User talk:TV Newser/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, TV Newser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --M e rovingian {T C @} 01:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) --M e rovingian {T C @} 01:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! TV Newser 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAVE Louisville

WAVE does not have the "-TV" suffix attached to it according to the FCC. Same goes with KYTV Springfield!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN AUG 13 2006 2:21 PM EDT

Point taken, but you want to have a strong state of authenticity... --WIKISCRIPPS 07 TUE AUG 15 2006 2:31 PM EDT

KYTV-TV?

Was there a reason that KYTV (TV) needed to be moved to KYTV-TV? KYTV is just KYTV. There is no "-TV" suffix. This page needs to be moved back to KYTV (TV), since "-TV" is not a legal part of the calls. KansasCity 05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back, as the station is just licensed as "KYTV" not "KYTV-TV", please read WP:NC, TV Newser. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've got an aunt that's worked in the business for 19 years, and believe me, the reason that there was a "(TV)" in the KYTV (TV) title was to distinguish KYTV from the actual US TV station. By changing to KYTV-TV, it is implied that "-TV" is a legal part of the calls, which it is not; (TV) implies that there is another page with the same title, just as (performer) or (actor) may be added to a person's name to distinguish the two. KansasCity 23:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFIF

I am a bit worried about CFIF, since he seems to have a history of uncivil behavior and making accusations without proof. The incident with Displaced Brit and Lost Knob seems to be the latest in an ongoing series, something that I discovered when looking at his history during his RFC. I left him a note that I felt he was really ignoring [[{WP:AGF]] quite often. He has made some good edits, but this kind of behavior may be his downfall. He seems to have made at least two false accusations in the past few months and makes another baseless accusation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Dellegatto in what appears to be an attempt to skew an AFD of an article he created, something he has done more than once before. TV Newser 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newser,

Thanks for your note. I'm not sure if CFIF will be glad to see these comments, or hurt. CFIF does have a history of incivility, but I think he has made strides in controlling his temper for the good of the encyclopedia. I'm glad you left him that note. At the same time, his accusations against Lost Knob didn't seem entirely far-fetched: I was half-convinced myself, although it was a relief to know there was not any sockpuppetry going on. I'm at least glad of that.

I really just wish these accusations of sockpuppetry, from several different individuals, would just stop. There's really just no need for them, and maybe everyone has learned something. It's hard to edit the, you know, encyclopedia, when there's so much other stuff going on. I'd like to be able to focus on building the encyclopedia, and I'm guessing you would, too. So, let's hope these baseless accusations will at last come to an end, and that everyone has learned his or her lesson. I will try to watch out for everyone, and I thank you again for your considerate note. Happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome! CEIF © 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball card

Just as a refresher - here is your satement from my talk page.

Hello, I reverted your edits to an earlier version, since it seems to be better written, doesn't have the American Card Catalogue examples which are superfluous outside an article on the book, has a better linear progression, and is less biased towards American cards. There is no need to mention the The San Diego Chicken, who was in fact a radio station mascot. I have found no refrences to the 1948 Topps set you sepak of and you seem not to understand the concept of references, which actually have to reference another work. I do hate to say it, but given the edit history, you seem to hava an unhealthy attachemnt to the article. You should really take a look at WP:OWN and WP:NPOV especially the Anglo-American focus section of the FAQ. It appears that TBTA was following the idea of "rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them." You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. TV Newser 13:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response but I have a feeling that you don't quite understand what you are talking about. I will add a source that should show you that topps magic photos were produced in 1948. I suspect that you do not collect cards or know much about them. If you do not want to mention the SD Chicken then fine, my only point was that it shows the full spectrum of cards that were produced. There are many cards that do not show traditional ball players, perhaps an owner card would suffice. I am happy to provide references, but to be honest, I could go to a blog, write an article and post this information as I am an expert on baseball cards. I in fact think that TBTA was a introducing his culutural bias. Baseball cards are an international item. However, anyone that collects them would agree that the market is predominately American (see 95% or more). Presenting information that would lead one to believe that is not the case is counter productive. I will remove the reference to the san diego chicken. There are however a number of mistakes in the current revision (on canadian cards for example) and an unfair bias toward cards not produced in Canada or the United States. Perhaps this could be better hashed out on the article talk pages and i would think we should post there instead. Thanks.Tecmobowl 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dellegatto up for deletion again

