User:Rollosmokes/Archive 2

WRNN

Why did you remove WRNN from the list of Notable Independent Television stations? Just about every other IND in the New York DMA is listed there!! --Eklapper 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty simple: the other stations listed under New York -- and mostly all of those on the list period -- can be classified as "real" independents. WRNN was a "real" independent at one time, but that was ten-plus years ago, when it was called WTZA. And, despite being part of the New york market, it has never been a factor here when compared with that other surburban independent, WLIG/WLNY. At least that station had cable carriage in the five boroughs. So, based on that argument, I removed WRNN from the list again. Rollosmokes

Give me critera for a real independent. WRNN has carriage in all five boroughs, and also in the Albany DMA! We have millions of viewers. Unless you cite your sources, I suggest RNN stay on that list! Do you work for WLNY or something? Eklapper 23:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First, WLIG/WLNY has had cable coverage in NYC for more than a decade. WRNN got theirs only within the last three to four years.

Second, carriage in the A/S/T market means NOTHING in NYC. IMO, WRNN should have targeted itself towards the Capital Region from jumpstreet.

And lastly, when I revised this article, my main criteria for stations being on the list was that they fit the programming description written in the main section. Please tell me, what makes WRNN a "notable" independent when the only original programming on the station is that 2.5 hour block of newscasts, and those two-minute top-of-the-hour updates? The rest of the day is filled with infomercials, paid religion, home shopping, and lest we forget about those bargain-basement kids shows that fill the E/I requirements. No REAL syndicated shows, just cheap stuff to fill airtime and pay the bills. To me, that doesn't make WRNN a REAL independent.

BTW, if you assume I'm affiliated with WLNY, is it safe to say you are linked with WRNN? Rollosmokes 06:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You hate me too!

You wikipedida people hate me to for making edits and using users like they were me but were not. I know you are all working with the tvnewstalk.net people and Dylan who lied and said they would be nice to me this time and was sorry that is wrong and I think I will not be around for you to be mean to. I will not kill myself and if anyone else says that I said that I would kill myself it is a wrong answer. Just because I love WCAU when it was CBS and want to relive those times I am mocked and that is wrong pleases stop and I will be better in the future. That is the SCott Brown promise! MrPhillyTV 22:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What can I say -- another satisfied customer, who has now been BLOCKED PERMANENTLY. Rollosmokes 05:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This guy was a weirdo on TVNewsTalk.net. --CFIF (talk to me) 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop

I have asked you too many times. Please stop reverting my edits. If that is all you are going to do, then you should not come here. CoolKatt number 99999 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"My --" and WPHL/St. John's logo simularities

According to a Creative Services person at WPHL, the "My 17" slogan is scheduled to begin in September, and they have also considered "Philadelphia's My 17" and "My Philadelphia" as well. The St. John's Red Storm logo and the original WB 17 logo was indeed created by the same design company (SMG of New York). NoseNuggets 3:18 PM US EDT June 14 2006.

Field Communications

Your edit summaries state that I added "unnecessary" info. I did nothing of the sort in that article. Be sure to look at page histories more closely. CoolKatt number 99999 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When you thought CoolKatt could make RfC any sillier....

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Man In Black. That should say it all. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

God, what a loser! Rollosmokes 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone had to do it. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If he is blocked permanently, the WikiWorld of Television will be a much better place. Let us pray... Rollosmokes 06:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Digital broadcast info for various stations and possible national AccuWeather channel

I was looking at TV listings on Zap2it and found some interesting details. Apparently WWOR and WNYW cross offer each other on their DT3 channel. I was also looking for a listing that had WABC online Eyewhitness News Now as a sub-channel. It has ABC Eye Witness News & Weather listed and I wonder if it is the same feed as online. If this is the case, I think AccuWeather has created an all weather channel, like NBC Weather Plus. I wonder if other ABC O&O channels offer this service along with WFMZ and WSVN. Have you heard anything about a national AccuWeather channel? Sam 06:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in WABC-TV was poorly written, and the mentions of the other stations and NBC in it are unnecessary. Furthermore, it should be flagged with a "citation needed" marker. AS for what the stations do with their DTV subchannels, perhaps we should leave it up to the Television Stations WikiProject to determine whether they should be included in articles.

