHomer T:C 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd stop by...
...and thank you for helping me out on the Springer article! Much appreciated. FitzCommunist (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re St. Louis Signer
Does this mean that we can block one of those IPs on sight? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WABG-TV
Hey, Dhett... I THINK that WABG actually copied the station history information from Wikipedia for its own Web site, instead of the other way around. Is there a way to establish that so that it can be put back in (and not a potential copyvio)? I think it's do-able using archive.org and the page's own history, but I'm not sure how troublesome that's going to be.Amnewsboy (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly the most scientific method, but the version of their Web site pulled on November 27, 2006 doesn't have the suspected copyvio section in it; the WP version from November 9, 2006 does. (In other words - that text appeared here before it appeared on their Web site.)  I'd think we'd be OK putting it back in. (The process was also a lot more painless than I thought it would be.) Amnewsboy (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

BVM and KAZT
BVM's MySpace page does say that BVM will be coming to KAZT in the Upcoming Shows section of the page, is it OK to put it back in the BVM and KAZT page's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123lkik (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AztecaAlbuquerque.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AztecaAlbuquerque.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AztecaBrownsville.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AztecaBrownsville.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FamilyVision.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:FamilyVision.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TVC-logo-black.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:TVC-logo-black.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

KPOL
I have separated KPOL from the KHRR article, since I believe if a silent station is sold from one party to another while silent, I consider the previous incarnation separate from the current one as it was under completely different ownership and management from the time before it went dormant (in KPOL's case, 1989) than it was when the frequency signed back on (in KHRR's case, 1992). New World Man (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation. It has been consensus of this group that a station's article belongs with its license, and although KPOL went silent before being resurrected as KHRR, it is the same license, and therefore, the same station. KPOL is part of KHRR history, and should remain part of the article. dhett (talk • contribs) 08:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WNHT in New Hampshire has an article separate from WPXG, though both WNHT and WPXG have the exact same FCC facility ID (in their case, 48406). That license was also sold while silent, therefore I interpret that as being separate stations. New World Man (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your vandalism of WWTBAM
Please stop. The million dollar winners are correct, and you changing them is ludicrous. Furthermore, you seem to have a fixation with anybody else editing as being a vandal. Your contrib history is a joke, really. Please stop. Further reversions without a citation(which you can't produce, because I have the million dollar list from ATGS, duh!) will result in me reporting you to ANI for blockage of your account. If you aren't going to contribute and be civil, why even bother being here in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.33.93 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MiSandiegologo.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:MiSandiegologo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LFN logo.GIF
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LFN logo.GIF. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

COL in TV station infoboxes
So is anyone going through and changing these other stations? I dont have a "passion" for TV its more a interest in broadcasting. I have several friends who work for stations as engineers. Thats how I know about the info I get. As they have stated to me COL really does not mean much anymore. As long as "top of the hour" audio in radio or audio visual in TV is made and the city is covered with a city grade signal its fine. This is in contrast to back when the stations had to keep its studio in its COL, and had to make programming for its COL. As I stated I disagree on here because it causes more confusion for people who do not know about this. If you watch KPNX or WOIO or WPWR for example you know these stations are more Phoenix, Cleveland, and Chicago stations even though their COLs are mesa, shaker heights, and gary. KPNX has the city of Phoenix for its background. The same is true of WOIO (Cleveland). WPWR calls itself My50 Chicago. I never stated COL should not be listed but to not list the city these stations primarily serve will make for confusion. Oak999 (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

City of Chandler question
I do not know if this is against regulations but with you living in Chandler ( I myself am moving to Phoenix and have lots of familly in Phoenix) there is a issue I would like to hear your opinion on not related to what was talked about. Its just something with you living down there that I would like to hear your opinion on. Is it OK for me to post my email on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KPNX station ID 080405.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:KPNX station ID 080405.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:No separate DTV
Template:No separate DTV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The "No separate DTV" template
I removed my comment because I realized my question was answered by the post directly above it.

Also, I can re-add the category to those pages in question in the next hour or so, since I have WAY too much time on my hands.

New World Man (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tv discussion board question
You where very helpful before so I thought I would ask for your help on this. You sent me a link to a page on discussing of TV stations editing here before. I made the mistake of deleting it on my talk page. Can you give me a link to where I can go to discuss this topic and for questions? Thanks Oak999 (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

KPNX Station Id
I added on to the station compliant paragraph on KPNX-TV. I know we have discussed this already so I am going to provide you with proof on their digital signal its KPNX-DT Phoenix-Mesa. The link I will provide is LIVE feed of their digital channel. Please look under the time it says KPNX-DT Phoenix-Mesa. If you can not see it right click on the screen and click "full screen"



