User talk:Neutralhomer

Daily Kitten is watching

File:NH FlatskyWhat.jpg

What I feel like at about 3am, after about 8 hours of editing.

File:NH KittehPictar.jpg

Yes, you can haz kitteh picture.

Sure thing

Radio is my bag, too.  :) Just be a moment. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You bet. I'm not worried in the least. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: 65.49.162.41 on AIV

Got him. Since it's possible to report this guy to his IP, I'll do so on Monday. "Dingbat" has lived up to his name now for a long, long time with his vandalism of broadcast articles. He has a "soulmate" in the Philippines who does the same idiocy. Thanks for letting me know. All of the edits from that IP were clearly his and I gave it a six-month timeout. We'll see him next February.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. To my way of thinking, there's nothing worse than a serial wiki vandal. There are too many good users doing too much good work here to have idiots like this lurking about and playing with the software. Gatta run, but take care and please accept my thanks for all the good work you do. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Diggin' the "I Can Has Cheeseburger" posters!

RE KONK AM

You just got to the page before I had a chance to edit the discussion. I'm reversing my position because I was wrong before I now I understand the policy better. Thanks for bearing with me! :-) SkyCaptain (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: 94.192.38.247‎

In all fairness, their final (one way or another) unblock review gets to be another different admin. — Kralizec! (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You marked WP:AN#IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page as resolved. I reversed this since it was a bad block and if a block was warranted at all in this situation, then you should have been blocked for excessive edit warring against a user on the user's own talk page (you already knew it was a static address, and this was none of the exceptions in WP:BLANKING), a bogus vandalism warning and abusive use of the sockpuppet template very close to outing. If you don't know exactly what you are doing you shouldn't be so aggressive. Hans Adler 12:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:WTOV-TV Image

Is there any reason there are two images in that particular infobox? I would never remove a standard "logo in infobox at head of article" image, but I'm a little dubious about the need for two logos. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what you're saying is that it belongs on the subchannel page? J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to start creating pages, as I have no knowledge of the guidelines surrounding those pages, and I don't even have any reason beyond that logo to believe it exists. (I also have no idea what a "subchannel" is- I don't watch much TV.) The discussion of pictures seems alien to you because the pictures we're dealing with here just aren't important. The idea of discussing pictures would be familiar if you wrote about areas that actually need to be illustrated- see Grant Wood#American Gothic for an example of a section that needs to be illustrated, and an example of discussion of an image. I am removing the secondary logo again, as it does not belong in that article and especially not in that infobox. You are welcome to add it to an article on the subchannel. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Subchannel Images/Pages

Basically, articles that would need to be updated are television stations in New England, New York, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan. Stations owned by Gray Television, Media General, Sinclair, and parent stations of CW Plus affiliations would be included. Strafidlo (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So they want pages for subchannels like WHDH-DT2 This TV, WJAR-DT2 RTV, and WCWN-DT2 Universal Sports? Except for a small common template (like I write for CW Plus, FOX, and My TV subchannels) and technical info that I could put in those pages, there would not be much info in the article. Strafidlo (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As i said at User talk:J Milburn, there should not be more then 1 article as there is only 1 station with 1 licence that broadcasts 2 subchannels. Powergate92Talk 02:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

200 down, 200 to go

Thanks! That category just appeared in the Admin backlog list :0- Skier Dude (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thumb Radio

I know a lot about The Thumb, but I know nothing about Wikipedia's organizational structure for its articles. I am certainly not suggesting that you have been arbitrary. This is a unique geographic and ethnographic area in many ways. Because of its location (being surrounded by Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay on three sides, it is surprisingly isolated. I work up there from time to time, and am familiar with the place and its population. I am just suggesting that if the article can't be justified or brought up to speed in a month or so, then maybe it should be deleted. But if there is a justification for its existence, I think it is better to give Cgors a chance to justify its existence. There is time to delete this later, if in the clear light of dawn that is required. It's harder to create these articles than it is to delete them. Deletion is (more or less) forever. I hope that explains where I'm coming from. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

I'm puting this on the Deletion discussion page. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