Furthermore, mentions of what the stations call their respective weather radars (eg.: The station's radar is called "Mega Doppler 3", from KYW-TV, now deleted) is unnecessary and redundant. Those lines don't belong in articles. Rollosmokes 06:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this guy, not Strafidlo is putting that in literally every single TV station article. —Whomp [T] [C] 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

BenH

You are reciving this message because you have been involved in a dispute with BenH before. Due to some currently ongoing disputes with this user, I invite you to check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH. —Whomp [T] [C] 01:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WSYX

Thanks for your recent additions to the history section of the station. It was much-needed. I had planned to rework the material, but you beat me to the punch. Thanks again, --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop reverting my edits, especially if you yourself do not want to get blocked. Also, stop being uncivil on my talk page, if you can't be civil, don't leave me any messages at all.

And believe it or not, you ARE violating WP:OWN. CoolKatt number 99999 05:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, WKBS and WGTW need to be merged, like it or not. CoolKatt number 99999 05:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

this is exactly what I am talking about CoolKatt number 99999 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt, get real and stop making threats. You aren't an admin (Thank God) so stop acting like one. --CFIF (talk to me) 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that link back to the talk page does make a good point. When CoolKatt is getting to you, remember to stay cool and be WP:CIVIL. Morgan Wick 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

WTXX ideas

I noticed you cut out some info I added in on WTXX, so I thought I'd explain my rationale.

• It actually is somewhat interesting that channel 20's signal (as WATR-TV) decently covered Hartford while WHNB's signal couldn't reach New Haven--and that NBC stuck with channel 30 despite this fact.
• There really was no realistic chance of channel 20 going to another network after it lost NBC--it would have required ABC or CBS to ditch one of their strongest affiliates in channel 20's favor. Plus, it was pretty obvious that channel 20 was having a hard time finding syndie fare to fill out the broadcast day, so it appeared that was why WATR's owners sold it off after it was obvious that it would have to go independent.

So how aren't any of these relevant? Blueboy96 16:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that it isn't relevant, but it was all redundant and did not need to be expanded further. Most of what you revised -- especially that CBS/ABC thing you put in there -- can be considered speculation. In reality, there was no way either of those two networks were going to switch from a powerful VHF station to a low-rated UHF. I seriously doubt that any discussions between Thomas Television (the original owners of WATR-TV) and CBS or ABC even took place.

One thing I've learned is that you shouldn't overwrite sometimes, as you can veer off the main focus of your story, or in this case, write something that reeks of manufactured speculation. NBC had its reasons for staying with channel 30 all of those years, and the Thomas family had their reasons for selling channel 20 after losing NBC. Now, unless you've done some research into what those reasons **were**, then let's add it. Otherwise, keep it short and simple. Rollosmokes 06:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Channel 48

The history of channel 48 should not be butchered article-wise. It needs to be in one article. CoolKatt number 99999 05:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:CoolKatt number 99999/Unbutchered history of WGTW-TV This is what the WGTW-TV page should look like. CoolKatt number 99999 06:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not nominate non-mainspace articles for deletion. This is my userpage, so leave it alone please. CoolKatt number 99999 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I did delete the page and turn it into a redirect to my main user page Now, do NOT threaten me ever again. In fact, just leave me alone. YOU have been warned. CoolKatt number 99999 07:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And you yourself are violating WP:POINT by saying the ariticle should be deleted. CoolKatt number 99999 07:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Only that one page was violating WP:POINT. CoolKatt number 99999 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999

I seem to be having problems with CoolKatt number 99999, too. Is there anything that can be done? Kramden4700 19:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do with that Rollosmokes. I've never really dealt with RfCs before so I'm not even sure how they're supposed to end, etc. Thouhg honestly I think you should request arbitration instead, so there is a binding decision here he has to pay attention to. You and CFIF seem to have the most problems with him, so if one of you want to go ahead and detail what happened previously and include all this latest behaviour, I'll certify the problems, and the attempts to reach out to him. --Crossmr 15:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WWOR Sports (WCBS & WLNY)

I put it up for debate on the talk page. Lets settle this peacefully. Milchama 11:12, 06 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually...

