User:Rollosmokes/Archive 3

The dispute between myself and fellow Wikipedian CoolKatt number 99999, which also involved other users, has been resolved. For details, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999. If you're interested in my side of our original dispute, see this page.

I'm also working on a revision to the NBC affiliate page, using the table format already utilized in other articles on television station owners and networks. User:Rollosmokes/Table list of NBC affiliates so far has covered markets 1-154 (thankz to CFIF for some assistance), plus all NBC-owned stations (sans Telemundo). I have also began similar lists for ABC, CBS, and Fox. Comments on these undertakings should be left on this talk page.

For all other topics, feel free to vent NOW.

Lists of Syndicated Television programs

Recently there was a discussion among the Wikipedia television community on whether or not newscast schedules belonged in station articles. I happen to believe that they should, as it constitutes a highlighting of that station's locally-produced programming.

In contrast, I do not believe that TV station articles should contain lengthy listings of syndicated programming, either past or current. For one, such listings -- especially of current programming -- is trivial information at best. And also, whole articles would run long as other editors scour the old TV Guides and newspaper listings to find the shows missing from the list. This could go on and on and on...

While it would be feasible to highlight certain shows as they relate to the station's ratings performance or for any other notable reason(s) (such as pre-empting network programs), extensive listings of syndicated product shouldn't be included. On this basis, I removed such material from the following station entries: WSOC-TV, WLOS, WVEC-TV, KOCO-TV, WYFF, KFOR-TV, KOKH, KWTV, WHNS, KOCB, KAUT-TV, WYCW, WGXA, WAGT, WJBF-TV, WRLH-TV, WTKR, WIS-TV, WTVD, and WSPA-TV. That's enough for one late Saturday night/Sunday morning. I'm sure there are other articles that still are as these were, but I'll save them unbtil I get some feedback. Rollosmokes 08:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Recently added to this list: WKBS-TV (Philadelphia), WECT, WMYA-TV, WGGS-TV, South Carolina Educational Television (the list of British sitcoms also fit the description here), WRCB-TV, WTVC, WDSI-TV, WDEF-TV, WBBJ-TV and WRAL-TV (though I would try to squeeze a mention of the station's continuous airing of The Andy Griffith Show into the main text). Rollosmokes 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A few more: WBTV, WFTC, WTOG, WTVT, WINK-TV, KSTC-TV, and WUCW. Rollosmokes 08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree, I always find it interesting to see what syndicated shows air on what station. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. --(trogga) 19:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WBZL

Comment moved from your user page. -- Gogo Dodo 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T TOUCH MY EDIT AGAIN. I LIVE IN FORT. LAUDERDALE, I THINK I KNOW IF WBZL IS THE CW NOW ARE NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entertainment2k4 (talk • contribs)

Whatever, incivility. Rollosmokes 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be knowledgeable but YOU ARE VERY OPINIONATED!! I get very agravated with you and your obnoxious attitude!!! Its one thing to arrogantly modify articles on stations you live near and know about. I can understand some of your calims (lists of past shows). But to edit Greenville SC stations is just rude. I bet you never even set foot in Greenville SC. If you dislike those articles leave it to someone that lives there to change them. Also, are you a moderator?? If so then you may have a right to be arrogant but I dont think you are. If you are though I stand corrected. Much of your reviews are arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.68 (talk • contribs)

Gee, how do I respond to that?

Knowledgeable? YES.

Am I a moderator? NO, but perhaps in the future.

Arrogant? NO, not generally, but sometimes. It must be the New Yorker in me.

Now, as for the other malicious claim made: does it matter if I don't live in Greenville? I only made edits as it related to style and relevance. My opinions on syndicated program lists are explained above on this page. Don't take it personal -- wait, you've obviously have, don't wish to stand behind your statements, and don't wish to identify yourself with a screenname, hence the IP address you conveniently forgot to add at the end of your post. Rollosmokes 03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: WWOR-TV WWOR or whatever you want to call it.

Okay, sometimes much of what you remove is redundant. But New York City's first 12 p.m. Newscast mentioned one time? Not redundant. In fact their noon newscast was a big part of the station. Also, in the fall of 1987 (and I read the ramblings from another poster about this) WWOR had NO EVENING SITCOMS...NONE!!! I looked at a set old TV listings every month between September 15, 1987 and August, 1988 from The Star Ledger and Morristown Daily Record. In the early winter they did add Barney Miller, which aired for a little while in the 7 PM hour somewhere. But other shows included ET, Truth Or Consequences, Evening Magazine, among other shows. All Religious shows were also dropped. Some would be brought back a few years later, but even Sundays they were gone. The Mass was run very early Sunday for a little while before moving to Fox 5 in 1988, but by 8 a.m., the station was running cartoons. They also ran cartoons on Saturday mornings.

