Talk:Opie and Anthony/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Original Research

I'm finding it hard to believe that all of the information within this page is not Original Research and is backed by a verifiable source that is not self-referencing. Shoddy encylopedia work. Fcyoss 15:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's already been discussed that few parts of the article are in violation of OR. However, most can be cited using foundrymusic.com and thus, can be saved. Just I'm way too lazy to do so. Payneos 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article tries to justify every event surrounding the Opie and Anthony show, and hardly mentions any criticism. No effort to balance the article has been made. A critical reception section would help the article.

An NPOV tag should go on until these issues are resolved. Arnob 03:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The only people who care about O&A are their 3 or 4 rabid fans. Who is going to bother putting any effort into making the article more neutral?

I don't see any effort to resolve this on your part. You can't just throw a NPOV tag up and leave. If there are events or critisism you have in mind, please state them. Attention whore 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Arnob is confusing an abundance of factual information for a violation of the NPOV policy. There are few (if any) sentences in this article that are personal opinions (I just removed one today). It's not surprizing that the show's fans provide the bulk of the facts in this article – after all, they know the most about the show. — franl | talk ✤ 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OnA userboxes

I have created a userbox for fans of the show to put on their user pages. Placing {{user OnA}} on your user page includes you in the Opie and Anthony Pest Category. Check the userbox page for directions on how to add it to your profile and include yourself as a pest.DanielZimmerman 04:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Phillips Phile

Why does the Phillips Phile attack have multiple paragraphs dedicated to it - yet Sex For Sam III is just gleaned over?

O&A Army Assaults...

Given all the furor over assaults on other radio hosts, not just Philips but several others in recent memory, perhaps that warrants it's own section?

Sounds good to me. Bbatsell 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the Arthur Ch'ien thing warrants a mention, but the Phillips Phile thing is just ridiculously stupid to be getting that much play. I mean, it was two days of the show, and it's not even that great radio, especially since Phillips won't allow audio from his show to be played and get tooled on.

Baby Jesus weeps when you don't sign your articles, so I signed it for you! Enjoy. Payneos 22:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

64.21.118.219

64.21.118.219 Please stop. Ahh, nevermind, User_talk:64.21.118.219

Celeb Friend Edit

What about Denis Leary as a celebrity friend?

Howard Stern: Fucko List

I don't know who did it, but nice try. He stuck out on the friends section like a sore thumb of a crying baby.

Spaz and Melinda's Lobster Encounter

Why does this keep getting censored? Tufflaw??? The Spaz incident is an interesting part of O&A history. This isn't Wackbag. Lets keep it complete and unbiased.

"It is alleged"? This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Tufflaw 04:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not alleged, it's FACT! It happened on the radio with millions of listeners hearing it. That's about as fact as anything gets! Attention Whore

There is audio of it. It happened. --IAMTHEPEOPLESCHAMP 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Anthony's girlfriend Melinda (Lobster Girl performed felletio on (ex)members of the show is fact, and part of the Opie & Anthony show. Censoring it because Anthony may rather people not know about his girlfriend's history is like Bill Clinton expecting the Monica Lewenski scandel not been in his entry. User: Attention Whore

seriousally, this stuff should not be edited out. this is all a part of O&A history, even if Anthony doesn't want it out.--IAMTHEPEOPLESCHAMP 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be censored. Wikipedia should be an unbiased site not leaning towards any side. I think there should be an paragraph about Spaz, Lobster Contest and everything. - Flash Virus

Agree with Flash Virus. Stop censoring this objectively presented info under the false guise of "vandalism"; this is not a Wackbag.com fan site. If you have objections about they way the information is presented, discuss it here. But stop censoring Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.68.165.94 (talk • contribs) .

Tufflaw, why are you so afraid of this story? The incident happened, it has nothing to do with Stern/SFN. Stop being a suck-up Wackbag-style censor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.68.165.94 (talk • contribs) .

First, I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before you decide to edit again. Second, I'm not "afraid" of anything. I've never been to wackbag.com, and I don't know what this has to do with Howard Stern or SFN, whatever that is. I've been listening to O&A since 1998, and I never heard of this incident - not to say that it didn't happen, but I've never heard of it, other than here. Even assuming arguendo that it occured, the question then becomes whether it's appropriate for an encyclopedia, which I would say it does not, certainly not in its current form. Tufflaw 02:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please sign your messages with ~~~~. Thank you. Tufflaw 02:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This incident did indeed happen, here is the audio: [1]

Since there in an entry for Spaz (as there should be), any discussion of the reason for his fallout with the show is 100% appropriate for this Wiki article. Now that you have proof of the incident, I would suggest any further censorship would be violate WP:NPOV. If you object to "its current form", please suggest an alternative presentation. But stop the wholesale censorship. 71.0.229.22 01:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Mombox

Accusing someone of censorship is a personal attack. I listened to the audio, which doesn't show any proof that the person who was in the closet with Spaz is Anthony's current girlfriend. If there is any proof of that whatsoever I will drop my objection to that material being included in the article. As it stands however, I'm going to edit accordingly. Tufflaw 05:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, regardless of whether this eventually stays in the article or not, this portion "any mention of the lobster/Mellinda/Spaz encounter is dumped out from the show, edited/filtered from the Wackbag.com forums, and hastily censored from Wiki artices by protective "pests"" is clearly POV and unencyclopedic. Remember we're trying to create an encyclopedia here, not satisfy somone's agenda. Tufflaw 05:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you have no agenda, Tufflaw? MGlosenger 06:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do have an agenda - trying to create an online encyclopedia. Why are you here? Tufflaw 14:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am here to document the truth. I find it amusing that you earlier said you're 'not here to satisfy someone's agenda' and yet now you admit you yourself have an agenda. Therefore you either a) are here to satisfy someone's agenda, yours or b) should stop editing the O&A page immediately. MGlosenger 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are either being intentionally obtuse or you're being serious. Either way, until you're ready to have a legitimate discussion I don't think it's worth responding to you anymore. Tufflaw 04:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You can attempt to insult me all you like, but you'll still be a hypocrite. I find it interesting that someone who is a self-proclaimed assistant district attorney so blithely flouts logic. Is hypocrisy part of being a prosecutor? MGlosenger 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny that MGlosenger is a Howard Stern fan. Funny that now Sternfannetwork's element has this now. Why? Because someone told them this lie.

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=83038 172.170.200.181 17:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Tufflaw, just because you don't know that Melinda from the Lobster/Spaz incident in Anthony's girlfriend doesn't make it not true. Not everybody knows everything. That's why Wikipedia exists, so people can learn things. People who have been following O&A since the early NEW days are aware of the Melinda/Lobster girl story. It's part of the history of the show and deserves to be inthe article.

Oops, the above was from me. Attention whore 00:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tufflaw, but for different reasons. Personally, I don't see why it matters. The line where "mentioning lobster or Spaz will get you banned on some websites" is clearly a shot at wackbag, which is wholly not fair because it's well known that Anthony frequents there and not the other message boards as much, thus they were simply respecting his wish for it to be kept on the "down low." I think as a respectable and fair encyclopedia, it should be limited to as objective as possible and as limited in detail as possible, to avoid too much... friction. Payneos 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason it matters is twofold. First, if our goal to create a worthwhile and usable encyclopedia, the information contained within it must be accurate and encyclopedic. If it's true that Anthony is dating "Lobster Girl", I would agree that merits a mention (worded appropriately), but only if it's true. Second, if it isn't true, then not only are we propagating inaccurate information, but we're propagating potentially libelous information. Nobody wants another Seigenthaler debacle. Tufflaw 05:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who's seen the pictures and seen Melinda at one of their road shows/seeing comics perform/O&A events knows it's the same girl. What "proof" are you looking for Tufflaw? A preponderance of evidence, or BRD? Is Fez, on the air, thanking Anthony and Melinda after his heart attack proof? If anyone actually liked Don and Mike enough to record their show, there's a part when they were in the NY studios and had Melinda on their show for a few minutes. Is that proof? This is pretty common information among serious fans, despite attempts at keeping it quiet. Attention whore 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Black

the voyage bus incident should be expanded.

I think you mean the voyeur bus. — franl | talk ✤ 17:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This incident should be included. Do we really need to take this to voting & get a consensus? 199.201.168.100 12:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article isn't neutral.

Agreed. There is a ton of needless information. Most of it added by the fans becomes hopelessly dated within days of it being posted. A good 85% of this article can be excised. Also the listing should be added under the "Howard Stern" catagory since there are multiple mentions of him in this article and his name adds relevance to this entire listing

Not being neutral (i.e., violating the NPOV policy) is not the same as having too much information. Besides, what is needless information? There are many pages in Wikipedia that have lots of detailed information, including equations that are unreadable by 80% of the general public (cf. Uncertainty principle and Hypergeometric distribution). O&A are certainly notable, so it's not an issue of violating the notability policy. Once an article rises above the bar of notibility, can it really contain too much factual information? — franl | talk ✤ 17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been any real credible claims of POV violations in the article, so I'm removing the tag now. Payneos 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Wow, I posted on the discussion page and everything, and yet my posting about the O&A page hardly being neutral was 'vandalism'? You don't seem to be following Wikipedia procedures at all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.183.254 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, your vandalism of this article can be found here [2], where you added: "* O&A are a virus, and once contracted, there is no cure. The O&A virus causes AIDS and sufferers soon die." and also here [3], where you blanked the entire page and replaced it with "Have fun catching a virus, morons." Tufflaw 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I never vandalized anything. I added the 'neutral point of view disputed' heading to the article and posted about it on the talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.190.139.254 (talk • contribs) .

Are you that stupid? IP addresses don't lie.

He could be sharing an IP address with other people. — franl | talk ✤ 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

False Allegations

There is no documentation or reports of a "gag order being requested from Stern" There is no documentation or proof of Jim Philips "Stealing material" and the ratings and allegations that he "lied" are biased.

Yes there is, it was reported in a new york post article on july 12 200 that stern requested and got a gag order. (someone at wackbag.com recently has been posting scans of the printed article) apparently this is the text of it. --Kvuo 23:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

---

New York Post

Wednesday, July 12, 2000

HOWARD HAS HIS RADIO RIVALS GAGGED

By John Mainelli

Radio blabbermouth Howard Stern has gotten fellow shock jocks to do something totally out of character - shut up.

The entire staff of rowdy new talk station WNEW - FM (102.7) is banned from even uttering Howard's name - because Stern whined to top management and threatened to quit over "copycats" and "dirty tricks", The Post has learned.

WNEW is owned by Infinity Broadcasting, the same company that owns K-Rock (92.3), the flagship for Stern's wildly popular - and hugely profitable - syndicated wakeup show.

Stern's main beef is with Opie and Anthony, NEW's fast-rising, risque duo. He got especially angry in April, when Opie and Anthony blew the whistle on a much-touted "surprise" rock concert announcement Stern was to make the next morning.

Without naming names, a furious Stern delivered an on-air ultimatum (I offered my resignation") and protested to top bosses.

The gag order is strictly enforced by censors operating digital delay machines.