YOU don't start any games. Leave me and Blueboy96 alone. I am getting closer to filing another RfC. And don't even think about getting that one deleted too, I will find a way to stop it.

And my last word for this message: WP:OWN. CoolKatt number 99999 03:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WWOR-TV

My intentions are to keep the article within a certain level of quality. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with me wanting to claim ownership of this article.

From the time I revised this entry on January 29th [1], the structure of the text has been the same, with minimal changes. CoolKatt number 99999 has decided that it needs further restucturing, creating more subsections based on the different ownerships [2]. He attempted to do the same thing with KYW-TV [3] and WCAU [4], but it didn't work. In WWOR-TV, this is not necessary either. The previous versions were fine as they were before CK changed it.

Obviously, you didn't read Talk:WWOR-TV or you would have seen my comments on why I reverted back to a version of BETTER QUALITY. So, before you accuse me of violating WP:OWN, check first. Rollosmokes 05:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I did read your comments. I don't doubt that you believe your version to be superior. CoolKatt, however, obviously disagrees. This is an honest dispute, and the solution is not to dismiss opposing viewpoints and unilaterally revert. (Doing so without a summary and marking your edit as "minor" were especially inappropriate.) I suggest that you pursue some sort of mutually acceptable compromise, or at least make an effort to discuss this matter with CoolKatt in a constructive manner. Whether you realize it or not, you are basically attempting to claim ownership of the article. —David Levy 06:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't been following our ongoing dispute, talking to CK is akin to finding a needle in a haystack. If that RfC against him won't do anything to keep him from bulllying myself or others, I'm going to try mediation. If that doesn't work, he'd better get ready for RfC No. 2. Rollosmokes 06:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're unable to reason with CoolKatt, I suggest that you attempt to build consensus by discussing these matters with other editors. Surreptitious reversions won't solve anything. —David Levy 06:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

First it was you....now it's my turn to get a frivolus RfC from CoolKatt

I'm shaking in my boots. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Darn, too bad I missed it before it was deleted. Anyway, CoolKatt is getting his comeuppance finally. We're not Wikisaints, but he has been a lot worse. He deserves the block, though I wish it were a longer one. Rollosmokes 16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CFIF.....That is some realllly strong evidence against me.... --CFIF (talk to me) 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm back

See title. CoolKatt number 99999 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

...And, are we supposed to welcome you back with outstretched arms and a John Sebastian song playing in the background? I was hoping you learned your lesson from being blocked, but you apparently didn't. You started up again with WWOR-TV and also re-reverted small changes I made to Hearst-Argyle. Not to mention your attempt to evade your block. You should have been permanently banned, or at the least asked to refrain from editing television articles indefinitely.

Just to let you know, that frivolous RfC you filed against CFIF will go up in smoke, just like the ones against A Man In Black and myself...take that to the bank! Rollosmokes 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration/CoolKatt

Sure thing just let me know when.--Crossmr 16:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the note, Rollosmokes, and will try to look into the matter soon. Thanks, --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI...

In case this helps your arbitration case, CK was warned today for adding speculative (translation: unverified) call letter meanings to pages, as part of a RfI.[5] Amnewsboy 13:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Wbaltv-actionnews82 edited.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Wbaltv-actionnews82 edited.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999 at it again!

CoolKatt's latest needless merger idea seems to be TVX Broadcast Group and Paramount Stations Group. It seems almost as if he is writing some sort of fictonal alternate broadcast history. Kramden4700 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Amnewsboy. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

See my response on User talk:Pathoschild. CoolKatt number 99999 02:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

WDCA

Your change to the page WDCA was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. CoolKatt number 99999 09:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CoolKatt number 99999 10:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

More tit-for-tat. Is this your only comeback -- a generic message? Is this the only defense you can put together as the noose gets tighter around your neck? You have been warned and warned about your behavior, yet you continue to do what you have been asked by administrators and others NOT TO DO, and you leave these smart-ass remarks on mine and others' talk pages. How sad.

