User talk:Dravecky/Archive 13

March 2010

Rescue
After your work on Airplay, I think you should join WP:RESCUE, where they rescue articles tagged for deletion. Thx. Manish Earth Talk • Stalk 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hello! With regards to Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, you note that you would normally be okay with merging. Would you therefore be okay with at least merging the sourced content I added instead of deleting and redirecting? Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That Ken Ryan provided the voice? Yes, that reference should be included in the main article about the show and the rest of the article about the character should be reduced to a redirect to that show article. - Dravecky (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for keeping an open mind; a merge of my edit and redirect is a reasonable alternative. :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What a dog's breakfast
So, on February 2nd, we have the following series of call sign swaps: Followed on February 10th by:
 * KGAM becomes KPTR
 * KPTR becomes KWXY
 * KWXY-FM becomes KDES-FM
 * KDES-FM becomes KKIE
 * The new KKIE becomes KQIE
 * KQIE (which had just switched from KIST-FM on December 15th) goes back to KIST-FM

Unless I miss my reading of the article histories, looks like the articles have been updated by someone changing the frequencies and CoLs and then adding content, rather than moving the articles to the new call signs. Want to have a look and see if you're seeing the same things I am? Mlaffs (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitron Categories
Hey Dravecky, got a small problem on the "market" templates. They all say "Category:Virginia Arbitron market navigational boxes" (different states of course). We don't mention Arbitron after the Great Nielsen Boondoggle, even going so far as to remove any and all mention of Arbitron markets from the "market" templates. Having the categories there just keeps that mention. Is there someone that you know that can go through with a bot and remove the categories and then nominate them for deletion as unnecessary? If not, we could get Mlaffs and myself together and do a mass removal (and nominate for deletion) on all the templates. That would require sometime and finding where they all are. If this can be done (bot or no bot) please let me know. Don't need a Great Arbitron Boondoogle. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After pondering this for a bit, I think what needs to happen is to rename all of these categories from Category:Virginia Arbitron market navigational boxes to Category:Virginia radio market navigational boxes. This maintains the organization while removing the problematic mention of that certain ratings behemoth. As a bonus, in some states, templates have been created for non-Arbitron markets and this renaming would allow them all to be consolidated in a single logical category.  While we've got this toolbox open, I'd advocate the creation of Category:Virginia radio format navigational boxes under under the same parent, Category:Virginia media navigational boxes, as a neat and useful parallel to declutter the parent.  This could hold Classic Hits Radio Stations in Virginia, ESPN Virginia, Virginia college radio, and all of their cousins.  Does that make sense to you?  (Anybody, feel free to jump in here.)  If this idea had support, we can take it to WPRS for potentially wider discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like both these ideas, alot actually. They would encompass for sections (the formats and "markets") and take of the problems.  My main worry is the use of the word "market".  Since we got in trouble with Nielsen for using "market" with television stations, I don't know if we should use with radio stations.  Is there some way to change that up so the word market isn't used?  I know that might be tough, but I just don't want to give Arbitron any leverage should they come along with an OTRS ticket like Nielsen did. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, seriously, could you two guys get the heck out of my head? I literally just finished yesterday going through all of the format navboxes, making sure categories were added where they were missing and that they all had talk page tags for at least WPRS. As I was doing that, I had these exact same ideas, and was planning to come home tonight to start the necessary conversations. I don't know that creating the new format navbox categories actually needs discussion, as it seems like an absolute no-brainer to me, but I'm happy to lend my support to a discussion if you guys disagree. On the plus side, having done that clean-up earlier in the week, I'm confident that all of the format navboxes are in the media navbox categories and nothing will slip through the cracks. As for the Arbitron/radio market switch, that definitely needs a convo, and there's certainly a bot or two that would be able to handle that change — we might just need to get it submitted for task approval. As for what to call it, that is a little tricker. I'm not fussed by "market" myself, particularly since so many other non-Arbitron markets have been created that we could point to that and say we're not mirroring their intellectual property. Otherwise, Category:Virginia radio listening area navigational boxes would get a little clunky. I suppose Category:Virginia radio region navigational boxes could work, but meh...
 * So, next steps? Mlaffs (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Market is the proper industry term, not a creation of Arbitron, so changing it to anything else doesn't make sense to me. We'll be able to point at all the templates for markets that are not defined by Arbitron as a simple defense against any action Arbitron might envision. - Dravecky (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, Mlaffs, no offense was taken in your deletion of my note from your page. I did that so both of you saw it at the same time.  Anywho, if "market" won't cause any problems with Arbitron, then Dravecky's idea of Category:Virginia radio market navigational boxes (changing it up for other states, of course) would be great.  If I can be of help on these (if a bot can't be found) please let me know.  I can change up some of the templates right quick :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WPRZ-FM
I know I am throwing alot at ya with the above and this and I apologize, but I have another issue for you. User:Phantomsteve has CSD'd WPRZ-FM (an article I created earlier today) for deletion. The station is not yet on the air, but with the AfD precedence, the precedence that radio stations are notable, the essay WP:NME and others, I think the article is saveable without creating any precedence against deletion radio station articles. We are discussing the article here. If you could please chime in (or even add some references to the page, as you rock at that) it would be most helpful. Thanks.... NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 00:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you have declined the SD. I've no problems with that, but I have also detailed on my talk page (linked to above) as to why I think that it fails WP:NME (which Neutralhomer referred me to, then said that "precedence overides everything" when I pointed out the station may not meet WP:NME criteria). Apparently, a station which has not started broadcasting (their latest filing with the FCC was 2 days ago), with a limited area of transmission is inherently notable - perhaps WP:N/WP:ORG need to be amended to reflect this. Nowhere could I find anything that says that all radio stations are inherently notable - even the NME essay doesn't. However, for my future reference, I would be grateful if you could show me where there is a policy/guideline/essay that says this - so that I know to decline any future SD noms for radio stations. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PhantomSteve, longtime members of the WPRS have been through this so many times (hence all that precedent!) that sometimes we forget that not everybody is aware that licensed radio stations are treated like any other major infratructure such as a highway or a small town. NeutralHomer, take it down a notch and remember to assume good faith. Also, I hope you like the taste of hat. Both of you, please see the lengthy note I left on Phantomsteve's talk page. - Dravecky (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Phantomsteve and I have agreed to move WPRZ-FM to userspace. Could you do that?  Moving it to User:Neutralhomer/WPRZ-FM would be fine.  Let me know once you have and I will remove it from the one template and two pages I added it too when I made the page. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir, much appreciated. I will stay on top of the blog the station is keeping and see what the station is doing.  When I station is broadcasting, I will (if you don't mind) ask you to move it back to WPRZ-FM and fix everything back up.  Glad this worked out as best that could be asked for. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Barn...