"We've all been told that nobody can mention other [company] shows, especially one of them," said Ron, of NEW's new night-side Ron and Fez team. "We can talk about Opie and Anthony, because they don't care and they won't panic.

But there's one especially that we can't talk about."

Callers, too, can't talk about Howard. Midday producer "Butchy" recently had to stifle Leslie "The Radio Chick" Gold when a caller tried to discuss Stern, warning that "the corporate suits" forbid it.

Howard also isn't talking about his rivals.

"They're dying to get some attention from me." Stern said on the air. "The imitators like to bash me - 'We're the young guys. We're the new guys. We're the future.'

"You're the future of what? You've got me down even to the way I talk. It's like the Howard Stern Handbook."

Neither Stern nor Opie & Anthony would comment on the gag order.

Stern has a reason to fear his rivals. Opie & Anthony are No. 1 with men in the lucrative afternoon drive time - and could threaten Stern if they moved to mornings.

"If they were to go up against him, it would force him to do what he should have done years ago," says Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers Magazine.

"And that is to begin moving away from the strippers and lesbians and turn his genius toward communicating with an older, more sophisticated audience...[Opie & Anthony] are much better at talking to goofballs than he is."

---

Wikipedia again disappoints me by thinking that the New York Post constitutes as NEWS REPORTS. there is no difference in using a new york post report like this with one of Star Magazine. Tabloid journalism provides for tabloid stories much like this one. I am glad wikipedia stands by this fine journalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.205.65 (talk • contribs) .

The Truth, you cannot accept the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.136.13.178 (talk • contribs) .

I agree. The New York Post cannot be used as a reference anymore than the National Enquirer can. InnerSpace 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if none of you Stern Fan Stone-wallers will believe the Post, then you will believe this. http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=186874 FMQB. One of the premire big time radio world websites reported it. Read and weep, hoo hoo hoo. Payneos 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Direct quote from Wikipedia: "According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the New York Post was rated the least credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible). InnerSpace 20:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Try watching Hannity & Colmes. Stern ADMITTED the gag order on that show. It is fact. It happened.

Protection

Looks like there's a fair bit of edit-warring going on here. I've protected the page so you can work out the dispute here on talk. And all of you, consider yourselves warned about 3RR. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that happening with Attention whore trolling this site and other sites.

www.opacktool.com

www.opieanthony.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.147.37.17 (talk • contribs) .

If "trolling" is adding information about the Opie & Anthony show to their article, then yes, I'm trolling, as is everyone else. Just because your "general" tells you to remove things doesn't mean they shold not be added. I don't know how to emphasize this more THIS IS NOT A FAN SITE! This is an informational article about Opie and Anthony. As for the other sites you are refering to, you have me confused with someone else. I don't care, nor post on those sites. Please sign your posts with four "~" instead of anonymously attacking people. Attention whore 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A troll spreads lies that propagate a falsehood to get a reaction. That is exactly what you are and have been doing. Never on the show has this been discussed but you consider that you know what happened because you have been told incomplete lies and falsehoods. This article is not about your agenda to propagate rumors that attack people that hasn't been on the show for atleast 4 years and cannot defend theirselves. It is about the Opie and Anthony Show, It is not about your stupid friends. 172.161.23.182 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mindspillage, would you mind if you unprotected the page now? The discussion seems to have no clear consensus, and a big development involving Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony's Gag Claims, and the Sean Hannity show has developed that is noteworthy to the article. Payneos 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Incompetent Moderation

I STRONGLY urge those mods that are reading this to finally ban ATTENTION WHORE's IP and prevent him from continually stating falsehoods. How many news stories do you need about wikipedia for you to realize that some people are liars and will post bullshit to get attention? I doubt that you will do anything. 172.161.23.182 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to, and I hope I'm not jumping into an invalid conclusion, but I'm starting to feel that you may not like me. Your accusations, insults, and made up storied about me are hurtful. Maybe we just need to hug and make up? Attention whore 01:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what you do and I don't see how I can. Actions speak louder than words. (Just look at the article's history if you need a reason to finally do your job). Just admit that you are a former member of opieandthony.com and feel hurt that Anthony shut down his site. 172.149.207.221 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I never posted, cared, or knew anyone from OpieAnthony.com. I could care less if every forum ever created for O&A closed down. I'm just a fan of the show since the make believe ballroom days at WNEW. I also feel that one person should not have the power to re-write history. It's part of the history of the show, and it's information that, If I were looking to learn about O&A and the show, I'd want to know. It's the same reason I added Fez's true name to that article. Ron and Fez never made an effort to tell Fez's name, but someone looking to learn about Ron and Fez probably would find it interesting what Fez's real name is. Do they want everyone to know? I have no idea. It makes no difference, it's information that should be part of an article on them. Same thing here. That's as far as it goes. Your perceived fantasies about who I am, and why I'm adding it make no difference to me. Why, other than following your master's wishes, are you so upset over people knowing the truth? Are you somehow personally involved in this? Attention whore 01:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spaz and Anthony D

Spaz - Former employee for the show. Spaz AKA K-Dawg was an intern while getting his degree in communications from Iona college. Due to lack of common sense and belief that he knew what he was talking about, he did a Friday segment called "K-Dawg's Week in Review". This segment was K-Dawg's take on the news and then commented by Opie, Anthony, and anyone else in the studio. Such famous bits included his take on genetically altered vegitables, vampires, mummies, fighting hurricanes with mircrowave appliances, giant mosquitoes, pee from the sky, sonar killing whales, space-time contradictions, bizzaro earth, racist remarks, and other thoroughly idiotic statements with some grains of truth but mostly falsehoods. From these segments came the phrases "follow this logic", "thus then", "inbyfacto", "revert", "gonzostyle", etc. He also had sex with a tomato, tried to open a safe in a spiderman costume, insulted people in a boyscout outfit, wanted to be in a pornographic videio, and other things. Durring the course of his time on the show, he moved to Sloatsburg, NY, with his girlfriend, "Baybuh". He was involved with a listerner party where he later was involved in an orgy with other listeners from the former website of opieanthony.com. After that he could no longer handle the harassment of so called "fans" of the show and resigned. After O&A came to XM, he tried to get back on but was dead to the show. He is constantly referenced by disgruntled former fans who felt that his involvement with Anthony's current best girl but loyal listener at the time caused the destruction of their message board. But opieanthony.com was no longer owned by the admin there, Froy or Liquid Ice, after Anthony started paying for server costs. Anthony threatened to stop paying the costs of hosting the site if the members there would no longer posting libelous rumors and tall-tales about his girlfriend. Currently Anthony D (aka keyser soze) of Union City of OAU & CDIH is currently trolling this wikipedia article. He also has propagated libelous rumors to SFN because he likes to cause conflicts due to his disgruntled fan status and his worship of K-Dawg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.147.37.17 (talk • contribs) .

Wow, thanks for the plug. Anyhow, this is not a rumor, it was a part of show history, aired on Opie and Anthony's show for all to hear. The audio has already been posted on this page. The fact that this is such a big deal to everyone involved with the show and the fans shows how important this event is to show history and obviously should be included. I don't care enough to fight you over getting it on here, people know where to go to get uncensored, unbiased information about the Opie and Anthony show. I have never edited any section of this wiki other than the external links. You can win that battle as well. I don't care about K-Dawg other than the curious reasons behind his history on the show being kept a secret. I continue to be entertained by Opie and Anthony's show to this day, I just happen to have an open mind and can have opinions about them both positive and negative. The fact that Anthony had a fansite shut down over his girlfriend is pretty interesting history that is shared by fans whether or not you care to have it on wiki.Keysersoze 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that a lot of people here don't really understand what Wikipedia is and what is is not. Please review the guidelines at WP:LIVING, particularly: "Editors must take particular care with writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity as well as strict adherence to our content policies", "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives.", "Without credible third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability. Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is negative. If credible sources cannot be found, there may be a problem with the material.", "Potentially libellous or defamatory statements not cited and sourced to verifiable sources should be removed."

This material is uncited and unverified. The fact that "it was a part of show history" does not meet the verification test. Has it been published by a reputable source? Please review the official policy at WP:VERIFY. "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.", "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Tufflaw 14:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

what you continue to fail to accept is this was an actual event that occurred on the radio show, which is verifiable with audio and acknowledgement by Anthony that Melinda is Lobster Girl. what further proof do you need? this isn't being taken from a partisan website or obscure newspaper, this is broadcasted on their own show and has been archived. Are you disputing the validity of the audio? what level of verification of this actual show audio would pass your test? i'm curious why an actual event, caught on tape, on their own show, is so contested? the source of this history is the actual radio show, not someones opinion, not conjecture, its an actual event that took place and was broadcasted. can you please tell me how this violates any wikipedia policy? Keysersoze 02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I recommend reading WP:RS, discussing what is a reputable source, particularly this part: "A primary source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also primary-source material. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. For example, a trial transcript that has been published by the court. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. See Wikipedia:No original research." Assuming arguendo that Anthony admitted to dating Melinda (and this is the first I've heard of this assertion), that does not make it a reputable source unless it has also been published in a credible publication. This may seem coutner-intuitive if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies, but you have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, it's not a fan site, gossip column, tabloid magazine, or rumor mill. Tufflaw 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

the actual show audio is primary source. we have the audio, its already been submitted here. Keysersoze 03:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above, particularly the highlighted portions. Tufflaw 04:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

i read it, and you are completely wrong on all accounts. you are oblivious to the fact this is actual audio from the opie and anthony show. nobody will dispute this. it is clear, and it is fact. Keysersoze 06:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to assume good faith here, but I think it's becoming clear that you are intentionally disregarding any arguments against your position, notwithstanding the fact that they are Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I don't think I will be continuing this discussion with you until you are willing to act in good faith as well. Tufflaw 14:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense Tufflaw. Based on your arguments and referenes to wiki material, 96% of the Opie and Anthony entry must be erased. There is no "credible publication" that has most of what's written in the wiki article. Pretty much ALL that this article can say based on your logic is that Opie and Anyhony have a radio show and it's on XM. So lets all go through the article and erase everything that wasn't published in a credible source. And remember, just because something was stated ON the show ABOUT the show, it can't be used. 161.185.1.100 00:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Tufflaw 00:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for such a wonderful welcome! I shall most definately edit the article as I see fit. I appreciate your suggestion! 161.185.1.100 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

i fail to see any merit in your arguments, they are baseless, they are completely contrary to the facts of the matter. actual show events documented by actual show audio is not a violation of any wikipedia policy or guideline, you have not proven otherwise. this is actual show audio, this is not commentary, this is not opinion, this is not editiorial. i agree that you should end this discussion because you yourself are unwilling to act in good faith. you are projecting your own actions of ignoring that this is a real event documented with actual show audio from WNEW. Keysersoze 17:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC re: Lobster Girl issue

I posted a request for comment at WP:RFC/ART, as it seems we're at an impasse here and some outside voices would likely be extremely helpful. Tufflaw 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the deal with the wikipedia is. Attention whore and the others likes to gain attention by propagation of rumors and libel because they have nothing else. The former members of opieanthony.com are still angry that their site was shut down because of libel. Also, because of their insistence on this, members on the sternfannetwork.com message board are listening to them because of their disgruntled status.