Not true, Oak. KPNX serves all of northern Arizona, except for the immediate Flagstaff area. The Phoenix television market includes much more than the Phoenix metropolitan area. Meadview, Arizona, served by a KPNX translator, is over 250 mi from Phoenix, way outside the metro area. dhett (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you Dhett--I stand corrected Oak999 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Oak999 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Header Question
Read what Rollo had to say above; that is our consensus that has built up over the years and is the preferred way of grouping things, by Nielsen market name, not city of license. It would be odd to call a market "Secaucus-New York", because not only is that not the name of the Nielsen market, the former city is just a small suburb in the larger area and all of the other stations in the area do not eminate from Secaucus. Same with "Shaker Heights-Cleveland" WOIO; most people one outside of NE Ohio have no interest in knowing why where Shaker Heights is and would be confused as to why a station serving Cleveland has to be marked with a suburb. This is not arguable and I ask that you keep COL's out of the network grid. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 11:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oak, read the chart column header. It says Market, so use the market alone, not the COL/market combo. dhett (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dhett- I copied this from my page because I wanted to show you what I was talking about. I did in fact put market on the affiliates alone. But a guy by the name of (talk) undid what I did and DEMANDED that COL be placed on network affiliate lists and owner lists. As I said I just wanted to make everything "uniform" and I agree with what you said. If you recall I brought this up for debate before but I think either because I was not clear enough on what I meant or you mis interpreted what I meant it was taken on these lists to included COL. This is what I meant as in network lists. Rollosmokes has also said he wants COL on Owner lists such as the one below. Please click on it to see what I mean. He would like COL put on these as well. For instance where it says WOIO-TV in the Market space he would like included the COL which would be "shaker heights". I see no need but he feels different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raycom_Media

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ABC15phoenix.PNG}
Thank you for uploading Image:ABC15phoenix.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: KNBC
"I had to roll back your edits to KNBC. The commentary in the logo galleries was necessary to stave off deletion by A Man In Black, who has decided once again that logo galleries are bad and need to be exterminated. I specifically asked RingtailedFox to put the commentary in."


 * My bad. Though I think some of it is a tad too descriptive (not to mention RingtailedFox has a habit of uploading the same logo several times over), I won't touch it if it keeps AMiB and the Image Police at bay.  Rollosmokes (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:A1 Logo Color Web 150.png
Thanks for uploading Image:A1 Logo Color Web 150.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AztecaLasVegas.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:AztecaLasVegas.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AztecaReno.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:AztecaReno.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aztecautah.gif}
Thank you for uploading Image:Aztecautah.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bible Quotes
What are some of your favorite Bible quotes? Here's some of mine: (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbullet5 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
 * Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

"Only warning"
Telling anonymous user 76.195.180.84 that's the only warning he/she will get when there's no history of previous warnings is awfully strong and does not appear to be warranted by the available, just as someone else's report to AIV was premature. If it's a sock puppet concern, make a sock puppet report. Please spell out the history instead of leaving others who aren't familiar with that history to struggle to figure it out when they could better spend that time fighting blatant vandals. If your concern isn't about the sock suspicion, then please consider that we have multiple warning levels for a reason. Doczilla STOMP! 00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, if you're certain the person is a sock, you make a sock report. If you're jumping straight to "only warning" when that user's edit history does not make it look justified, you need to say why. If you're expecting administrators to take action based on a sock claim, then you, as the person who knows the history, need to explain that history instead of leaving others to scratch their heads and struggle to figure it out. And if you spot an obvious sock making trouble, make an appropriate report instead of using it as an opportunity to thumb your nose at someone who asked you to please get it right in the first place. You spent time reverting that person's latest edits and then time griping to me (when you had no idea how long it would be until I saw it), and you still have not made a sock report. You know the history. Please make the report. Your edit history indicates that you like posting sock advisory notices but not making appropriate sock reports. You've posted a lot of suspected sock notices but haven't made a checkuser request since November. Doczilla  STOMP! 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dingbat2007
Sounds like that admin is more concerned with bureaucratic bullshit than with dealing with a long-standing, ongoing problem. Never mind the fact that Dingbat has been reported for sock more times than I can count -- like a bad case of the trots, he keeps coming back. If I wasn't chastised as heavily as I was by Doczilla, I'd ask if he would ENSURE that Dingbat was handled once and for all if we followed his instructions to the letter. Then again, I'd probably get whacked for having the gall to challenge him. It's almost not worth it. --Mhking (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:KTTU My Network TV Tucson.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:KTTU My Network TV Tucson.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

KTTU/MyNet
I guess I owe you the thanks this time for reverting his images. Thanks for noticing what MS did; he tried to upload an LQ JPG version of the MyNet logo from the website header to replace the transparent PNG. Why can't people leave well enough alone (shakes head)?  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a definite possibility, though he has a more varied history than those other users. Let's see if he does something after the 48h is over.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Charismatic Wikipedians
I've proposed to rename the user category Category:Charismatic Wikipedians. Since you are listed a member, you may be interested in participating in the discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: User pages

 * "I reverted your changes to User:Wtvg1. It's not appropriate to edit userpages for content, because even if it is just fancruft, there is nothing there that violates WP:NOT. You're already defending yourself against charges of being overly aggressive - why start more trouble? For the most part, I don't think this user is editing in good faith either, but his userspace should be off limits unless it contains a personal attack, in which case you could seek to have him blocked for harrassment."