WGBC

Would you care to tell me why two non-free logos are required? Why does this particular station need two images in the infobox, whereas almost every other article on corporate entity requires only one? J Milburn (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(Yeah, woke and realised I wouldn't be getting back to sleep now) If the subchannel is significant, it can have its own article; if it isn't, I'm not sure why you're fighting for the logo. The infobox is for the main subject of the article, and it is only in a few rare cases that the logo of a product/subsidiary/whatever you want to call it is going to be required on the "parent" article- it's only really going to be if the logo itself is significant, and, even then, it would be used inline instead of in the infobox. A comparison from articles with which I am familiar is that we would never use the covers of singles in the article about the album- if the single itself is important, it will have its own page; if not, the cover's not really going to be massively important anyway. I know you probably hate me for this, but we need to look at it from the point of view of reducing non-free content- if a non-free image is not really needed, we should do our best to go without it. J Milburn (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WAQZ logos

Thank you for being bold and sticking up for me regarding the WAQZ logos. I was not aware of WikiProject Radio Stations but I have been reading over the project page; it looks like you all are doing a great job. Please keep up the good work. --Samvscat (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Network television schedules

Hi NH,

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RfD discussion of "-DT"

Hi Neutralhomer, I strongly urge a reconsideration of your nomination in light of my reply, especially after looking at at least two infoboxes in target articles. The -DT variant is often displayed in promotional literature, web sites, and on legal identifications broadcast by the stations themselves. You would have a point if the stations don't have digital signals (such as low power stations and some Class A's), but please don't overlook WP:RFD#KEEP in this case. B.Wind (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Worn out...

I had no problem with J deleting the historical logos from the TV station articles I worked on (I've pretty much expected it), but now he's moved onto Nickelodeon (TV channel) and no matter what justification I use to keep three logos (including the new one to be introduced next month), he keeps going in and knocking them off (one logo that is very, very rare to find on the network site and I finally dug up was knocked off under the reasoning "Why is it so important we show it, then"). I just don't know how to keep them; they aren't doing any harm at all, and I'm not in the mood to edit war when it's clear the new logo was placed in the article under good faith assumptions and the major editors of the article have no problems at all, along with anyone else. I don't like using a certain "B" word to describe him, but he has worn me out. Nate • (chatter) 03:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's OK; TVS seems to deal with these things in cycles it seems. Two years ago it was Betacommand, last year we had AMIB. Eventually this cycle has to end and someone will give us a ruling once and for all. Nate • (chatter) 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Van Impe Article Not Original Research

You have stated, "If you blantantly readd that unsourced, biased information to that page again, I will cite you for vandalism. You have been told by three different users you need reliable third party sources, the information is original research, it fails WP:NPOV, WP:N and WP:BLP. You failed to listen. Add it again, and you will be cited for vandalism. - "

I have read all the Wikipedia articles on WP:NPOV, WP:N and WP:BLP, and find that I have not violated any of these guidelines. WP:NPOV - I have not stated any personal opinions, nor strayed form anything other than what was said by Van Impe himself. WP:N - My entry abides by the General Notability guidelines. As for second party sources, the guideline refers to articles that are self-serving to the subject, of which my entry is not. The information is accurate (directly from the source), recent (August 5, 2009), noteworthy (claims made by Van Impe are part of what makes & molds him) and unbiased (there was no commentary or opinions made by me, only facts easily verified were entered).

Although I have full-time employment and really do not have the time to go on a crusade over this, I feel I am being blatantly censored without just cause. I intend to do my research in taking this subject to the highest level possible so that these facts can be added to the article. Thank you, --Rgowran (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• On the contrary - this is notable. It is extreme and noteworthy. It makes up who he is.

• WP:NPOV is speaking of self-serving information. I am not the one making the bizarre claims regarding these things. I am relaying what Van Impe has said, which is pertinent to his article.

• WP: BLP - No. It absolutely does not fail BLP. To repeat myself for the fourth or fifth time, Everything I wrote was neutral. Stating Van Impe's claims and leaving out my own thoughts and commentary leave my entry unbiased. No original research refers to, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." of which I made absolutely no such statement. Again, all information came directly from Van Impe himself. There were no embellishments, no commentary, no malice.

• No. I have cited a reliable source. Since I am conveying what was actually said by Van Impe, that is considered a reliable source. Additional I linked to the very source. Just because it was not in written transcript form, that does not make it unreliable. From Wikipedia, regarding no original research: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material. Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below."