AlsoProtection is an endorsement of the current page version.

172.149.207.221 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot make the hard decisions, resign now because you will go no farther here. You will always be middle management material. This may be offensive to you but you are too theoretical; Not pratical for leaving the Protection for so long and the thing you should do. 172.151.245.253 20:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate Tufflaw's opinion that he doesn't personally know whether or not it's true and would like to confirm it for himself. But 172.149.207.221's tact of "It doesn't matter if it's true, I must just prevent it because Anthony would want it that way" makes no sense to me. That worship/zealot mentality makes me think of these religious nuts who will kill thinking that's what god wants me to do. Trying to personally attack me and get me banned for adding truthful information to an article just shows everyone that what you say means nothing because you're blindly obsessed. I only hope you don't go John Hinkley on anyone to impress O&A. Attention whore 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

When was the first time you read that? I can tell you around where you did. You read it on a messageboard somewhere. On this messageboard it indicated that this was 'hush hush' and that Anthony Cumia had personal taken measures to supress it on other sites. Simply, this is not the case. If you had the PROOF that what you said is true, you know exactly where to look and who to go to to find it. They have nothing and because it is the policy of other sites not to let people spread unsubstaintiated rumors, you feel that somehow this is 'censored' or couched in some other high flung explanation. Simply, you are fighting a message board battle that ended 3+ years ago for a site that no longer exists. The people that bring it up are those that blame anthony for shutting down his site(opieanthony.com) or their puppets, not themselves. With the destruction of opieanthony.com, they lost alot of their influence, power, and inside information and have been longing for it ever since. You believe what other people tell you. You don't question it. You are the zealot. Not simply because of this but because you are only obssessed with this. There are many other things that you could include in this article but do not. Why? Because you like the attention of being a troll. 172.151.245.253 20:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Those that claim any high road are just trying to promote their site by trying to seem like a 'bad boy' and not being a part of the whole O&A experience. Many of these so called 'fans' stay on the message boards not because they continue to listen to the Opie and Anthony show on XM; No, they stay because their friends are there. They are stuck in the past at WNEW and so are you. 172.151.245.253 20:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about whatever war is going on behind the scenes here, but my guess is this is one of the handful of "things we don't talk about anymore" that are on the show. While as a fan I'm nosy and I want to know what these things are, I don't know if that kind of thing belongs in an encyclopedia setting. Is the issue here verifiability or more along the lines of what belongs in Wikipedia? For instance, I could write about the Jagermeister machine that the show had which was taken out, and that much is verifiable from what actually was aired, up to some vague allusions they made on air that something bad happened. The actual bad thing that allegedly happened though is not as easily verifiable and what would get an unknowing person possibly banned from some of the fan sites. So without getting into any sort of war (I honestly can't say I know what it's about, because I try to avoid the popular fan sites) I would say that there was a 'save the lobster' contest is probably verifiable and whatever else happened off the air could be true but isn't easily verified. As much as I would want to get some inkling of what the hell happened to me if I got banned or bounced for curiously asking about "lobster" on some fan site, I'm not seeing how that belongs in an article though.

What I'm getting at here is if I was writing an encyclopedia article on O&A I might put a "save the lobster" contest under a list of famous contests they ran, but I would leave any off-air fallout from the event off the article unless I could find it in a news article. That tactic gives the curious a nugget of information that is verifiable and leaves the warring off of the article. Is that fair enough? --70.39.65.101 12:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)'

That sounds very reasonable to me, and thank you for a well-thought out suggestion. Maybe we can hash the wording out here on the talk page pending the page getting unprotected. Tufflaw 17:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Found an interesting quote from Jimbo in a discussion about the posting of someone's real name who goes by a pseudonym which seems to be very appropriate here: "In all cases like this, we should practice our usual policy of requiring validation in a published mainstream source: not blogs, not usenet posts, not emails, not un-aired radio interviews, not testimony from Wikipedians. Err on the side of human dignity, not on the side of speculation.--Jimbo Wales 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)" [4] I think this even more strongly demonstrates that this unsourced information must remain out of the article. Tufflaw 05:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also found this guideline - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons which should be taken into consideration as well. Tufflaw 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

here is the lobster girl audio [5] Keysersoze 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The criteria used to not mention the verifiable "LOBSTER GIRL/SPAZZ/MELLINDA" issue is flawed. Using that critiera then more than 60% of the entire listing can be deleted. Why obvious POV material like "Bruer loves the boys" is included while the monumental LOBSTER GIRL/SPAZZ/MELLINDA fellatio incident is excluded makes no sense from a scholarly perspective. Inane junk should be excluded (no one cares who they like or dislike) and only items that made mass media should be included, IF the flawed criteria is going to be used (all ATOM incidents should be deleted with the exception of the one where the news reporter was injured, article should be written to show how they are influenced and what their relationship is with Howard Stern, since HS is metioned so many times in the article). unsigned comment was made by 65.19.27.142

This is not a message board or a blog. Wikipedia has higher standards than rumor mongering and dislike of all Pest activities. It also isnt for severly biased people from the SFN to change facts around to fit the spin that Howard Stern tells his listeners. 172.130.212.58 09:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sternfannetwork interference

It should always be noted in any O&A history that they are Howard Stern copycats and base their entire career on him. So much so that they refused to broadcast their show unless they were allowed to talk about him. Very sad for them and their fans. —This unsigned comment was added by 70.130.146.159 (talk • contribs) .

Get the facts and sign your comments like a man. http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=186874

Hoo hoo. I believe in Hypocracy, Robin. Payneos 16:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=1892895#post1892895

More proof. 172.170.200.181 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for (informal) mediation re: Spaz

Since no one is responding to the RFC, I've posted a request for the mediation cabal to get involved, hopefully to help resolve this issue. The request can be found here. Tufflaw 16:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation has now begun. -- Fullstop 15:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like it if all references to this alleged incident with anthony's girlfriend be removed and all people(s) that mention said alleged incident not be premitted to edit or talk in the Opie_and_Anthony page or any page with similar topics in the future. The allegations come from disgruntled fans that have audio of some girl back in the past at WNEW 4 plus years ago and claim it is somehow Anthony's girlfriend but the true identity of the person is unkown. Due to current relations with the Howard Stern show, many persons who consider themselves 'fans', 'listeners', or 'members of the 'Disciples of Stern have been encouraging so said disgruntled fans. Simply this is not verifiable and might be consider liabel in any reasonable court of law. I consider what has to be done not 'blanking' or any sort of censorship. 172.134.130.118 17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LOBSTER GIRL incident is a major part of show history. To not include it while having no neutral items reveals this page to be a total fraud. this unsigned comment was made by 65.19.27.142

Nice bluff. 65.19.27.142 you are a Howard Stern fan and probably a member of SFN. 172.130.212.58 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Stern

The section of the article regarding Howard Stern is very biased in favor of O&A. It reads, "Stern had a gag order put on Opie and Anthony for becoming possible competition..." The gag order has been confirmed by Stern himself, but stating that the reason for it was competition is not. That is pure speculation. The following quote from a Friday Morning Quarterback article is also too harsh IMO because Stern was more than likely joking. I'm OK with it remaining, however, because I have nothing to back this up as of yet. InnerSpace 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You're OK with it remaining because it was HIS word. Do I need to get the audio myself and make you listen to it? He set himself up, and was shot down. The article (and FMQB as a whole) has nothing to benefit from the tearing down of Stern and the bolstering of Opie and Anthony. If FMQB put out an article catching O&A saying some false stuff and it was proven otherwise through their own word down the road later, I would absolutely put it in this article. But Howard's claims that he's a champion of 'free speech' then admitting directly to Sean Hannity that he DID place a gag order on Opie and Anthony, then further saying he is a champion of 'his' free speech... that's hypocracy in action. Use your brain. Payneos 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Innerspace, what is the reason then? 172.130.45.118 19:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Innerspace, the gag order happened before Jingle Ball, note that the New York Post article about the gag order was written in July 2000 and the Jingle Ball was in December 2000. in fact, not even the news coverage post-Jingle Ball disclosed her by name because she was a minor and there are legalities preventing the identities of minors being disclosed in news stories without the parents' approval. O&A brought up the story on the air and only hinted that she was the daughter of a major radio personality because A) the gag order was in place and B) it was - at the time - a rumor circulating through the radio industry at the time, since the media couldn't mention Emily by name. i'm sure they had their inside sources on the matter, since they did work for the same company, so they were fairly certain it was her. if anything, it was the Stern fans who admitted that it was, in fact, her on their message board. thanks boys! 172.163.130.117 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Been a while since I got back, but what the hell are you people talking about? My comment had nothing to do with some girl's name being mentioned or Jingle Ball. I wasn't disputing the facts of the case, merely the way it was presented in the article. The passage I had issues with has already been changed, so I have no problems now. I love the infuriated responses that were given by you O&A fans. "Do I need to get the audio myself and make you listen to it?" I can see your face turning beet red while you were typing that. I'm OK with that quote remaining because, yes, it is a direct quote. However, direct quotes can be taken out of context and that is why I feel it is harsh. Did anyone actually read what I wrote? Payneos, you can go on believing Stern somehow got "shot down" if you really want to. Did I say it wasn't hypocritical? No, I said Howard was probably joking and if you've ever listened to his show you would know he admits he has "verbal diarrhea". This is obvious as he talks out of his ass on a regular basis. InnerSpace 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish my face could turn beet red on command, that would be awesome. Glad the article is more to your liking now, pookie. Payneos 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Stern referenced too much?

The O&A Wikipedia entry references Stern 25 times. The Stern entry references O&A a grand total of two times. Maybe it would look better to a passing reader to not place so much emphasis on a competitor on O&A's own Wikipedia entry. -67.183.15.135 06:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But O&A themselves are endlessly referencing Stern in their own show. It's just a reflection of their ceaseless 'Hoo Hoo' shtick. MGlosenger 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If by "schtick" do you mean Mr. "I Invented Everything"'s ceaseless attempts *not* to mention them, yet the fact that everywhere he goes he's chastised by the pests now? I think the reason has to do with O&A not being allowed in the Howard article more, and less that Howard is in this article. This mostly has to do with reversions that claim "that never happened" when it did, but cannot be properly cited and is taken on PoV. Payneos 15:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. This may justify mention on this page of the frequent critcism regarding the duo's "Love Me Daddy" attitude towards Stern, who they clearly see as an unloving father figure. This needs to be explored. Perhaps an entry for "LOVE ME DADDY" can be created describing this particular psychosis and used O & A as a case study

How would you feel if you were prevented from having guests and talking about a subject on your own show because of someone in your own company? Stop being a zombie and realize what a liar Howard Stern is.172.139.78.24 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, don't be a coward and not sign your articles. Moreover... http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=186874

Get the facts. Payneos 23:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

har har har ... Opie and Anthony fans are hilarious ... So serious and committed! They can't stand the fact that nobody knows about OA, while Howard Stern is a legend. Its all just radio crap anyway, no need to act like a damn foot soldier. The pests bother him everywhere he goes. Thats real impressive guys. Way to show how great and original OA are by demonstrating a neurotic obsession with Howard Stern. Your definately winning that battle! 208.46.144.131 17:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

=Sternfannetwork Trolls

Sternfannetwork is sending its members actively vandalize this article.172.139.78.24 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/03/30/1512413-sun.html

Just an example of their activities. 172.130.212.58 09:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Need better verification than using fan websites. Mainstream media accounts like the "Jocks sex in church" incident or "fan attacks reporter". Those can be easily verified. This unsigned comment was made by 65.19.27.142

Well, isn't it 65.19.27.142. Your words are so hollow, that it is a shame you waste your time being a semi-intelligent troll and instead trying to do something positive... Why do I say this? Because it is true. Just look at what 65.19.27.142 has done. See if it isn't false.