Joe Franklin and Steampipe Alley were mentioned at the trivia area, so I'll admit some redundancy there. But I stand by my statements. Information I place here and everywhere else is accurate and verifiable. You act as if it is not.

RE: WPSG

Your statement that WGBS TV was the number 2 independent needs to be footnoted. Information should be verifiable before it can be included in an article. That statement MIGHT be true and again it MIGHT NOT be. I tend to think its not accurate. Channel 17 had a far stronger lineup in important dayparts back then. Still I am not ready to say the statement was or was not true. But you need back up. Otherwise its just speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marckd (talk • contribs)

BTW, Marckd: you forgot to sign your comments again. At least I now know who's been hiding behind that IP address.

As I mentioned several times, those edits (I'll assume) you made were of poor quality and were/are redundant. We don't need to get into deep thorough detail on what programs WWOR-TV added in the fall of '87 through the fall of '88. The on-air changes I mentioned when I revised this entry months ago are the notable ones. As for the Noon newscast, look for that in the Newscast section. Before you change something, check everything completely FIRST.

As far as the WGBS stuff, I didn't add that line, someone else did...again, did you check the Edit History? FWIW, I happen to believe it to be fact. If it weren't, the editor who added that line wouldn't have added it. Rollosmokes 06:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Wpixcw11-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wpixcw11-1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Evening/PM Magazine

Rollo... I am the original author of the PM Magazine WIKIPEDIA entry. I wrote the first version over a year ago, and I am pleased that others have added to it over that time. I was executive producer of the New York, NY version of the program for six years, nearly its entire run on WNEW/WNYW. I have enjoyed watching the article grow over the past year. The additions to the station list are great. Last night I edited the station list with a list of local market co-hosts from my memory. I think that whomever can augment that information will add a great deal to the written history of this program. I was very disappointed this morning to see that you had edited out the names I had entered in the station list. Who or what gave you the authority to do that? Are you an employee of WIKIPEDIA? If not, I would ask you to please restore the host names as they were written and allow others to add to that list. To my understanding, this site is a collabprative enterprise. Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailsteve (talk • contribs)

Personally, I think listing local hosts of Evening/PM Magazine should be limited to the individual station's articles, since (I assume) they were hired by the local station to host the show. The list of stations which aired the program is growing, and IMO, adding hosts' names would make it longer than it probably should be. My apologies if you took it personally.

BTW, I couldn't remember any other local New York hosts except for Matt Lauer and Jill Rappaport (on the WNEW-TV version), and Richard Bey and Denise Richardson (on the later WWOR-TV version)...so overall it was a good addition, but a tad misplaced. I'll add another line to the text about local hosts. Rollosmokes 17:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Logo Galleries

:) YES... THANK YOU!!! NO SERIOUSLY THANK YOU!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 FRI OCT 13 2006 2:03 PM EDT

Here is a comment from stickguy, found on the WP:TVS talk page:

I realize that Wikipedia has to "play by the rules", and I agree that some of the larger galleries have to go. But most of the logos, in my mind, are used validly. Here's my interpretation of the key points:

3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.

Each logo would presumably be low-resolution, and not repeated multiple times within an article or within articles than are only tangentally related - for instance, for Circle 7 logo, including every local ABC O&O's version may be overkill, and there's no reason to include every image campaign for a station when the logo itself has essentially stayed the same. However, each logo for a particular station would stand on its own as a historical identifier of that station. I'll use WJLA-TV as an example - if I was a Washington-area resident, I would expect to see the now-retired circle-lined-7. But using every "7 On Your Side" ident - each using essentially the same logo - is/was overkill.

8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

All logos would identify the subject of the article at different points during that channel's existence. All would contribute significantly since few if any could be adequately described within the text of the article, and it would be at best awkward to attempt to discuss branding changes within a "history" section. Television is a visual medium, and given the fluctuations of programming over a station's history, most of which exists independent of the station itself and is properly dealt with in separate articles, in reality many stations often have little meaningful history outside of their own changing on-air identities.

— stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 02:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations")

I concur with stickguy 100 percent. But we now have one more user against us: EmiOfBrie is now reiterating that the galleries must go. I can only speak for myself when I say that I WILL NOT TAKE PART in this -- in PROTEST. In the meantime, I'd ask everyone in the Wikipedia television community to right-click those images, and let's put our cyberheads together and think of an alternative to this unreasonable "decision". Rollosmokes 12:15 PM EDT, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

At times you get on my nerves Rollosmokes, But on this issue I agree with you. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THESE LOGOS CAN AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED!!!! I find it hard to swallow that a 1975 logo is still copyrighted. Still even if it is, its being used for informative purposes. Its not like anoyne is stealing them and using them for monetary gain. (marckd)

Edit wars

Hey Rollosmokes,

I saw your note on WT:TVS and have warned user:Marckd about violating WP:3RR. I really appreciate that you did not revert past three times, and instead reported the situation. You can always try to defuse the situation with notes on a talk page, but that doesn't always work. Reporting the situation is sometimes the only thing that works. I'll try to monitor the situation.

On a side note, please refrain from using edit summaries like rvv when reverting non-vandalistic edits like this. Even if the edits are in your opinion substandard, it isn't really vandalism, and shouldn't be called vandalism in an edit summary.

Happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The War You might be trying to Declare

I will keep insisting my edits are valid and accurate. You are angering me by trying to change history and state that my statements are not accurate. I have proof that they are. I will continue to change these edits at least once a day and no more than 3 times. Okey I violated that rule...Just an oversight. Now I know why that other guy Coolcat got so irrational. You pushed him to do it. I am STARTING TO believe you did at least add alot of fuel to the fire on that fight. Still Coolcat indeed crossed the line in an extremely agressive manner. Two wrongs do not make a right. At first I did not but you make me so angry I feel like going off on you. Why can't you at least act civil. I have tried being nice to you. I have tried being nasty with you. I have tried humoring you. I have even tried ignoring you. but nothing seems to work.

I admire the fact you have such a passion for TV programming. I admire the fact you try to be accurate with punctuation and that you try to be creative with writing these things. Maybe I can learn from your writing style. being critical of my writing style is fine. Sometimes I do write half fast and focus on content more than form. I am fine with some critisism and assertiveness. But you are becoming agressive. I am too at times. Lets try to work this out like 20 and 30 year old men and not 2 12 year old kids. I admit some fault in this but you have alot of fault in this as well. Accusing someone of being wrong when he or she has sources just ANGERS ME.

GOOD DAY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marckd (talk • contribs)

PTEN

I am new as a registered user, so I am not sure you will see the response to your PTEN post on my talk page. You will see that MyNetworkTV, CW, UPN, WB would not qualify if you apply the standards you apply to PTEN. Spshu 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Please stop removing edits with reason that don't directly apply when a change in term that most could agree with. You edited out statments about PTEN being an alternative programming that was a wantable network in Cris-Craft Industries's Television section and affiliate listing at PTEN's article. Spshu 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: WPIX

The screenshot is described in the article as showing "the North Tower just as it started to collapse," while the caption on its image description page says it shows the towers just after Tower 2 was hit by United 175. Those two events happened a long time apart, hence the "contradictory" tags.

Also, the succession box doesn't contribute any unique information whatsoever. I see no point in leaving it in. -- Denelson 83 02:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with just taking that info out is that it would be the second time I've taken it out. The first time I did, someone put it right back in. -- Denelson 83 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks to disambiguation pages are a problem to be eliminated

In your edits to Capital Cities Communications you are perpetuating a problem. Links to disambiguation pages should be eliminated and not created. You're just creating problems for people by doing this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes...

...made to KYW-TV, WABC-TV, WCBS-TV, WNBC-TV, WNYW, and WWOR-TV need to be explained further. Until then, I've reverting these articles back to their previous versions. Rollosmokes 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summaries, this MoS rule was not intended to apply to formal numerical designations (which are almost never written out as words), and I've added such a clarification.