The Paul Dellegatto got undeleted, so I renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Dellegatto (Second nomination) Lost Knob 05:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Leep up for deletion again

The Roy Leep has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Leep (Second nomination) Lost Knob 08:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local TV people notability

I am sick and tired of all the nonsense about these local TV people's articles, the sockpuppet nonsense, and feuds and really want to finally get some sort of standard for who should stay and who should go. We really need some sort of threshold of notabilty here that can end all this crap. Where would I propose this? TV Newser 05:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should ask but I recently tried to start a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Local reporter criteria. I've gotten no response but I don't know if it's because no one cares or if no one pays attention to that page. Attempting a reporter notability criteria a la WP:PROFTEST is on my lengthy list of things to do - but I'll confess it's not particularly high on that list. Feel free to take up the cause and I'll be more than happy to support an effort there. Let me know if you get to it before I do. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Weisskopf

I have declined speedy deletion of the article because it does claim notability. If you want you can try to prod it, or AfD it.--Konst.able 07:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kresky

I am amazed nobody caught the Kresky article until now.

Me too. I only caught it because someone tried to add an article about an alleged spin-off series. --Calton | Talk 08:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break

You mods need to get your stories straight. Seriously, people have been up in arms about what content is on there. I added a handful of links and you guys yelled at me and then i removed them and you do something like accuse me of vandalism. Go check out User:TequilaShot and see what he has done. Then talk to me about vandalism and spamming. I have added a link on the talk page for Trading card because of the confusion and i'm going to put a notice on the page to go there and discuss it..Tecmobowl 09:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And stop accusing me of vandalism. And i'm not a sock puppet, you just don't read. Tecmobowl 09:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, stop. You obviously are not familiar with the page history, i removed a section of links that I PUT THERE and then because others were accusing me of violating WP:EL, i removed it and called for discussion on that pages talk page.Tecmobowl 09:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Scott. You have been reported. Hopefully you will be dealt with swiftly. TV Newser Tipline 09:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop what you are doing and learn to read. The only people that accused me of Vandalism was some guy who kept putting up bogus statements and the admin he went and talked to before that. No leave me the hell alone. Hopefully you will be dealt with swiftly. So it's okay for you to remove content from your talk page but it's not okay for me to remove it from mine. You really need to learn how to use wiki before you begin to act like you are the judge and jury. Perhaps engaging me in a friendly discussion would have helped you understand. Since you have decided not to do that, i will continue to do what i must to protect my pages and pages that you have edited without even the slightest thought for what is appropriate.

User:Tecmobowl

May I ask why you think he is a sock?--Konst.able 10:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know too. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool off

Warning:Please cease revert warring over User:Tecmobowl's user page. I could find no clear evidence of him being a sock, if you wish to accuse him of being one, please follow these steps here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and present the evidence. I understand that he's made some abusive comments towards you as an anon, but he is relatively new here and if he is not the sock I understand his outburst at these accusations and your reverts of his user and talk pages.--Konst.able 11:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You're trying it on quite spectacularly. Tag his user page again, and it'll be you that gets a (lengthy) block. If you think for even the most fleeting of instants that I block anyone that anyone mention on my talk page, you are sorely mistaken. -Splash - tk 12:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted his/her move of Hank Aaron due to the suspicious nature of the move (making useless edits after the move seemingly to block a revert move) but I agree that a sock declaration is premature at best. Without a single edit to a news- or User:CFIF-related article that I could find, this doesn't fit the Spotteddogsdotorg pattern... yet. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Wknight94 points out, there really isn't any concrete evidence just yet. I guess we could try to get a checkuser to compare with a recent sock, but I somehow suspect that won't be of too much use.--Konst.able 01:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if a WP:RFCU would even be entertained - there's simply no evidence. TV Newser, you mentioned on my talk page that Tecmobowl hasn't attacked CFIF and has not dabbled in article deletion - but that's what makes Spotteddogsdotorg a cliche wikivillain. Without those, he wouldn't be so bad to have around. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think he is, and part of the problem is that CFIF and others have basically given the M.O. for the typical Brown sock, so it would make sense for a new one to try to obviously avoid the pattern. However, the types of edts, content of the edits and the targeted users seem to scream that it is him. It is apparent that this sock wants to disrupt Wikipedia and giving him a what not to do list seems has changed the M.O. TV Newser Tipline 22:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]