Also, people who are no longer liking the show as much as you used to or moved on, you are becoming "usefull idiots" to the SFN trolls. Thanks alot deeks. If you have moved on, it is not a reason to help them. If you want your sites to be recognized for way more then they are, it is up to you to get rid of some of your own that are scum. And you wonder why your sites are not mentioned! It is because you help spread lots of false rumors.172.154.0.194 08:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sign Your Comments

If you will not sign your comments, they are not valid and the discussion will be reverted.172.152.132.91 08:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned comments do not empower you to revert a discussion page. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia guidelines before you do something like that. You always have the option of signing posts for those who do not. CPitt76 17:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumoured Cancellation

"This is possibly due to XM deciding to cancel their show soon." This needs citation. I haven't seen anything that hints to the fact that XM plans to get rid of O&A (which, according to the Boston Herald and other newsagencies, is one of the most popular show on the XM platform.) --uberdog 12:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section as the channel change has been a topic of the show since it was started. " This is possibly due to XM deciding to cancel their show soon." 69.250.108.162 12:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bubba the love sponge or Howard Stern's fans have been spreading the rumor that O&A's contract will not be extended. Just looking at the current news shows how untrue that is.172.129.155.129 08:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OnA Userboxes

I have created a userbox for fans of the show to put on their user pages. Placing this on your user page includes you in the Opie and Anthony Pest Category. Check the userbox page for directions on how to add it to your profile and include yourself as a pest.DanielZimmerman 04:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Spazz

Attention Whore -

If you want to put up the Spazz/Melinda incident, then how about you go back and listen to every AAF and NEW O&A show and post on wiki about every minor insignificant show bit that you hear. Then you can go ahead and edit Stern's wiki and put up the bit about how he went on Sean Hannity's show and admitted to placing a gag order on O&A. See how long Wikipedia with its "high standards" will keep that up.

Until then the "Lobster Girl" story is just irrelevant fodder that appears on the O&A wiki because SFN trolls want it on here and because there are a few misguided people on here that are "guarding the sanctity of truth." The Melinda story is just spam. Get over it. Why not just post something about Spaz without mention of this lobster story. I'm sure there's much more you could post about him.

Thrawn42 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For reference, in a few days the Stern Folk and I have come to a concensus aboot the Stern Gag Order on Sean Hannity. It will be there under a "Notable Incidents" section. So it will appear, and they'll have to grin and bear it.Payneos 10:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Direct TV

There should be more information on how to get opie and anthony on direct tv.172.167.254.185 00:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthony's Birthday

There are trolls that are vandalizing his birthday. 172.167.254.185 00:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's actually kinda funny. Probablly an O&A fan instead of a SFN Troll. Jokes are frequently made about Cumia's age. 199.201.168.100 16:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Lobster Girl" Incident Part 3

Now that I have your attention, Attention Whore, let's talk. The Lobster Girl incident has NO place on the Wiki, as does the fact that she may or may not have become Anthony's Girlfriend. The "Lobster Girl" story is one that is, and so far I'm almost 100% sure of it, mentioned once on the new XM show. There are many more stories not mentioned here that have been mentioned more times than that. Payneos 16:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Have any of those other stories affected one of the hosts lives, and therefore the show, so dramatically? Has ANY story on here outside of the St. Pats thing affected the show as dramatically? The Lobster girl incident and that she became Anthony's girlfriend is why: she, as a result of this, was the reason Anthony got divorced, is why Anthony now rushes home after the show instead of looking to do anything to avoid it, is why numerous other changes happened in Anthony's life(making new stories on the show), is why one of the characters that was pretty popular on the show is now an unmentionable, is why the whole topic is taboo on the show, is why wars have gone on between fans over it including on this talk page and numerous other sites, the fact that Anthony met the current love of his life after she blew an intern live on his show while he described it? And this you say, is not notable??

This is NOT A FAN SITE. The fans may be the ones editing it, but it's an article about Opie and Anthony, not an endorsed, approved, fan story. I'm sure Bill Clinton would love if his article had no mention of Monica Lewinsky. If this is a skeleton in Anthony's closet, so be it. It's a major part of history on the show and his life, which is what this article is supposed to cover. Attention whore 18:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Have any of those other stories affected one of the hosts lives, and therefore the show, so dramatically? Has ANY story on here outside of the St. Pats thing affected the show as dramatically? The Lobster girl incident and that she became Anthony's girlfriend is why: she, as a result of this, was the reason Anthony got divorced, is why Anthony now rushes home after the show instead of looking to do anything to avoid it, is why numerous other changes happened in Anthony's life(making new stories on the show), is why one of the characters that was pretty popular on the show is now an unmentionable, is why the whole topic is taboo on the show, is why wars have gone on between fans over it including on this talk page and numerous other sites, the fact that Anthony met the current love of his life after she blew an intern live on his show while he described it? And this you say, is not notable??"

Everything you have just stated is purely speculative. Anthony states on the show he rushes home because he hates the traffic, he hates people, and is a ridiculous germophobe. He states he got divorced because his wife was a bitch and drained his bank account fully. But neither of those can be cited. What you're hinting at is more of an O&A Conspiracy then an actually plausable theory. That one incident triggered a divorce, changes in Anthony's personality, and the dismissal of a popular character directly because of such? None of that seems plausable, and thus is speculation. Speculation has no place on Wikipedia.Payneos 18:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

POV and unencyclopedic is Attention Whore. "We're trying to create an encyclopedia here, not satisfy somone's agenda." And that agenda is to gain attention by trolling. Just because you heard it on some messageboard doesn't make it true and it isn't true. 172.151.95.132 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, a troll is a make believe creature that lives under a bridge, so if you really believe I'm a troll, perhaps you have more immediate problems than what being added to an encyclopedia, and should prioritize your life and get the help you would need. Secondly, apparently unlike you, I've seen the pictures from the studio that day when they were on Foundry Music, and also have seen Anthony's girlfriend in person and know that they are the same person. If you haven't done both, then you are in no position to speak for you know not what you speak of. Of course I'm guessing that won't happen as you appear to enjoy talking out the opposite than your mouth. Attention whore 01:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A troll he may be, he still has the right to have his opinions voiced on the Wiki on the topics. I just feel that in this case, he is wrong. Payneos 21:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, you're not the judge. I'm assuming that you are a currently listener of the show and by your statement that you are 95% sure it isn't talked about on XM, that you have heard most of all the shows. If that's the case, you should have heard the show when O, A, and Patrice are talking about Anthony's divorce and Patrice asks "so when did you know it was over?", to which Anthony replied "when I brought my girlfriend home to the house." In that same converstion he talks about how he used to do anything to avoid going home, citing examples. I think straight from Anthony's mouth over the radio is as cited as could be, and therefore not speculation. That alone makes it notable. Attention whore 01:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I do remember that show, however, over the air is still not a citable soucre, as it means we have to take it on good faith, or assume that if someone has a question on the subject, they can call you up to confirm it. It has to be in some form of online or written print in order to be citable. It's still speculation, however, because if looked at another way, one can say "Well Anthony was speaking tongue in cheek when he said that." He could have simply been joking, and hiding the true undertones of the real reasons he was getting a divorce, in that his marriage was simply not working out. Not because of a third party. Payneos 02:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Being that it's an article about a radio show, if we remove all references that are not cited elsewhere outside of the radio show, then the article should be about 3 sentences long. 90% of the article is not cited outside of heard on the radio. And since you can go to places and download and listen to the shows, others can use that as a method to confirm. Otherwise it's going to be a major effort to remove all parts of the article that do not have sufficient citable references. Then we have to go remove any articles on God, as no one has ever seen god so there can be no citable reference. Santa Claus must be removed too. This could be a revolution in Wiki. I say an article on a radio show can reference the radio show it's about as a source about the radio show. Attention whore 04:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're being obtuse, stonewalling, and not looking at the greater issue. God has relevance because people have a concept of him and written texts, and blah blah. There's cited sources on the belief in God, much as Santa Claus. They're all also major worldly culturally significant things. Whether or not there's such a thing as "Lobster Girl" is not that important to this article, Wikipedia, or the world as a whole. Like I said, it must be a cited source *in print/online* from a *reliable source.* Wackbag/OA.net do not count, even if they have show summaries. As far as the article being aboot three sentences long, there are over 15 citations now on the article, and more coming. I'd say we'd get a good three or four paragraphs, which is more than any other radio show. So, your argument of "We can't cite it, but it did happen" doesn't hold up, because it's clear you're not doing this in good faith. You have an agenda to get this on here no matter what for whatever reason, as useless as it is to the Wikipedia and the general public to know, whether it did or did not happen. There are far more useful parts to the show you could contribute about, but you seem to be focused on just this ONE part. As it stands, what you have written is not cleaned up to Wiki status, it contains POV language, and it's still rather irrevelant and a minor part to the show. Andrew Dice Clay comes up more times, and he bashed Opie and Anthony on rival Howard Stern's show. Payneos 04:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that YOU are focused on removing this one particular piece of information. With so many other stories and characters uncited, why is it this that you're so interested in making usre it's cited, blah, blah, blah. I'd have to say it's you with the agenda. This is information that someone looking to learn about O&A and the show would be interested in knowing. And the very fact that this much time is being devoted by this much people on either side is evidence that this is notable and should be in the article. Attention whore 17:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else's motivations, but for me it's because this particular piece of information is the most in violation of WP:BLP. Tufflaw 00:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Spaz left on his own. He quit shortly after the infamous "bang party" due to influence of his girlfriend, baybuh, and the constant harrassment of the fans.

There is no proof that this "lobster girl" was or is Anthony's girlfriend. It is just a rumor created on a message board that no longer exists and continued on message boards that feel "left out". Past members of this messageboard blame Anthony and the show's influence for the destruction of their site instead of the owners of the messageboard. They spread the rumor to other disenfranchised listeners and SFN.