You are truly on your last legs, my friend. I give you a week more, maybe 10 days, perhaps 14 days, and you'll be gone from Wikipedia forever. Really, the sooner the better. Until that inevitable time arrives, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM CONTACTING ME unless you want to know what REAL INCIVILITY looks like. Thanks. Rollosmokes 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

G'day Rollosmokes,

I appreciate the pressure something like your interactions with CoolKatt can cause, but please refrain from making comments like the above. They do nothing for your cause, and raise the general leavel of incivility and unhappiness on Wikipedia a fraction more than it needs to be. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark, can you really blame Rollo for doing this? CoolKatt is crazy, and purposely harrassing and provoking Rollosmokes to get this kind of response out of him so CoolKatt can play the victim once more. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, don't let incivility breed incivility! Morgan Wick 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My intention was not to be purposely uncivil. I will admit to wanting a reaction out of CK. I've been quiet for a while as I've waited to see how this episode would play itself out, and between CK's continued behavior and the slow-as-molasses arbitration process, I'm losing patience. I hope this is all wrapped up by the end of this week and we can say adios to CK once and for all. Rollosmokes 07:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, from what I'm told, ArbCom cases take forever. Gather up all our evidence and prepare a statement assuming this case gets accepted. --CFIF (talk to me) 13:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

KYW-TV

I've visited Philly a couple of times, so I figured I'd weigh in.

• 1. I always thought KYW-TV had been founded in September 1941, but according to Jeff Miller's broadcasting history page, it actually got a commercial license on July 1, with regular broadcasts beginning on September 3. [6]
• 2. The station began calling itself "KYW-3" in 1991 and adopted the "KYW-3" logo in late 1991 ... see TV Ark for a video of the news open used at the time. It seems pretty obvious that this whole campaign (including the use of KYW-AM's sounder) was to identify more with KYW-AM.
• 3. KYW-AM insists that it "moved" to Cleveland in 1956 and "returned" to Philadelphia in 1965. You can reasonably infer that this is the case for KYW-TV.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs)

First, I won't doubt the actual date of commencing operations. Secondly, the mention of the rebranding to KYW-3 was already mentioned in the news operation section (redundancy). And, thirdly, no matter which way you say it -- whether it's Westinghouse who moved or KYW-TV that moved from Cleveland to Philly, it's still the same thing.

Nitpicking...you keep changing single-digit numbers written as a word to a number. This is incorrect from a stylistic point, as I've said to you before. And you keep over-expanding some sentences that should be left alone. Rollosmokes 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Coolkatt RfA

Looks like it has been accepted...it's gonna move to the evidence phase within 24 hours. --CFIF (talk to me) 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Hi! I'm just a casual observer of TV station articles, and I like to learn a lot from them. But I wonder, what's the purpose of succession boxes for NY station articles? (If this is part of a bigger project, I don't know about that.) Previous call letters are within a station article, but I'm not sure there's an instance with NY stations (you would know about this) where a change in affiliation occurs (a fictional example, the affiliate of WABC-TV switches to WCBS-TV). Maybe you need to create multiple succession boxes for different call letters within the same article? And should the succession boxes show changes in affiliations (e.g. WPIX changes affiliation from independent to The WB)? This is not a criticism, I'm only wondering. Tinlinkin 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the succession boxes in some other articles (such as in WEPN), but I hadn't seen then in a television station article until I found it in WNET. I plugged them into all of the major New York stations' entries as a feeler of sorts, to see if they'll fly. Perhaps there isn't any use for them here (mostly due to possible redundancy with the Infobox), but we'll see how it goes. Rollosmokes 06:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine

If you want me to stop this, then fine. I will listen for once. CoolKatt number 99999 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Rollosmokes 08:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil.