 * Thanks, and what you couldn't see is that I've also been working on an article for Robert B. Parker's Perchance to Dream all afternoon which is why I've been able to see all those yellow alert bars so quickly. - Dravecky (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're Welcome :) Ah, neat!  Since it is a novel (and sounds familar to me) you could get more to work on it and could get GA status.  Keep up the good work :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:deletion
I understand your resons for deleting the phoenix club page, however the problems with that page was that it didn't have the evidence of it's mainstream use and that was rectified in this new page with a better definition with sources so there wasn't really a need to delete it. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you get my message? The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Are you asking me to undelete the page? - Dravecky (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I am, as it was improved. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you get this one as well? (sorry, I'm doing this it just seems that there is a bit of a delay in replies being posted) The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delays but like everybody else here, I'm just another guy with a day job, a lap top, and some limited amount of free time. But now I'm back from dinner and I'll undelete the article. Enjoy. - Dravecky (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Morning Funnies

 * New bot ↑ :) Shubinator (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WKAC BAMA LOGO.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WKAC BAMA LOGO.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Repetitive long-tern vandalism reverted, vandalism-only IP user blocked after repeated warnings. - Dravecky (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing stations page
Added a little enhancement to the missing articles list — just another way to measure progress. Hope you like it! Mlaffs (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KDVL logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:KDVL logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The image was removed from the appropriate article by a user with a possible conflict of interest. Nonetheless, an updated logo is available and I have uploaded it in this image's place. I have no issue with this old image's speedy deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)
Hi Dravecky, thanks for working at the references in the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948). I had to change it back the way they were before. I do not know well how to deal with the references from Google Books, but your edits created some confusion. Please see here. IMO it might be a good idea to keep the references as they are now at least until the article that created such a controversy is stable to avoid feature confusions. If you'd rather would like to change the references again, may I please ask you to explain to me how the readers would be able to find the exact page from Google books. If you'd like to respond the message, may I please ask you to respond here? I will check on it myself. Thank you for understanding.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Could you please take a look here.Please scroll down. Do you see how the refences did not work, when the user removed part of the article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've just restored those references as the previous version of them was inaccurate, incomplete, and improper per WP guidelines and the style guide. When a reference tag is deleted from the article and it's the only use of that reference in the article then you'll get the error message you saw. If you're not going to use a reference in the article, remove it from the reference list.  Also, Google Books always shows you what page you're on in a displayed book.  Use the right and left arrows to flip to the page you want.  The URL is a "courtesy link" in these cases, not a required part of a book citation, so if it's off by a page or two (and most of these references are to adjoining pages) that's not a concern. - Dravecky (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. I like your version much better than mine, but I will appreciate your help in responding comments like that here. The author of that comment is always trying to say I am lying. So no matter what I myself would say there, it will be disregarded by the user, so please do help me to clear this up. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the commenter's complaint because the link to each work in Google Books is present in the References section, just as it was before my revisions. Click on the lovely blue link that is the book's title, as before, and you'll see for yourself. - Dravecky (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the user is almost always assumes bad faith, and was helped by this comment of a third user. Anyway, thanks for your help and comment at the discussion page of the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK Question
Hey Dravecky, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Stephens City, Virginia page and see if my latest edits constitute a 5% increase in the page's size or if it still needs more work to constitute getting a DYK credit. Thanks... NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs to be a 5x expansion, not a 5% expansion, to qualify for DYK. - Dravecky (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * oooh, I knew it was 5 something just couldn't remember what. :) Does the work I have done constitute a 5x expansion or is more work needed?  I would just like to have a DYK under the belt of the page to kinda bump it up when the time comes for GA and FA (which is what I am working toward) and get more eyes on the page (which is what I would really like). -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 20:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you started editing it, the article was at 45143 characters of readable prose and now it's at 47869 characters. That's a 6% increase. To get it big enough for a DYK now, you'd have to increase the article to 225715 characters of readable prose. - Dravecky (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL...LOL!!! I can't win for losing :)  Oh well, guess it ain't meant to be.  Well, I am still actively editing and looking for others help (needs LOTS of references on the demographics section), so it will get up there....I hope.  But 225,715 characters, that might be a bit of a problem :)  Thanks though for looking into it.  Take Care... NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK rules
Hi Dravecky, I'd like to ask you please at what discussion page I could rise a question about DYK promotion rules? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:DYK would be the one. Shubinator (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help on DYK. I believe it is highly unfair what is done to the article at DYK page. That discussion does not belong there. I asked many times to move it to the article discussion page, but was refused. I do not know what to do/ Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about featuring an article on DYK, therefore WT:DYK and T:TDYK are where the discussion belongs. Moving the discussion to the article talk page often means the discussion has established that the article is not suitable for DYK, and therefore the discussion is moved to the article talk page to continue the discussion and/or for the article's records. In other words, moving the discussion to the talk page would, in my opinion, hurt its chances of appearing on DYK. Also, you are coming dangerously close to forum shopping. I suggest you let the discussion run its course, whether you like the result or not. Starting a new discussion will not help you. Shubinator (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the hook you approved for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Smallman12q (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have made my comments there. I encourage you and any other interested editor to review the long list of hooks nominated for DYK and make any concerns known. - Dravecky (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dalton Maag
Just to let you know that I deleted the above article, which you tagged, as an expired WP:PROD earlier today, but I just had a request on my talk page so I restored it again. I agree that the article looks pretty poor, but I'll leave you to pursue AfD if you feel it's appropriate. Thanks ~ mazca  talk 16:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. That article is now at AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)