Troll

There is no connection between what is said on the show and this rumor besides what is in your mind. Anthony's girlfriend has never been on the show and please stop involving her in your delusional fantasies.172.169.132.47 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to maybe take a straw poll of users that want the "Lobster Girl" included, and those that do not. Please use one of the following answers and place it in bold... Keep, Delete, or Neutral, then give a reason why. Payneos 23:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It is an important bit of information aboot Opee & Anthonee. MGlosenger 01:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vote hasn't been counted for simple failure to follow asked protocol and clear Bias/mispelling of their name. Payneos 05:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A)- It's not your place to choose what's counted and what's not. and B)- you make assumptions that those who may want to vote know how to do things like make bold on here. Is there a reason you're trying to exclude certain votes? Attention whore 17:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really a need for a poll on this - the information is in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The fact that Attention Whore says that he recognized Anthony girlfriend from a photo he saw on foundrymusic.com is perhaps the opposite of the kind of source required per WP:RS and WP:V. Although I do agree that most of the article is uncited and uncitable and should be removed. I started working on a new version of the article with only information cited in a reliable source although I got busy at work and that kind of fell by the wayside. All the various "bits" and characters should all be removed. This isn't a fan site, it's an encyclopedia article. Tufflaw 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, there you have it. Attention whore has failed to come up with conclusive proof of the Lobster Girl/Spaz incident. Any additions once the page is unblocked will be treated as vandalism, and will be petitioned as such. Good workin with you fellows, will petition to have the page unblocked soon. Payneos 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If the Lobster Girl incident is omitted, it will be a travesty of all that for which Wikipedia stands. Do we not seek the TRUTH, and not some watered-down fantasy sanitized for the kiddies? Stand up and fight for what's right! The Lobster Girl incident MUST be mentioned! 206.190.139.254 23:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Work on that citation, first. Payneos 23:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC

Would you require a citation for the existence of gravity? For the blueness of the sky? For the clarity of the air? Everyone KNOWS that the Lobster Girl incident occurred, and therefore a citation would simply be ludicrous! YOU, SIR, ARE STONEWALLING. 206.190.139.254 15:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea that the event occurred. Please provide a verifiable source, or do not include the information. Naconkantari 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, everyone with Peyneos' agenda of censorship goes through the same stages. First it's not notable, then when proved it is, goes to its' not cited, when that's shown it is, goes on to the prove it happened game. Payneos actually skipped that last step and just declared on his own "failed to come up with conclusive proof of the Lobster Girl/Spaz incident". It's been proven it happened Petneos, if you missed it in the previous times on this page, shame on you. The information will re-added once the page is unblocked, because you do not make the sole decisions on this article. Much as you would like to control, i.e. censor the article, to hopefully get a cookie or whatever it is you think you should get for sucking up, you're just an editor just as all the people who agree this should be part of the article. You lose sir, good day! Attention whore 02:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not notable, not citable, and if you persist in adding it, it will be considered vandalism and I will petition to have you blocked. It's that simple. Payneos 02:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm bored right now, so I'll humor you and re-provide the link to here that others (172.blah.blah.blah) removed to censor it. This way you can move onto your next stonewall issue. "here is the lobster girl audio [6] Keysersoze 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)" Attention whore 20:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, "Lobster Girl" isn't Anthony's girlfriend. Actually, yes she is - this is CONFIRMED and WELL KNOWN.

Secondly, Anthony's girlfriend HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE SHOW. Incorrect, she was but this was BEFORE she was his girlfriend.

Thirdly, Spazz left the show because of his own girlfriend and the consequenses of the opieanthony.com's "bang party". That's not entirely true, there were othere reasons...

Fourthly, Spazz is no longer part of the Opie and Anthony show. Anything he has done since is on his own. But his is still part of the history and as such should be mentioned on a non-bias resource site. Vietnam was a mistake, but it's in all the history books, no?

Fifthly, Message Boards ARE NOT RELEVANT SOURCES. Agreed, but there's more information available outside of them that can backup most if not all claims.

Sixthly, ALL the people that insist on this belong to a couple of sites that are purposely trolling this article. One site, mainly.

Sevently, You would never have heard of this falsehood unless you visited a site they frequented. Again, untrue - regarding Melinda - the incident happened on air.

Eigthly, This is rumor is only important for those who want to spread rumors and those who dislike those who spread lies. Again, untue - it happened.

Ninthly, Fans of competiting talk show hosts are trolling this into the article(MGlosenger, 65.19.27.142, etc). perhaps, but the information is still relevant.

This article is about the Opie and Anthony show. It is not about your blogs or your message boards and your subjective agenda-driven sites. And Lobster Girl was ON THE SHOW as was SPAZ.

Your continuence to bring this false rumor to the forefront of all your conversations shows that Attentionwhore, Keysersoze, and some others are just [internet trolls] and should forthwith be blocked from vandalizing this article. 172.163.77.165 00:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. There is no hard evidence that Anthony's Girlfriend and Melissa are the same. Payneos 00:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Naconkantari 01:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as comments on the radio being unfit for citation, I don't think this is necessarily true. As long as the article mentions that this was a claim by someone on the air, the claim itself can be cited as just that. Not fact, but a claim. Hearsay. The existance of the claim is fact, but the claim itself may not be.

As for the rest of this, I don't see any evidence whatsoever, and Attention Whore's fervent refusal to give any citations leads me to believe that there's no reason to have this on the article at all. All it can do is hurt someone, and that's not what Wikipedia is about, as far as I know.

(Cool trick by the way, Nacon...I have to use that now! ^_^)--DestradoZero 17:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are all fantastic points, Destrado. Thanks =D Payneos 23:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

O.K., lets compromise and see where your agenda truly lies. We'll put up the Lobster Girl/Melinda story, and the Spaz entry, but remove the references of her being Anthony's girlfriend. The information is notable(just read this page), and citable [7], so that should satisfy everyone's objections. Unless your reasons for trying to block it are for less legitimate reasons such as censorship, this should be a happy medium. Agreed? 161.185.1.100 01:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No. It isn't true. Just as John Seigenthaler shot JFK.

And I will split the children in two or cut the bike story in two from Seinfield.

In no way, do I recognize your understanding of this situation nor will I. 172.162.221.119 18:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Opie

What ever happened to that site?

It was shut down due to low numbers. The joke got old. Payneos 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke site that started as an idea in an IRC chatroom and members from another site got wind of it & assumed it was a real 'fan' site instead of the gag/parody site it really was. Ironically, the owner was banned and his name was a censored word on the other site, yet they all had no problem posting on his site.

Joe Shareholder

Why is there no mention of the charictar and frequent show caller "Joe Shareholder"? That guy is really funny.199.201.168.100 16:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I only recall Joe Shareholder calling in maybe twice two months ago. While his calls may have a lot more merit now, he doesn't seem to be noteworthy... or even funny at all. Payneos 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, Joe was on like once, but why was Dugout Doug removed. He has to have more appearances they any other caller/Retard Guest. He has been called a "character" by opie, and his roll as "General" of the O&A Army has sparked MANY bits, including the Pests, PUSH THE BUTTON, was opie talking to Doug, the Hole thing came from the Phillips attack, which was led by Doug, the paltalk craze was began by Doug, it goes on. Before that, no attacks went on like that. He has the respect and trust of the show as a reoccurring character, but he gets left out here, in favor of a fucking former producer and someone that MAY have blown him? Months you spend on that, but no mention for Doug? He also rind fullblownaids.com, a fan board. He used to be in here, but was taken out a month or so ago. Why is that?

I'm fairly certain that if you want to start a topic about Dugout Doug, you can start a separate thread. If a case can be made for adding him to the article, there shouldn't be much of a problem adding him. Until the lockdown is over and done with, though, it's a moot point. DestradoZero 21:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Joe Shareholder called and was fully ripped apart by O&A for being a tool and bitching about his stock and claiming that they were misrepresenting the company...once they questioned him about how many shares he owned it was found out that he has very few shares and just called to bitch to get some attention. The only attention he got from O&A was negative for his continued bitching about the show and XM Radio. Not once has he contributed to the show in a positive way except giving the listers something to laugh at as the boys lambasted him.

• It should be noted that Joe Shareholder currently owns thousands of shares of XM.

199.201.168.100 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• • It should also be noted that Joe Shareholder has commented that the Wikipedia article should include both himself and Dougout Doug. 199.201.168.100 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Joe Shareholder barely figured out how to use Wikipedia... DestradoZero 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about the protection process

This is my first exposure to a protected page that I've contributed to. I've read the protection-related information on Wikipedia, but I found nothing that describes how the admins decide to end protection of a page. How does that work? — franl ✦ talk ✦ 13:00 6 November 2024

You post a request here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection at the unprotection section. Blocking admins often have a list of the pages they blocked and check those, or they go to a list were all blocked pages are listed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New AM/FM affiliates

There are four new AM/FM affiliates for the show appearing in the news today. Starting Monday June 5 they add WXYT 1270 AM (The Sports Station) Detroit, MI (Live 6A - 9A), WAZU 107.1 FM (The Big Wazoo) Columbus, OH (Tape 3P - 6P) and WZNE 94.1 FM (The Zone) Rochester, NY (Tape 2P - 5P). Starting June 26 they add WJFK 106.7 FM (FREE FM) Washington, D.C. (Tape 10A - 1P). In addition, WJFK will feature an online simulcast of the show (Live 6A - 9A) at www.1067freefm.com. Ffuege 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• More new AM/FM affilates were added on Monday, July 17. These affliates are WMOS-FM 104.7 (The Wolf) New London, CT (Live 6A - 9A), WSKO-FM/AM (The Score) Providence, RI (Live 6A - 9A), WKLQ/WILZ 107.3 FM (Pure Rock) Grand Rapids, MI (Live 6A - 9A), WBSX 97.9 FM (97.9 X) Wilkes Barre, PA (Live 6A - 9A), KBZU 96.3 FM (The Buzzard) Albuquerque, NM (Tape from 2P - 5P), WCYY/WCYI 93.9 & 94.3 FM Portland, ME (Live 6A - 9A), WEDG 103.3 (The Edge) Buffalo, NY (Live 6A - 9A), & KRDJ 93.7 FM Baton Rouge, LA (Live 5A - 8A) [8] --TravKoolBreeze 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Radio enemies?

What kind of radio retards have a list of 'enemies'? Are these guys 3 years old?

Well, then, Howard Stern is 3 years old too. He has a hate list on his wikipage

Really... You have some crazy eyes, then. I don't see any 'hate' list on his entry, and I don't think you would either if you actually visited the page.

I would figure that a lot of radio shows have "enemies" to some degree or another, since radio is highly competitive. There are a lot of big egos in radio, and with a decade long career that spans several major companies you're sure to piss off somebody. And even though it's not listed on Howard's entry, you must be a new listener if you think the show hasn't had it's own share of enemies, ranging from Mark & Brian to the FCC. And even more recently, Howard's lengthy anti-Bush campaigning in 2004 could also put him on an enemy list, so feel free to include that should you ever decide to just put all the names into one place like what was done here.

Anthony's Age

Anthony's true birthdate is April 1961, not 1963 (as he claims). He is 45. This can be verified by a public records search (e.g., ZabaSearch.com etc.). Note for future edits when the page is unlocked.