A comment like this, however much you may feel it, should be kept off Wikipedia. There is no need for such things, and they do not help matters. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't see what was uncivil about your comment, I'm not sure what I can do to explain it, but I'll try. It was clearly and obviously a taunt. This is uncivil. "I can't wait" may be true, but telling someone to their face that you can't wait for them to be removed from Wikipedia is plainly and undoubtedly uncivil. Whatever you may feel personally, such sentiments simply should not be expressed publicly on the wiki. This is basic. Hope this helps to explain what was uncivil about your comment. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rollosmokes, when will you post your evidence? --CFIF (talk to me) 12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You asked on the arb page, go here and add evidence like the rest of us have: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999/Evidence Its basically a rehash, but I guess tighter wording more diffs. Mention specific behaviour issues, problems, etc.--Crossmr 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, add them to that page instead of just continuing on your statements. --CFIF (talk to me) 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Newscast anchor lineups

I have removed the anchor lineups from the newscasts in KTTV, KYW-TV, WCAU, WGN-TV, and WTXF-TV. With a listing of the news team rosters (anchors, reporters, meteorologists, and sportcasters) in these and other articles, I feel that listing them underneath the title of the program which they work on is redundant. That can easily be done by listing the anchor's assignment next to their name on the roster section (eg. WCBS-TV#Anchors). Also, let's stay away from using station tagline titles (such as "Weather Authority" for WNYW or "3 on Your Side" for KYW-TV) and stick to the basics (respective eg. meteorologist and consumer affairs). Rollosmokes 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: This reversion

It's worse than "making the article worse"; per this vandalism to CFIF's user page, I suspect this IP is a sockpuppet of none other than our old friend, banned user CoolKatt number 99999. (A red flag went up when I noticed similarities in style.) Morgan Wick 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Need some help taking down Sinclair

Hey Rollo, was hoping that we Wikipedia TV buffs could use our influence to head Sinclair off at the pass. Recently started a petition calling for Sinclair's licenses to be yanked--as well as those of their shell company, Cunningham Broadcasting. My interest got piqued when I heard WCCB may be about to go on the block--and it would be a perfect fit for Sinclair. But I'll be damned if those dirtbags get their hands on a Charlotte station.

Help me spread this around--the link is here. Blueboy96 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No nitpicking this time...

...Geez, I had no idea that old man Bahakel has passed on. So one would assume the possible break-up of Bahakel Broadcasting is a conditional, posthumous occurance? And, are there any other parties interested in WCCB?

Now, to your original request: it's gonna take a lot more than a petition for the current FCC to even consider pulling Sinclair/Cunningham/Glencarin's licenses. As long as the present climate prevails, I think we'll see the Fairness Doctrine return in some form before Sinclair loses any television station license. But, it's a noble effort by you nevertheless.

Well, Cy himself was, at least in public, not interested in selling to anyone. But his kids have been making noises about selling off their stations--especially WCCB, which is by far their biggest and most profitable station. If they did decide to sell WCCB, I would be VERY surprised if Sinclair didn't make a bid--after all, it already owns stations in the Triangle and Triad, and WCCB would give Sinclair ownership of stations in all three of NC's major markets. But given Sinclair's past history, these clowns are morally unfit to be broadcast licensees. I would think that other interested bidders would be Raycom, Pappas or even Fox itself. In any case, if WCCB goes on the market, the Bahakels would do well to be very selective about a buyer since WCCB is the only locally-owned station with decent OTA coverage of most of the Charlotte market (WHKY-TV may be locally owned, but it's almost unwatchable in most of the market except on cable or satellite).