We as a group have enough problems with editors to deal with, so the last thing we need is someone who is just a fancruft-dumper. But, I'll leave it alone and just deal with the content of his edits. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KPNX_WX_plus_20080416.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:KPNX_WX_plus_20080416.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollosmokes reverting "The CW" and "The WB" to CW and WB again
Hey, thought you might want to help me keep an eye on this again - seems Rollosmokes has started up his campaign of insisting that The WB and The CW shouldn't be listed under their actual names in infoboxes again. Since you were against him when he tried it on the WGN article, I figured you'd like to lend a hand... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a break...
Because you have been one of the editors with whom I have a good working relationship, I've decided to write this to you directly.

I'm taking a break from editing for a while. There's too much going on with me in this place that I need to regroup, enjoy the summer, and refocus. I feel that there is a lack of cohesiveness and willingness to share opinions and work together the way we should here, at least in certain areas. Right now, all of this is coming to a head for me, and I've decided to take a step back. I'm not sure when I'll return, but I will. Keep up the good work, and hold the fort until I return. ) Rollosmokes (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind comments. Apologies to you if I've every rubbed you the wrong way.  See you in a few weeks.  Rollosmokes (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:24.207.238.186
You warned this user about vandalism on 7-Jul, and today, this user's at it again. They have a history of vandalism, so I don't think a temporary ban will suffice. --Fredddie (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. --Fredddie (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

KIVA
Just noticed this wonderful little article. Well done! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  07:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! I've been kind of tired with the whole business of policing vandals, fending off deletionists, and trying to build policy consensus.  Although necessary, that's not really what I came to Wikipedia for.  I've been resisting the urge to join Rollosmokes on a wikibreak, and finally being able to work on an article of my own has been a refreshing change.  I subscribed to NewspaperARCHIVE.  It was a bit pricey, and not every paper is available, including recent Repugnants, but it's been a great resource for filling in sources for articles.  I'm hoping to fill in the rest of the Yuma stations - The Yuma Daily Sun is one of the papers archived there - so this will help with my police burnout.  dhett (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Do you think NewspaperArchive has archives of newspapers in Montana, North Dakota, or Nevada? I ask because I have been working for simply ages on this page, and am unable to finish it. Bergmann (2002) has a map of affiliates, but no call signs. Kennedy and King (1952) have a pre-UHF map, but it's a pre-UHF map, so it's missing many later sign-ons. How much is a subscription? Firsfron of Ronchester  00:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is wonderful, dhett. I've been able to add four stations and six references in about two hours... something I couldn't do in two months before now. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  01:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bohemia Visual Music
Thank you for letting me know that the link i used was dead, i can not find an active link, but i did find a video on youtube from kjkz can i use that as a reference. Powergate92 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet
Check out User talk:Rebafan11 as that's a new username who is making edits on articles similar to those which got the editor blocked. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. See List of MCA Records artists in which he reinserted clearly false information about Miley Cyrus being an MCA Records artist.  As you may know, MCA Records, as a pop music label, is defunct. Miley Cyrus records for Hollywood Records which is owned by the Walt Disney Company and distributed by Universal Music Group which owns the MCA Records catalogue whose pop music output is managed by Geffen Records.  All reissues of the MCA pop music catalogue are on the Geffen label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for making a reasoned and well-written observation and opinion. Obviously I disagree, but I do appreciate the ability to have a calm discussion. I do want to point out that I apologized almost immediately after I used ignorant, and I have apologized more for that than I do in real life for saying something stupid. I would appreciate the issue not be brought up anymore, as it is getting old apologizing over and over. Also, I want to point out that admins main job is interpretation. The reason we have admins is to interpret situations, discussions, policies, etc. and determine what to do. That's like the only thing I do when I am an admin. I see a situation, judge it against my common sense, interpret Wikipedia policies, see what others think (if applicable), and make a decision based on whether I think the decision will improve Wikipedia. Thanks again. Cheers,  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 06:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Enlace-usa-sm.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Enlace-usa-sm.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:KM logo small.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KM logo small.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lat tv sm.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lat tv sm.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: KUPN (now KCDO)
Hi. I'm back from a long unannounced wikibreak (though now I see that you are on one...), and have replied to your message at User talk:DHowell. DHowell (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AztecaPhoenix.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AztecaPhoenix.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AztecaTucson.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AztecaTucson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:KUAT-TV logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:KUAT-TV logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WMGM-logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:WMGM-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesse49
Blocked by User:Daniel Case. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • October 30, 2008 @ 02:32