Return to WJFK

On June 26th, 2006 at 10am, Opie and Anthony returned to the air of Waqshington DC on WJFK. They are currently being broadcast on a taped delay due to scheduling conflicts with other highly rated shows. However after their previous history with that station, it is beleived by the show that this is a positive step. 68.51.187.134 11:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)RocketScientist

9/11 Conspiracies

Loose change director was on the show and their was a huge controversy over if what the kid said was true or fasle.Tyler--Durden 20:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Spazz/Lobster Girl Revisited

In retrospect of the Spazz/Lobster Girl's relevance, Spazz has a relevance to the article as "K-Dawg's Week in Review." Lobster Girl has no place as it is libel, slanderous, and generally irrelevant. As far as it being a "story mentioned" the article failry much contradicts itself since it's been stated more than once to be "banned from mentioning on the show." If it's NOT mentioned on the show, it is NOT a story mentioned, and therefore has no place in that section. Spazz is minor at best, and his article as it stands with my revision is the most NPOV and fair way of writing the article. It doesn't get speculative using weasel words, nor does it use a link to Foundry, which proved nothing to the cause that Melinda IS the Lobster Girl. Let's get this over with finally. Payneos 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, it's the same old argument Payneos. It was proven that it did happen in the topics above, so you disappeared for a while, then come back an claim it didn't happen all over again. Hoping it will end better this time? I was willing to compromise and not add the part about her being Anthony's girlfriend, which is well known. But since you, admittingly an O&A pest, are so unwilling to listen to anything, why bother talking about it? You're only interested in censoring the article for your own desires regardless of the truth. Attention whore 02:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You were the only one unwilling to compromise, if I recall, since the general consensus is that you stonewalled all compromises in favor of the version you wanted, the end. What IS proven is that is is NOT a story mentioned often on the show, as I noted in many of the talk pages (Since Anthony banned it, so if you wanna be a classy fellow, why not make a banned stories section, but wait, since you can't back that up either, I guess that doesn't work too.) I'd also like to remind you that your talk page clearly shows you adding "Hoo Hoo Howie" things earlier in your Wikipedia career.

That said, I have created a compromise that is TRUTHFUL (as in, can be proven if necessary through links on Foundry, not just a link TO Foundry which proves absolutely nothing) NOT mean-spirited (since it's quite clear all you want to do is bash Anthony in any way possible for whatever reason), NOT libel or slander (since it directly implies that Anthony is over-controlling and more or less wants to shut his girlfriend up from the media), and in general informative to a simple degree. People who have no idea who Opie and Anthony are do not know aboot Melinda and since you cannot provide clear, concise proof, other than your own word, and since the "Lobster Girl Incident" is such an irrelevant story to the show due to it's lack of mentioning, I am taking the liberty to revert your vandalism to this article once again. If you have any suggestions to add to mine that do not involve anything slanderous, mean-spirited, non-informative, or false, please let me know through this talk page FIRST. Do not continue in reverting to your way just because you feel it's right. Because, quite simply, it is not. Payneos 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Payneos, you run from the truth like a dog running from a raging inferno! THE TRUTH MUST BE KNOWN, AND THE TRUTH WILL BE KNOWN, AND THE TRUTH WILL FOREVER BE KNOWN UNTIL THE END OF ALL TIME BECAUSE THE TRUTH ALWAYS WINS! THE! TRUTH! ALWAYS! WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111 MGlosenger 05:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And you... you're just creepy, Pookie. Relax, it's just an online encyclopedia. Payneos 06:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll save my typing and say: Read the above arguments since this is the same stonewall argument you started with two months ago. You can read my reply then, add your same response, then go back up and read my response to that, and so on... Attention whore 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I re-read them. They confirm my argument. You have nothing to counter, so you're trying to rely on what you previously said, which I have since de-bunked. I'm going to get moderation now, perhaps you will listen to them. Just so we're clear, I have no problem with Spazz being in the article. But Spazz only. Lobster Girl has been proven to be irrelevant by those who wanted it in the article themselves. Payneos 06:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To that end, it seems last time the Mediation Cabal was brought in... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-21_Opie_and_Anthony#Request_Information ... you did not wish to participate. This time, however, I am hopeful you will decide otherwise. While your claims of "This is not a Fansite" you think might apply to you, it seems that the previous case makes it quite the reverse. Only cited, relevant information is to be included, via an offical source such as FMQB, FoundryMusic, or any major news outlet. Your revision does not constitute a link to an actual citable source, rather, it merely links to FoundryMusic itself, which is not enough. Payneos 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see link above to actual audio of show. It does not get more cited than hearing it for yourself. And as previously stated, just the fact that this is the most discussed topic on this page proves in itself that it's notable. Attention whore 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the precident of "No Original Research" (as in, See: We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. See Wikipedia:No original research." Assuming arguendo that Anthony admitted to dating Melinda (and this is the first I've heard of this assertion), that does not make it a reputable source unless it has also been published in a credible publication. This may seem coutner-intuitive if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies, but you have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, it's not a fan site, gossip column, tabloid magazine, or rumor mill. Tufflaw 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)) means that hearing a source does not count. It must be readable. I will now begin the steps towards having you blocked from editing, since you refuse to listen to my warnings. Payneos 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

On another note, the only reason it is so heatedly discussed is because you insist that it has a far more relevant meaning than anyone else (Who isn't a Stern fan looking to cause trouble) than anyone else, including Countzero, Myself, Tufflaw, Naconkantari, DestradoZero, and many random IP addresses. You and Keysersoze stand alone. Payneos 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Payneos, stop slandering my good name sir. Keysersoze

It isn't slander if it's true. You and Attention Whore stand alone on this, and seem much less motivated to get the facts out and more motivated to just slanderize Anthony. If you had any other intention to the contrary, you would be more interested in making a fair compromise, which is the one that's currently in place. Spazz is mentioned, but the irrelevant Lobster Girl incident is not. Payneos 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You rewrite history almost as good as Anthony. I like how you leave things out to make your argument seem accurate. Attention whore 18:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stern fan looking to cause trouble?!! Why I.. why you... HOW DARE YOU SIR?????????????? MGlosenger 04:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken notice just now that under the three revert rule, it has a section under potentially libellious material. Please see the following. Reverting potentially libellous material... All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including the associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection. The three-revert rule does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision, whether they are involved in editing the articles themselves or not.Payneos 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the page again. Please come to a compromise or request mediation. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Naconkantari 21:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation has been requested already, thanks Naconkantari for the protect. Payneos 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Ian Smith

Added a brief comment under "Celebrity and Comedian friends" about Dr. Ian Smith of Celebrity Fit Club fame and his frequent appearances on the show, including the day-after appearance involving Michael Strahan's divorce. 70.100.248.10 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Dan

Another new affiliate(s)

WSKO-AM and WSKO-FM in Providence, RI have been signed on. I was going to add it to the list as coming on, but goddammit, it seems every other time I visit this page it's protected. --Tv's emory 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

They also were added to The Wolf 104.7 in New London CT today

Pests

As mentioned above, Dugout Doug, and other Pests, and the generic, "Pests" itself are a part of the show. I am opening discussion for them to be added to the page.

And yeah, why were the pests removed? Not like I think its a HUGE deal, but we have done a lot of work, and have become a part of the show. DugoutDoug 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)DugoutDoug

Lobster Girl

Why not mention of the Lobster Girl incident? This incident is how most Pests came to know the show. Most of the article is POV anyways so given that this was a true incident (Mellinda, a listener sucked off SPAZ to save a lobster) it should be highlighted. A google search on Lobster Girl Mellinda sucking Spazz takes you right to this page so it should be listed in detail. Add a link to the festivities! Whats the big deal with this? Why is it kryptonite to the "O & A" fans.

Umm, not really. I was a big O&A fan since the NEW days, and am a contributer of sorts now, and can tell you, this situation interest me not. Its an obsession of certain "loyalists" to Spaz that feel betrayed by the show that he is gone. So you take one non-reoccurring "bit", so to speak, and keep trying to embarrass the host of a show that people love. Move on guys, find another show. The obsession is sick, the fact that this non-reoccurring bit is even recorded on this page this much is insane. It was 5 mins, 4 years ago, in the history of MILLIONS of mins of radio. It wasn't memorable, it may have not even been real. And if it was, who the fuck cares? Everyone has hooked up before (except maybe you guys). And if you have hooked up, is that a bad thing? I sure as shit don't remember every woman I have hooked up with, maybe that's why I don't care. Is the one girl you hooked up with with someone else now? Does that make you sad? Personally, as someone that knows the show, I can say that if you are going to mention this little fucking bit, you need to mention every ones calls. They were all important right? This was a 5 min, non-reoccurring bit. I am asking the people that have some control over this room, to remove it. It is ment to embarass the people that this page is setup to give information about.

And I am not saying that controversial material should not be here, the firing for Sex For Sam could very wel be embarrassing, but it is important. the "lobster incident" AT THE VERY WORST, just shows that Anthony's girlfriend MAY have hooked up with another boy before him. Wow, shocking. Fact is, no one cares. DugoutDoug 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to agree. It's really irrelevant, useless data, moreso to be put here for no other reason to wrongly slander Anthony as being a control freak. Yes, we know he's a hypocondriac (See: "On an all new House...") but he's not a jackass. I have no problem with Spaz, he was a major part of the show. Key word is *was*. He is no longer a part of the show, and the fact that he was blown on air is irrelevant. How many times was Jimmy blown on air? Or what aboot the time Jay Mohr had sex with that black chick on Ken Stevens' couch? I don't see that being mentioned here. Because in the grand scheme of things, it's not relevant and doesn't belong on the wiki. Payneos 04:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Spazz and Lobster Girl Consensus Vote

