User talk:Lambertman

On 19 July 2006, I was nominated for Administratorship. Although that nomination was unsuccessful, I agree with the opinions presented regarding my lack of experience. A summary of the comments may be found here. At this time, I am not seeking re-nomination.

Re: Colts

Any particular reasoning for that undo? Lambertman 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part at the beginning of the paragraph about "until the Colts' win in Super Bowl XLI" is pompous and unneeded. As of 2006 is more accurate, as it also signifies that that station still carries games today. There really wasn't any point for a separate paragraph on the preseason games - every NFL article has a TV/Radio section, and all have the preseason games in the same paragraph as the radio. Pats1 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are reading "pompousness" where it isn't there, as the station indeed does not air games anymore, and the Super Bowl game was the last one they aired. I hope it's not just a rivalry issue that offended you so. If the Patriots switched stations after one of their SB wins, I wouldn't be offended by the wording. Also, what's wrong with the addition of the television PBP announcer's name, in your eyes? Lambertman 16:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't say anything about that or the new station. But instead of "Super Bowl XLI victory," just use "2007." It's like saying "The Colts began their 2007 offseason, the one that brought them a SB XLI victory, by..." or "They drafted Joseph Addai in 2007, the year the Colts won the Super Bowl." It's just excessive. So, what I actually would do is say, "As of 2007, the Colts radio is..." and then just leave the part about the former stations out. Pats1 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the New England Patriots article itself has separate paragraphs for radio and television, which makes your complaint of my doing so in the Colts article puzzling at best. Secondly, I didn't add anything about the new affiliates because they were already mentioned in the paragraph before I touched it. I'm leaving the end date as the Super Bowl because there are people out there who probably aren't large enough football fans to understand that a game played in February 2007 is considered to be part of the "2006 Season", and Wikipedia should serve to educate. However, I've left out whether the Colts won. I finally suggest that dropping a wordless undo - equating a longtime editor with a common IP vandal - can be construed as "pompous" itself. There are some rational editors who respond well to constructive comments and thoughtful editing. Lambertman 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Channel 4 should broadcast.

They should try "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" in the early morning hours, if they have the videotapes, etc. But, in fact, this cartoon is currently not aired here, I do not get "Boomerang" (whether the channel means) and it is also unavailable on Insight cable.

--4.161.5.212 06:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...evs! Lambertman 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune Daytime Version

I have reinserted the statement that you deleted - the description of the only 1976 episode of Wheel known to exist as the one with the KILL THE VAMPIRE mis-solve. Since this is what that show is most notable for, there was no real need to delete it.

--JoBrLa 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would respond, but someone else agreed with me, so... Lambertman 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the show is not most notable for something that happens in tons of episodes, it's known for being an episode from 1976, early in Woolery's tenure. FamicomJL 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like no one cares about the "Schoolhouse Riot" episode of Match Game, yet it has its own article on Wikipedia; so why can't KILL THE VAMPIRE be mentioned in Daytime Wheel? --JoBrLa 12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the detail of an incorrectly-solved puzzle from 31 years ago isn't encyclopedic information. That's why Lambertman and I have BOTH removed it. It's entirely enough to mention that the 1976 episode exists and has been broadcast on GSN. JTRH 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it, Jo. THREE EDITORS (Lambertman, JTRH, and I) have reverted the edit, just DROP IT already. Do you not listen to us? And please don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument to defend your edit FamicomJL 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TPIR show numbers

Totally unrelated to Wikipedia, but you asked about this on Invision, and I've got...I guess it's an essay about it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TPIRFanSteve (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they couldn't really tape the shows in order this year...at every session, Drew did all the shows from the first six weeks that would use a particular set of games.

By the way, you have no idea how gratifying it is to hear the author of the Really Big Text Document tell me that "I'm the one he hoped would answer" his question about TPIR. :-) -TPIRFanSteve 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WIBC

I have no idea, I don't live there either. What I have posted is what I've found on the Internet, and that's only what's happened since October. Sorry I couldn't be of any assistance. JMyrleFuller (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House

House usually premieres around fall and takes a break during February or March. New episodes of House would be still airing w/o the strike. I doubt that the season will end in February. The source says FOX will close the book on the three remaining episodes, but doesn't say that the season finale will be in February. миражinred 15:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Image118.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Image118.jpg. 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. Ytfin (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft

NOTE: the following discussion was cut and pasted, for some reason, by User:S3884h from their talk page onto mine. The following comment from User:ViperSnake151 was directed to S3884h, not to me. Lambertman (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've added a whole bunch of fancruft to the Deal or No Deal (US game show) article. We usually don't add "that" much fancruft to an article. ViperSnake151 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of the article is much too long and detailed for Wikipedia standards. I'm going to move your version to the wiki at TVIV.org and link to it from Wikipedia's version; I enthusiastically suggest you get an account there as you will run into no resistance. Lambertman (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even bother. I took the liberty of rollingback the article myself, and made seperate articles for each one. You said you wanted 40,000 bytes. Does 11,000 suit you? Forget TVIV. If you haven't notice, the Deal or No Deal article there is virtually blank. Nobody cares about going on there. The last time anybody tapped into that article was last year. They go to Wikipedia to find out about what's happening on DOND whether you like it or not. So why even bother? S3884h (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:US TV Sports

A tag has been placed on Template:US TV Sports requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Boloco

An article that you have been involved in editing, Boloco, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boloco. Thank you. GlassCobra 15:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WBIW

Nice job on this page. I particularly respect your placing a disclaimer on the talk page. I've added some additional info (mostly technical in the infobox), please review when you get a chance.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol control laws

I have a bit of a question. You made an edit to Indiana stating that beer, wine, as well as liquor are available in grocery stores. I'm wondering if you know if all three are allowed, because I was roadtripping through Indiana and the only convenience store I saw had only beer, but then again, I only saw one convenience store/supermarket that wasn't on the toll road.

Just checking to see if all forms of alcohol are allowed to be sold in grocery stores, because if, say, it restricts certain types, you should edit it to reflect it.