User talk:Usernamechris

July 2013

Hello, I'm Levdr1lp. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to W264BW because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Levdr1lp / talk 01:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Levdr1lp. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to W292DT because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Levdr1lp / talk 01:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you recommend correcting the errors on the page? Clearly reverting back to incorrect information isn't the ideal solution?

Usernamechris (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Chris Williams[reply]

I made no changes that offered any opinion or bias. Each of my revisions was specific and fact based. Usernamechris :(talk) 02:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Here, verifiability is a core content policy. Any content added, modified, or removed must be verified by one or more reliable sources independent of the subject. As the editor who added such content, you are responsible for verifying any claim made in that content. Whether or not your claim is true is not as important as whether or not it can be *verified*. Google News is one place to start. Also, and as noted below, your edits indicate that you have a close connection to WEBN and other related subjects. This makes your recent edits more problematic, not less; WP:VERIFY applies to all editors in all cases, but is especially important for conflicts of interest, like, say, the paid employee of a organization editing the Wikipedia article for that same organization. Lastly, you removed properly sourced information without first discussing your concern(s) on the article's talk page. Consensus among editors, not unsupported assertions, is what ultimately determines the structure of an article. What do I recommend? Find sources. Source your claims. And discuss issues on the article's talk page before you remove existing verified content. Levdr1lp / talk 07:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to post information and give a citation that does not support the information you have posted. NO WHERE in citation 4 does it claim that the Alternative programming on the Project. You are falsely claiming that the programming originates from a national source. The citation does not support that claim. I'm simply removing your unsourced information. Usernamechris (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I began this thread in response to your edits to WEBN translators W264BW and W292DT ("other related subjects"). On both pages, you outright removed the source in question (here and here). I see now that you were correct about "Premium Choice" programming on the translators and WEBN-HD2 (thank you) -- apparently, I misread the first line of the source as "The Alternative Project" (instead of "Alternative" and then "The Project..."). I'm sure you know that "The Alternative Project" refers to an iHeartRadio digital channel which uses the Premium Choice alternative rock national format for both music and on-air talent. Clear Channel has been very tight-lipped about Premium Choice since its roll-out, probably because more PC means more local on-air firings. I first wrote the translator articles nearly a year ago -- I'm sure you'll understand if, at the time, I confused a Premium Choice *format* for the iHeartRadio channel which uses that format. The fact W264BW previously simulcast a Premium Choice format, and that Radio Insight itself confused "Today's Mix" (the iHeartRadio channel) for the national Hot AC format (Premium Choice), didn't exactly clear things up, either. You were correct about the source and Premium Choice, but you still removed the source from both articles entirely despite the fact it was used to verify other non-PC content (The Cincinnati Project's first airdate, etc.). Likewise, you never provided a source verifying that Chris Williams programs the alternative format heard on The Cincinnati Project. Add to that your apparent conflict of interest, and, suddenly, your editing comes across as suspect. Levdr1lp / talk 15:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was my mistake deleting the source that also had a reference to the translators. I didn't consider the additional purpose of the citation. I also appreciate the suggestion to post in the in the article talk page for future changes. I would point out that much of the incorrect information on the existing page is unsourced. For example, there is no sourcing for the slogan "Shut Up and Rock". As that is not and has not been the slogan for several years, it seem counterintiutive that you would demand sourcing for direct information and not require sourcing for the inaccurate information currently posted. Thanks for walking me through the proper procedures. Usernamechris (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than anything else, my initial reaction to your edits was due to your then-undeclared conflict of interest. I generally do not focus much on the WEBN article, but it is on my watch list. Any time an editor says "I work here so I'm right" in an edit summary (see WP:But it's true!), that's a red flag. Now that you have revealed yourself to be the WEBN program director, and that you recognize that sources can verify more than one claim at a time (thus removing one outright isn't necessarily the best way to start things off), we should be fine. Levdr1lp / talk 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally makes sense. Thanks for helping orient me to the wiki way! Usernamechris (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are also responsible for programming Premium Choice content for all Clear Channel active rock stations. So it's not just a conflict of interest w/ WEBN, W264BW, and W292DT -- you also have ties to some 40+ stations all across the country through Premium Choice. Levdr1lp / talk 00:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm Clear Channel's Brand Coordinator for Alternative and Active Rock across the country. Those are my national responsibilities. Locally, I'm based in Cincinnati where I am the VP Programming for the CC Cluster and Program Director for WEBN, W264BW, and W292DT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamechris (talk • contribs) 11:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call it whatever your want. The point here is that you have a potential conflict of interest with not just WEBN and its HD2 translators (along w/ the rest of the Cincinnati CC cluster), but the dozens of CC rock stations across the country which use Premium Choice content. Levdr1lp / talk 14:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- there was still a Premium Choice wikilink in the WEBN infobox, so I have removed it. Must have missed it last month. Levdr1lp / talk 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't disputing, I was simply clarifying my for the purposes of transparency. I have reviewed the wiki COI and NPOI requirements to ensure that I don't overstep Wikipedia's policies. There does seem to be a grey area between editors like myself who are willing to disclose our identities and employment conflicts and editors who choose anonymity. What is the litmus test to avoid KOI and bias with those editors?

My only concern is that your professional affiliation w/ WEBN, CC, PC, etc. should be known to other editors if/when you edit WEBN and related content (you weren't exactly forthcoming with your various programming roles). Now that we've established that, you really shouldn't have anything to worry about so long as you stick to using reliable sources to source you claims. Levdr1lp / talk 15:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Usernamechris. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article WEBN, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. If this is, in fact, Chris Williams, the program director of radio station WEBN, you should really consider declaring your conflict of interest. Levdr1lp / talk 01:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamechris, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Usernamechris! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]