So what's the deal with the Spazz and Lobster Girl issue? I see it's come up at the MedCab again. Let me get this right, one of you think that the Lobster Girl/Melinda part of the Spazz entry stays, one of you thinks it should go. Is that about the size of it? CQJ 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Spazz was relevant and influential to the old show. He alone should have his own little tidbit section. Not with all this "Lobster Girl" garbage, a one time bit with no lasting impact on the show and no real relevance than it being slanderous toward Anthony's character, since the implication is that he has some sort of restriction against it being discussed. Payneos 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Spaz should have a section. But, really, there is no need to make mention to Lobster Girl, since it is clearly meant to be there as slander towards Anthony.--XMBRIAN 18:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Attention Whore & co. planely has a vendetta against O&A for some reason by continually slandering them. After this page is unprotected, all the libelous and slanderous material will be removed once again. Verify it if you want to prove me wrong. You won't be able to because it is all based on false rumors and conjecture. Tyler--Durden 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no vendetta against O&A. I listen to their show everyday and it's the only thing I look forward to in my work day. Attention whore 05:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Calmo. He's pretty much withdrawn his complaints for now. All the libel material has already been removed, thus the article should be sufficent to stand on its' own once protection can be lifted. Although I would appreciate Mediation Cabal review, I think they see this article as a black hole of controversy and tend to stay away from it. Payneos 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm waiting to get a feel for the article before I start actively mediating :-). That and I know someone is bound to go to my userpage and declare me an unfit mediator based on the fact that I'm a Sirius subscriber and not an XM guy - but I've got no beef with Pests in general. I was with Sirius long before Stern came along.. (grin). CQJ 03:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Well, it's not really a "Pest" issue. In this case, it has to do with relevance to the show. I see a character of the show (Spazz) as having relevance for his popularity and signature bit, "K-Dawg's Week in Review." Until I came here, however, I was unaware of anything involving "Lobster Girl" existing, or being such a big deal as Attention Whore is making it out to be. It appeared to be libellious/slanderous type material, which doesn't have a place here. It seems safe and accurate the way it is now. Payneos 03:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm opening the floor for a consensus again. If you've made it apparent you have a clear Opie and Anthony bias, please leave it out of the Wikipedia in this case, I'm trying to assume good faith as best as possible. The article, as stands now, with no mention of Lobster Girl, BUT with Spazz's section on his relevance to the show, please vote Keep. All against, please suggest changes here, but do not revert the article until we have reached a final consensus on what it should look like. Payneos 03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote keep, but the correct spelling is "Spaz".--XMBRIAN 17:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I keep waitng for mediation. I have not been invited to a formal mediation and arguing with Payneos and his agenda is a waste of my time.Attention whore 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you have, via the mediation cabal. CQJ is the mediator for this issue, and he has asked for a consensus. I am now taking one. It is perculiar, though, that you have no argument now, and resort to attempting to go over my head on this issue. What you want to include is slanderous, involves original research, and will not be included in any way on this Wikipedia ever, unless you can somehow cite it using a printed source. You may vote delete, but it will only remove Spaz totally. Spaz belongs in Wiki, Lobster Girl does not. Payneos 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not receive notice to me that mediation had begun. You seem to think that you solely make the rules. It's interesting that the only options you're giving are the ones you want. I can vote to have the Spaz entry you want, or no entry at all?? The consensus is not whether to have your entry, or no entry. It's not for you to make those decisions. The Lobster Girl entry has been proven [9], and absolutely is notable. And unlike your pretend count above, that only KeyserSoze and myself want it, if you actually read the above entries, you'll see it looks to be rather evenly distributed for and against. For you to dictate that it "will not be included in any way on this Wikipedia ever" is threatening, intimidating, and completely uncalled for. You keep mentioning slander, yet even the people who may not want the entry, are agreeing it happened, including you: "...the line where "mentioning lobster or Spaz will get you banned on some websites" is clearly a shot at wackbag, which is wholly not fair because it's well known that Anthony frequents there and not the other message boards as much, thus they were simply respecting his wish for it to be kept on the "down low." I think as a respectable and fair encyclopedia, it should be limited to as objective as possible and as limited in detail as possible, to avoid too much... friction. Payneos 05:00, 7 March 2006 " Where's the slander? If an incident happened, there is no slander.

Nope, you didn't. I just changed the case template to open before I went to work :-), and I asked Payneos to make a call for consensus so I could get some exterior input on the issue prior to working on the case. I think the consensus should more properly be whether the Lobster Girl thing should be mentioned or not, I don't think Spaz's place in the article is in dispute. Before I go download and look at this zipfile, what exactly is it? Let me clear something up for you real quick. I asked Payneos to see what sort of consensus would be generated for the article as it stands right now, and I suggested to him that we wait at least seven days for any response to be measured or taken. Now, with this said, please don't go to the O&A fan forums (like the Stern fans do) and ask for them to flood this page with their opinions, because that's pretty much like sockpuppeting, and that'll just frustrate and irritate me.

You feel that I'm "going over your head". I'm not going over your head. You would have to be in charge of something for me to go over your head. I'm merely tired of going around in circles with you because you're reading, but you're not "listening". You want only what you want and anything that isn't it, gets ignored. I truly hope you're not like that in real life.

As for the consensus, there are people on both sides of the argument who do not come on the page daily. There will have to be a period of time allowed for not-as-regulars to come and vote. Now the question is, what to vote on? Your consensus above is no good. It doesn't allow voting on the issue, only on what you want it to be. Please make it an accurate question, so that people may vote on it. Then we can seek a consensus. For the sake of sanity, I'm willing to temporarily leave the article as you have censored it while the disscussion is reasonable. Attention whore 05:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you can't have a civilized debate aboot the issue. If you read the *whole* quote, which is "What you want to include is slanderous, involves original research, and will not be included in any way on this Wikipedia ever, unless you can somehow cite it using a printed source," you would notice that I'm saying is *what YOU want to include (in the context of Lobster Girl) will never be included because it *violates* standing Wikipedia policies against libel and slander, it requires original research, and it seems to be generally mean spirited, so it no longer can be taken in good faith. You refuse to concede as well that you do not want it any other way then to include Lobster Girl, and even an unoffical character of the show itself, Dugout Doug has come up and said Lobster Girl is irrelevant because it is a "one time bit." If anyone is "reading but not truly listening" it is you, because you do not quite understand what you want to include is against not just one but *two* standing Wikipedia Policies . And you have not given any evidence to the contrary. That is "going over my head" and talking directly to the mediator, and not to *me* aboot the situation. If you have anything *constructive* to add in a way that is not in violation of standing Wikipedia policies, I am willing to hear it and work the article in such a way.

And whether or not the incident happened can even be thrown out the window. You directly go after Anthony, claiming that she is now Anthony's girlfriend, and in some previous versions, go to mention that the show does not allow it to be discussed. This is why I take your edits now in bad faith, as it seems more like you have an agenda to attack Anthony, rather than a detailed, cited recount of the *facts* of the matter.

And let's then assume it *did* happen, since you like arguing that as well. Is it relevant enough? No. It is not. I think the consensus should be as to the relevance OF Lobster Girl to the show and to this article. That sounds like a much more appropriate consensus, since if there is a consensus that it is not, assuming it happened, then it has no place on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we might as well throw up any bit that ever was ran on the show. That sets a dangerous precident, and means the article can be flooded with bits that are irrelevant and useless. *Much like this one.*

Take all that into consideration first, before you respond. And try not to claim I'm intimidating or something, I wish I was, but I'm as scary as a teddy bear. Payneos 07:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to respond in an abbreviated fashion, because as I read this I see that both Payneos and I have diarrea of the fingers and this thing will become unreadable for everyone else. Why is this considered an attack on Anthony? If this is what happened, why is mentioning it an "attack"? At no time did I add my personal opinion of what I think about it. I just stated the events as they happened. Others added the can't talk about it stuff, I never have, and readily agree that doesn't need to be there. I'm also willing to remove the fact that Melinda is Anthony's girlfriend and just leave the events as it's heard in the audio. So I am willing to compromise. How would a Lobster Girl entry be acceptable to you? What changes would have to be made for you to be ok with it? As for "DougoutDoug", if I post on here as "Anthony Cumia" will that end the debate? And I happen to be petrified of Teddy bears, so you can be very scary. :^O Attention whore 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to quote Tufflaw, who was right in the past and stated what I am stating now a very long time ago... "The reason it matters is twofold. First, if our goal to create a worthwhile and usable encyclopedia, the information contained within it must be accurate and encyclopedic. If it's true that Anthony is dating "Lobster Girl", I would agree that merits a mention (worded appropriately), but only if it's true. Second, if it isn't true, then not only are we propagating inaccurate information, but we're propagating potentially libelous information. Nobody wants another Seigenthaler debacle. Tufflaw 05:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)" Keep in mind, he is the Assistant District Attourney of New York. He knows Law. Payneos 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So the period is going to be seven days, and the "vote" is whether or not Lobster Girl should be covered in the article. Keep/Accept means that one does not feel that Lobster Girl should be covered in the article, Lose/Reject means that one does feel that Lobster Girl should be covered in the article. We're not dealing with source arguments yet, we're just dealing with whether it should be covered or not, but if you can provide a verifiable source to support your opinion, that would definitely be helpful. I'm trusting everyone not to run to the forums and enlist sockpuppets or meatpuppets....this is a true measure of consensus, and please let me know which way you're leaning below my statement here (which means that XMBRIAN and Payneos will need to reiterate their opinions) CQJ 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am voting Reject. I feel the article is irrelevant, libelous, and requires original research, two of the three violate Wikipedia Guidelines. That's my argument in a nutshell. Payneos 07:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be "Keep", as in, Keep Lobster girl out of the article? CQJ 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably. "Keep," then. Payneos 20:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that even confused me CQJ. I think it should be switched.

Keep = Keep Lobster Girl information in article.