• And yes, it appears I am being unfairly censored. I understand you feel you are doing your job and it is important that Wikipedia be filtered for accuracy, fairness and no bias. However that does not make you always correct. My entry passes all the tests of the guidelines and should be placed back in the article. Thank you, --Rgowran (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Airstaff Sections

Alright, What is the point of you deleting all the airstaff sections on almost every radio page. Its redicoulus. Ive always said that the DJ's are basically the biggest part of the station. So why not add them to the page. You guys at wiki do not like it because its promoting the station, no its not! Its a list of names of people who work t the station. There are no times listed, which was the problem before. But then I got rid of the times and put it into a list form and it was fine. Until you came along. Its good to keep these pages current with what is going on at the station today, and the on-air lineup is the most current of anything. Another thing about the promoting, how is it promoting when most people who listen to the radio today don't care about who is on air. It will just be another name to most people reading the page. Anyway, I just think its a dumb move for you and the other people who delete them.

--Joemama993 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009

Talkback August 24, 2009

Hello, Neutralhomer. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Big news that may need a page move

WZQQ is now WKIC-FM. You can hear the announcement here (Windows Media Player needed). However this has yet to show up on the FCC Call Sign History for the station. I am not sure how often the FCC updates the call signs. The WZQQ page may need to be moved to WKIC-FM. Note that WKIC already exists. That station is owned by the same family (the Sparkmans), thus move that page, if needed, to WKIC (AM). Your thoughts? Willking1979 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:"August 2009"

Please don't template the regulars. You should know better. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WAQZ

You've just crossed into the realms of stalking. I don't know whether you intend to drive me away from Wikipedia or something, but I advise you stop this before the issue has to be taken further. You are now literally following me around, reverting me without comment and assuring people that I do not speak for whatever project you feel has authority. No, I don't, and I'm under no belief that I do. Your problem here seems to be with our non-free content criteria, and you're just upset you've run into someone enforcing it. You want to change policy, fine, go and argue your case. However, stalking me and treating me like dirt is going to get you nowhere- this is your one polite request to back off and leave me the Hell alone. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WWEG

You should edit your information about WBHB leading the ratings over WWEG. WWEG has consistently ranked higher than them and is currently #1 in the combined Frederick-Hagerstown-WV-PA book. Nbbmom66 (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I could show you the last 4 ratings books and prove that WWEG has creamed WFYN/WBHB and WQCM in the ratings consistently for the last 2 years and sits only behind WAYZ and Mix in the ratings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbbmom66 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback August 25, 2009

Hello, Neutralhomer. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airstaff Sections

Ok, I was told by some other person on Wikipedia that it would be fine to have the lineups, just not in list form. It has to be prose. So can it be just written in prose? I mean your really the only one who cares about having the lineups deleted from the pages.

--Joemama993 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2009

WSPK

Ummm, tell me how I did something wrong in this case? Wikipedia is not a directory. The section was a list of former employees, which fails to establish any relevance or importance to the article. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the article. There is a precedent for the removal of that section, as it has been done in many other radio station articles across the project. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that - by the appearance of earlier sections of this page - you are being hypocritical by reverting my removal of the section in question........ when you appear to be guilty of doing the same thing on other articles? --74.95.135.46 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I noticed that you utilized Twinkle to make your revert. Did you bother to review the change before reverting or did you simply take the tag generated and its related notice to Twinkle and revert blindly? --74.95.135.46 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to point number four of WP:NOT#DIR, which states "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." As the section existed, there was no assertion of historical signficance to those personalities. Therefore, it could be reasoned - under NOT - that the section fails notability. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you are familiar with the old saying "Pot, meet kettle," correct? May I then refer you to [diff]? Could you please explain to me, just so I can try to understand your argument, what difference exists between my removal of a section that fails to establish historical significance (thus failing NOT) and your edit of just a few hours ago? --74.95.135.46 (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

contribution incorrectly labeled as vandalism

Hi....I made an edit to WJHL-TV anonymously (I had forgotten to log in), which was incorrectly labeled as vandalism....WJHL is indeed using the "News Channel 11 Connects" branding (YouTube video link). Just wanted to let you know. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 00:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted to let you know.... :) --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 00:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)