"Channel nine" is not the correct name of the station, nor is the address "Nine Broadcast Plaza." Respectively, the FCC and USPS have assigned the designation of "9," not "nine." The correct format is present throughout Wikipedia, as evidenced by your use of piping to display the Channel 1 link as "channel one"). —David Levy 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. First, there's A Man in Black with his "anti-image gallery" crusade...now David Levy with this. Everyone who writes for a living KNOWS that single-digit numbers are written as WORDS, not as numbers. And, if Wikipedia is supposed to be an "online encyclopedia", then perhaps we should practice the same stylistic protocol as printed encyclopedias. Newspapers write single-digits numerically to save precious space. Encylopedias are written differently. So, to say that "channel nine" and "Nine Broadcast Plaza" is NOT CORRECT is a load of crap, regardless of what the Manual of Style says. Rollosmokes 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The numbers in question are arbitrary in nature; in referring to "channel 9," the "9" is merely a technical symbol, not a means of counting through eight other television stations to reach number "nine." You're transliterating something that isn't literal.

Some television stations (including WNET in New York and several broadcasters in countries such as the UK and Australia) spell out their names for trademark/marketing purposes, but this is not a common practice when generically referencing channel assignments.

Meanwhile, the United States Postal Service stipulates that the numerical portions of addresses should written as numerals, not spelled out.

To blindly insist that "single-digit numbers are written as WORDS, not as numbers" under all circumstances is to ignore common sense. Should we also spell out Chanel No. 5 as "Chanel No. Five" and 1-Naphthylamine as "One-Naphthylamine"? Of course not, because the names aren't commonly written that way.

You mentioned "printed encyclopedias," so I decided to check the Encyclopædia Britannica. Here's what I found (emphasis mine):

"telecommunications media" article: "The very high frequency to ultrahigh frequency (VHF-UHF) bands are in the wavelength range of 10 metres to 10 centimetres, extending from 30 megahertz to 3 gigahertz. Some of these bands are used for broadcast services such as FM radio (in the United States, 88–108 megahertz), VHF television (54–88 megahertz for channels 2–6, 174–220 megahertz for channels 7–13), and UHF television (frequency slots scattered within 470–806 megahertz)."
"television" article: "The standard broadcast television channels of the United States are assigned 6 megahertz each in the following segments of the spectrum: VHF channels 2, 3, and 4, 54–72 megahertz; 5 and 6, 76–88 megahertz; 7 through 13, 174–216 megahertz; and the UHF channels, 14 through 83, 470–890 megahertz."
"VHF" article: "In the United States and Canada, television stations that broadcast on channels 2 through 13 use VHF frequencies, as do FM radio stations."

Are you now going to claim that Britannica is wrong?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that you decided to revert the one article that I'd technically reverted three times in the past 24 hours (because another user accidentally undid my changes). —David Levy 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what happens when you have a kid in charge. Are you a professional writer? Probably not. Still, this nitpicking is sickening. Wikipedia is coming very close to that "No-Fun Zone" for me, as those of us who wish to make professional contributions are being stymied by those who whish to enforce their silly doctrines. Rollosmokes 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You ignored my most recent reply. Are you claiming that the Encyclopædia Britannica (which certainly is authored by professional writers) is wrong?

2. I don't know what your "kid in charge" remark is supposed to mean. To whom are you referring?

3. You're the one who's "nitpicking," which would be fine if you were correct. You aren't.

4. The above comments are uncivil. You routinely display this attitude whenever anyone attempts to edit one of your articles in a manner that you unilaterally deem "unnecessary" or "silly." You may be a professional writer, but that doesn't give you the authority to control the content of Wikipedia articles. —David Levy 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How are my comments "uncivil"? I didn't use profanity or any other kind of threatening language. Nor do I practive WP:OWN, as you falsely claim. I am all about accuracy and professionalism. And, that goes for my opinion on how single-digit numbers should be written.

As we did with the whole "UPN vs. United Paramount Network" thing several months back, I guess we'll agree to disagree. Rollosmokes 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Referring to someone's position as "a load of crap" and "sickening" is uncivil, as is belittling someone because he/she isn't "a professional writer."

2. Of course you practice WP:OWN. Whenever anyone attempts to edit an article in a manner with which you disagree, you immediately swoop in to revert (often without comment). When you do comment, it usually is to unilaterally label the preceding changes as "unnecessary," "silly" or another disparaging term (or to ask why we can't "leave well enough alone"—by which you mean, "leave things Rollosmokes' way"). You believe that no discussion is warranted, as you're a professional writer whose sacrosanct proclamations automatically trump the concerns of others. Why, you seem to wonder, do we waste your time by daring to challenge your wisdom?