Remove = Remove Lobster Girl information from Article. That would make it less confusing. Just a suggestion. I added a dispute tag to the article to direct people who may not be aware of the debate to this page. Attention whore 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. If we cut out any mentioning of Melinda possibly having a connection to Anthony and Anthony himself supposedly instuting some Show-wide gag order, I am for that in the article, *provided* the consensus says it belongs here. I am still of the mind of Remove, because I do not see the relevance of the bit to every day Opie and Anthony affairs, unlike the other "Stories Mentioned" which every one will be related to on a semi-daily to weekly basis, whereas Lobster Girl has never been raised since. But it's up to consensus now. Payneos 03:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In case it isn't obvious, I vote for Lobster girl to remain in the article. Attention whore 04:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A Vote is not necessary. Removal of unverifiable claims will be done no matter what happens. Remove Attention whore. Tyler--Durden 08:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A consensus with Attention Whore will Never happen. Give up or do nothing like all wikipedia moderators. That is all that is expected from you. Tyler--Durden 08:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While a little cynical, it is far beyond the concensus date of July 27th, and using the precident in my mind set at Talk: EBaumsworld I have to state this. If it is not citable by a source that is in print, it is original research. Even if it is relevant and informative to the article, which this is not, it involves Original Research. Therefore, there are many standing policies that are violated or cannot be guaranteed if you just take the writer's word for it. In the end, anything involving "Lobster Girl" simply cannot stand. Payneos 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well - by my count, it's just been the two of you who mentioned what they had to say or feel on the article - once we semi-protected the article, all of the IP addresses dissappeared. Payneos, you do have a point as to WP:OR, though, and although there may be audio that exists to substantiate the Lobster Girl claim, if one of the stars of the show doesn't even like the story related, why is it relevant here? Was it a one time bit, or was Lobster Girl on the show beyond the one show? Was it a one-time bit? Some questions for you to answer..hypothetically or actually... CQJ 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In a realistic sense, it was simply a one shot deal, which made for admittedly good radio. However, it was just that, a one shot deal, and had no lasting effect on the show. It's never brought up as a reference, unlike Chester's Liver or Bomb the DK House. It's just a whispered rumor in some circles made famous because the girl may now be Anthony's Girlfriend. Key word being may. Payneos 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting post on WackBag. Being that you're a fan, I'd imagine you know what Anthony's name on WackBag is(wifflebatlube to those who may not know). Why not head over to here [10], scroll down to Anythony's post toward the middle of the page, and read. I'm curious if you'll still insist that she "may" be and Melinda/Lobster Girl being Anthony's girlfriend is still purely speculation. But, if you're sincere about not really knowing one way or the other, this definately provides evidence to the positive. Attention whore 06:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you. It needs to be cited (and I'll say this one more time) in a reputable source. WackBag is not a reputable source. Any message board in general is not a reputable source. What you are doing violates the Original Research Policy. Anybody who does not listen to the show knows who WiffleBatLube is, and assuming that because you tell them that it is Anthony makes it justified is not how Wikipedia works. Lobster Girl remains out for being irrelevant, mean-spirited, and simply not fitting into any portion of the article (As in, it's *not* a story mentioned, because it simply never comes up.) Using Show Recap Threads on Message Boards does not qualify as a legitimate source. That's simply the way it is. Payneos 08:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. I'm pointing out the thread on Wackbag, not as a source for Wikipedia, but as a source for YOU, Payneos. You claim to not know if Melinda really is Anthony's girlfriend or not. I'm directing you to the thread with a post written by Anthony regarding it, and asking if it clears up the issue for YOU. Attention whore 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Breaking back out so this doesn't cut off across half the page. Payneos has a point in regards to WP:OR. So, with that said, Attention whore, how do you propose to provide verifiability for the Lobster Girl claim aside from a message board or a recap from WackBag? Secondly, if this was a one-time bit, why (aside from the assertion that Melinda may or may not be Anthony's girlfriend) should this even be added to the article? If we're to add one-time bits, this page would be super huge... CQJ 14:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And to further that point... throughout the article I think Opie's girlfriend, Lindsey, isn't mentioned once. Why does Anthony's girlfriend need a mention when Opie's does not? To further what I'm hinting at, wouldn't it be better to include somewhere in their Biography toward the top of the page who they are with? Although they tends to be secretive and no real citation is available as of right now to indicate who they're with. That mostly stems from the fact that it doesn't matter who they're with (Because they're not mega-celebrities), rather it matters what they do (Get into all sorts of mischef.)Payneos 16:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lindsey's relationship with Opie doesn't carry the controversy that Anthony and Melinda carry. It's not who Anthony is dating, it's the controversy surrounding it. Who cares that it was Monica Lewinsky. It was what happened that made that whole incident notable. There were/are many repercussions (discussed above) that came as a result of it making it notable. Also, I understand you're perhaps indicating that there could be a place in the article added that would be more appropriate a location, but why bother if it's going to be constantly removed regardless of where it's added. We going to head down a slippery slope. If the show itself is not citable, this article as well as other articles that limb off this one are going to be drastically edited to remove all non-cited material. That will remove alot of information that people looking to learn about O&A would probably be interested in knowing. Why is this one piece of information what youre focusing on when probably 3/4 of the article fits into the same "non-citable outside of the show" catagory? Attention whore 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You did not confront the original issue of WP:OR which if not enforced usually also leads to problems with WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV, not to mention the very serious and grounds for immedate deletion policy WP:LIBEL No repercussions seem to be noteworthy either, nor are *they* citable or relevant in any way to the *Opie and Anthony Show.* What does the controversy stirred by one, non-recurring, never mentioned bit that happened MANY years ago have to do with ANYTHING involving the *Show.* And don't use slippery slope, if you're a fan of the show you'll remember this little gem. "Anything can be abused. Slippery Slope is useless in proving anything. If it's that way, why not outlaw jails? Jails can be abused." -James Norton. As for the rest of the article, I do feel it is getting a bit long and out of hand, so whenever I add something, I make sure to cite it with a source. Foundry apparently counts, so I frequently use that, which can be used to back up 5/6ths of the 3/4ths of the show you say will be taken out if we have to cite more frequently. Just we have been lazy with our citations. Payneos 02:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Mercurio

(page is locked) The wikilink for Paul Mercurio points to an Australian choreographer. Needs to be reset to Paul Mercurio (comedian) when page is unlocked Clappingsimon talk 03:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And his name is Mecurio, not MeRcurio --Shwookie 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Eight new markets

When the page can be edited again, here is the info that should be added regarding the eight newest markets in which O&A have been added. "Citadel has launched O&A on WSKO-FM/AM Providence; WEDG-FM Buffalo; WKLQ-FM/WILZ Grand Rapids; WBSX-FM Wilkes Barrie, PA; WBZU-FM Albuquerque; KRDJ-FM Baton Rouge; WCYY-FM/WCYI-FM, Portland, ME; and WMOS-FM, New London, CT. Opie and Anthony will be broadcast during morning drive on all of the stations during 6–9 AM, except for WBZU, where they will be heard in afternoon drive, from 3 to 5 PM." (quote is from Radio Ink's website, link: http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=134328&pt=todaysnews) 74.129.71.19 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's KBZU, not WBZU--TravKoolBreeze 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I'd like to unprotect the article as there have been some recent developments in the show that need to be included. When I do so, please continue discussing the Lobster Girl/Spazz issue here before edit warring again, or the page will be protected once again. If anyone doesn't feel that the page should be unprotected yet, reply here. Othwerwise, I'll unlock it in a few hours. Thanks Naconkantari 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the help, Naconkantari, once again. If and when Attention Whore returns, I may need to ask you for temporary protection again, I have a feeling he will not be happy on the now set consensus of the Spazz article. If you have any ideas that you can contribute before you take leave, please do. THanks again for the help. Payneos 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I take offense at the above remark. It makes it appear that the addition of the Lobster Girl info is vandalism, as compared to a difference of opinion in editing. I'd like to believe that Naconkantari is not using his Admin powers to impose his personal preferences and make sure they stay that way, but based on Payneos' remark, I'm lead to believe that the protection placed on the page last week was purely to keep the page as Payneos (and I presume Naconkantri by the above remark) would prefer it. I hope that I'm wrong. I think that would be a gross misuse of admin. Attention whore 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to stop the edit wars. I personally don't care either way, but if it's being edit-warred over, then I or some other admin will protect the article until the disputed changes can be discussed on this page and an agreement can be made. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm favoring one side or the other, but that is simply not the case. As I have said before, protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Naconkantari 05:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Payneos probably made his comment before you agreed to let the consensus be heard, not after. From what I recall, we did some heavy work here on Thursday, and that comment was made on Wednesday, if my recollection is correct. By the way, I'm the one who asked Naconkantari to reprotect the article after a few anon IP address users added some crap to it (some of it didn't have to do with the Lobster Girl issue), and I felt that if they were to continue, they'd respark the issue and destroy what progress you and Payneos have made in ending this issue one and for all. CQJ 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The only way to keep any 'progress' is to restrict edit changes for those who add slander for their insipid agendas. Anything else will result into those degenerates like Attention whore continually using tall tales to affect the verifiability of this article. All mentions of his & Co.'s lies will be removed from the talk page as well.

That is the consensus.Tyler--Durden 09:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Show and Bio Page Split

I'm beginning to think the page might need to be split into the "Opie and Anthony Show" and the biographies of Opie, Anthony, and Jim. The article at this point is quite long. Payneos 03:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, do you think you can find enough information on Opie and Anthony each to create an entire article for each?--XMBRIAN 03:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

I'm taking out the dispute tag. Im not sure what it is refering to, but in any case I dont think the dispute tag is needed here. Baron Von Westfall 04:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the talk page in the future since the disputed tag was placed on the main page to direct people to this page to gain consensus on an issue. Since you're a (rumored) sockpuppet of a blocked user, I'm reverting your changes. CQJ 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

LOBSTER GIRL Mellinda sucking off SPAZ aka Kevin - A final solution

Since this issue continues to be kryptonite for the pests, I propose that we respect their feminine sensitivity to this issue and delete any mention of Lobster girl sucking Spaz from this post and instead add a link at the bottom to a new Wiki entry titled "LOBSTER GIRL". After all this story by its very nature deserves it own listing. The entry could describe the whole incident of Lobster Girl sucking off Spaz and how its very mention causes apocolyptic fits among the "pests". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:65.19.18.223 (talk • contribs) .

A) Sign your comments. Coward.

B) Lay off the "Pest Kryptonite." It's been used, it's old, we get it, you're not original, and you stink.

C) Let's calm down with the Final Solutions, Adolf. Payneos 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an idiot.--XMBRIAN 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)--XMBRIAN 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Current FM/AM affiliates

The Market/Market Rank for WMOS-FM is incorrect it should be listed as Montauk, New York, That is where the station's FCC license is issued (FCC link). Now granted WMOS-FM does broadcasts from the Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Connecticut but technically it is not a Connecticut station, It is a New York station and falls under the NYC or Suffolk County radio market. Therefore I request that the page be temporarily unblocked so that I can make this correction or if there is someone in authority who can make the change please do so. Misterrick 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. You can make the edits yourself. Payneos 18:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As an update, Someone changed my edits, For Your Information, According to the Arbitron rating service WMOS-FM falls under the Nassau-Suffolk County, New York market #18 NOT Connecticut, the market assignment is based on where the station's City of License is assigned, It is NOT where their studios and offices are physically located. Misterrick 03:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many stations out there with full range signals with cities of license in another market (WTKS-FM, XETRA-AM, WFUS to name a few), but in this case, WMOS doesn't even get numbers in the Nassau-Suffolk ratings books, while in New London (which is where they target) they got 8th place in their latest ratings book. --Tv's emory 05:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to look in the Arbitron book for the New London, CT market to find WMOS: (New London market listing at RadioAndRecords.com).

You will not find WMOS listed in the #18 market: (Nassau market listing at RadioAndRecords.com).

Please stop changing this. --Shwookie 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Radio and Records is WRONG, I look at the Arbitron book for Nassau-Suffolk counties and yes it is listed there. Misterrick 02:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I only used Radio And Records because I was able to provide a direct link to both markets there. Arbitron's site is not that friendly. Go to http://arbitron.com/home/content.stm and choose Topline Ratings. Choose "Nassau-Suffolk". WMOS is not there. Now choose New London. There's WMOS. It couldn't be more clear.

I don't feel like changing it back. How about you clean up your mess this time. --Shwookie 21:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

ATTN: Misterrick - I don't care how long you've been in radio, WMOS is in the New London Arbitron book and not in the Nassau book. Period. I don't know why you are being so obtuse about this. If you have issues, take them up here, not privately to me. Anyone can look this up at Arbitron's website.--Shwookie 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Assault on the media

In the section titled XM Satellite Radio, an event is mentioned happening in December 2006. How is this possible when this date has not occured yet. The correct date should be December 2005. Handsomedan 09:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)User:Handsomedan

"Cringe" (Book)

Perhaps someone, less tired than I am at this moment, can add a blurb about their upcoming book and audiobook?--24.47.145.73 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it. Try to get more information on it through other outlets though so we have more to include. --Payneos 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's very little right now. The Amazon listing probably has the most info at this moment.--24.47.145.73 08:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also a listing at booksamillion.com Mascan42 03:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw that, but it had even less information. --24.47.145.73 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive

This discussion page is ridiculously long. I've archived up to February 2006, but it's still long. I don't want to archive any ongoing discussions, but we should try to trim it down a little. I propose archiving topics where the most recent reply is from June 2006 or earlier. Any problems/suggestions? CPitt76 16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means, do what you feel is best. I've been wondering how to do it myself for a while. Payneos 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)