You sometimes attempt to sneak controversial reversions into "minor" edits without summaries (as you just did with WABC-TV), and this is downright deceptive. "Agreeing to disagree" doesn't mean "agreeing that Rollosmokes is entitled to dismiss Wikipedia's MoS and consensus and do whatever he pleases." —David Levy 11:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And, one more thing: read the Chicago Manual of Style. Then see if Wikipedia (and you) are right after all. Rollosmokes 06:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that book. Wikipedia doesn't follow that book, nor am I confident that it specifically recommends spelling out television channel assignments (though you're welcome to quote a passage). There are exceptions to every rule, and the behavior in question is not a standard practice.

You referenced "printed encyclopedias," and I'm still waiting for you to address the fact that the Encyclopædia Britannica fails to live up to your expectation. I'm also waiting for you to answer my question regarding Chanel No. Five and One-Naphthylamine and to explain what your "kid in charge" remark meant. —David Levy 11:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps Wikipedia should follow the Chicago Manual or some other OFFICIAL style guide, rather than attempt to make up its own unilaterally. Rollosmokes 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Our MoS has been written and refined via years of community collaboration. You are acting unilaterally. —David Levy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a semi-professional writer, my wife is a professional writer, we have friends who write for a living...and all agree with me on the single-digit number thing. Rollosmokes 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you specifically inquire about television channel assignments and postal addresses? —David Levy 14:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And, speaking of which, it wasn't a problem initially when I introduced this. Only now is it a problem, and for you. Rollosmokes 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a problem for anyone but you when the articles were written in the style used throughout Wikipedia and elsewhere. I just became aware of the issue, but others have attempted to restore the conventional format (at which point you immediately swooped in to revert). —David Levy 14:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I offer this quote, from the Penguin Handbook, second edition:

In formal writing spell out any number than can be expressed in one or two words, as well as any number, regardless of length, at the beginning of a sentence. Also, hyphenate two-word numbers from twenty-one to ninety-nine.

In scentific reports and some business writing that requires the frequent use of numbers, using numerals more often is appropriate. Most styles do not write out words in year, a date, an address, a page number, the time of day, decimals, sums of money, phone numbers, rates of speed, or the scene and act of a play. Use numerals instead.

Rollosmokes 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't follow the Penguin Handbook, but I thank you for quoting that passage (which clearly indicates that "most styles do not write out words in ... an address" and prescribes that we "use numerals instead"). Why, then, do you insist upon writing out postal addresses (such as "Nine Broadcast Plaza") and channel addresses (such as "channel nine")?

Incidentally, underlining is a typographical substitute for italicization. The two should not be combined. —David Levy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MLA, Chicago Style, and APA ALL utilize this format, which I adhere to completely. There is some wiggle room, but generally we stick to it. Rollosmokes 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1. If you wish to write for Wikipedia, you need to adhere to our format.

2. For the most part, Wikipedia follows the same basic conventions. It is not conventional to spell out the numerals of channel assignments and postal addresses. —David Levy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Next...I am ten years older than you are. That, my friend, makes you a kid as far as I'm concerned. Rollosmokes 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You were referring to me? I'm not "in charge."

2. I don't presume to know how old you are, and I don't know why you would presume to know my age (not that this is particularly relevant). —David Levy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And, in this case, I can't take you seriously because you have much to experience. You probably just got out of high school, whereas I already have been down the college road on which you're currently travelling, and I learned from that experience. Rollosmokes 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I completed high school in 1999 (and postponed my higher education because of illness), but I don't see how any of this is germane to the discussion. —David Levy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a completely different writer now than I was when I was your age. Some advice -- get some experience in the real world first before wholly susbscribing to a certain philosophy, technical or otherwise. Rollosmokes 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy? We're discussing a writing style. —David Levy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I don't have to answer your trivial Encyclopedia Brittanica/Chanel No. 5/1-Naphthylamine comments because they're moot as far as this issue goes. Rollosmokes 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How so? You stated that "we should practice the same stylistic protocol as printed encyclopedias." I then quoted several entries from the Encyclopædia Britannica (arguably the world's most prestigious printed encyclopedia) that contain explicit references to single-digit television channel designations in their numerical forms.

You also stated that "single-digit numbers are written as WORDS, not as numbers" (without noting any exceptions), and I'm asking if you would apply this rule to Chanel No. 5 and 1-Naphthylamine. If not, why not? —David Levy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)