It's worth a try to get the FCC to turn their hairy eyeballs on Sinclair and Cunningham--even in this current climate, I find it hard to believe the FCC would just blink at such an outrageously illegal situation. After all, Cunningham is holding itself out as a separate company even though nearly all of its stock is controlled by Sinclair's owners, and it only operates stations where Sinclair has markets. It even has LMAs with all of them! That by itself should be enough for a whopping fine, if not outright yanking of licenses. But then you've got Sinclair operating de facto duopolies in six markets where it legally can't have duopolies. To wit:

• Baltimore: Sinclair can't legally own WNUV because Baltimore has only seven stations--too few to allow duopolies, despite its market size.
• Colubmus: Sinclair already owns WSYX and can't own WTTE because WSYX is the #3 station in that market while WTTE is #4. Plus, Columbus doesn't have enough full-power stations to allow duopolies.
• Greenville-Spartanburg-Asheville: There's already one duopoly there--WSPA-TV and WYCW (both owned by Media General--and a Sinclair purchase of WMYA-TV would leave only seven unique owners in that market.
• Huntington-Charleston: Sinclair already owns WCHS-TV and can't own WVAH-TV because WCHS is #3 while WVAH is #4.
• Dayton: This market has only eight full-power stations (or seven, if WPTD and WPTO are considered one station). Plus, Sinclair already owns WKEF, the #3 station, while WRGT-TV is #4.
• Charleston: Sinclair can't legally repurchase WTAT-TV because Charleston has only six full-power stations--too few to allow duopolies.

I think this is worse than RKO General's blatant lying ... at least RKO didn't set up shell corporations to evade ownership rules. Plus, Sinclair is in far worse financial shape than RKO was even during the worst of the FCC's regulatory pressure. I say we ramp up the pressure on them ... if the FCC doesn't take Sinclair down, Wall Street will. Blueboy96 16:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered sending a letter directly to the Bahakels?

If you want a tougher FCC in the very near future, vote Democratic in November... yes, I am politically shilling on Wikipedia.

Personally, I think the FCC should go back to no duopolies at all in the fairly near future; if stations want second television stations they have digital subchannels to do so. Don't monopolize two digital feeds and waste bandwidth. I know this would result in MASSIVE upheaval as CBS would probably have to lose its half of the CW and Fox would have to find a buyer for its My Network TV O&Os, and probably the network itself, and unless it's accompanied by a crackdown it would affect Sinclair virtually nil (though hopefully the FCC would at least block any Sinclair-to-Cunningham transaction), and large media companies would spend millions of dollars to stop it, but it would result in a broadening of options for station owners and possibly allow more large station owners to set up shop. It could also accelerate the success of the CW, because having no stations involved in duopolies improves the odds that those stations will adopt programming strategies on a par with the Big Four networks. LMAs would still be possible, and the FCC would also loosen and tighten as needed to make it easier for small stations to compete. Morgan Wick 06:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kaiser Broadcasting

No disrespect -- but I had put it where I had it because of the market changes and because it gives off more detail as to what has happened over the years... Don't you think??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SAT AUG 26 2006 3:25 PM EDT

First of all -- To be honest, yes I own the article. The proof is right here. Second, I made the changes reflecting the upcoming estimates from Nielsen Media. --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SAT AUG 26 2006 4:17 PM EDT

No hard feelings!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SAT AUG 26 2006 4:30 PM EDT

What I meant to say was that I personally opened the article on Wikipedia. I don't try to gain copyright status... --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SAT AUG 26 2006 4:43 PM EDT

Well maybe... But the market listings are still the same when they are changing... What about that??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SAT AUG 26 2006 4:53 PM EDT

Mr. Scott Brown

I brought this Mr. Scott Brown to the attention of Splash here after I did a little sleuthing and I have the left the full details of what I found on Splash's talk page where I note that I stronly feel that Brown appears to be ringleader of the Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet ring. I also left a sockpuppet notice on Brown's page and also found some people who were vandalizing it, after apparently there was a call for vandalism on a website [7]. Splash has set the wheels in motion to get Brown's user page rants deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mr. Scott Brown. It appears that this was all caused by a newscast tape trade that went bad and Brown attempting to use Wikipedia to get revenge, something that Brown has attempted to do with the content that is currently on his user page. I'll be keeping an eye on the situation. TV Newser 04:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yankees Number 34

Hah! Thank you so much. If you look at the edit when I added them all, I put in a link to number 32, which led to nowhere. When I looked I realized that I had linked to an image that didn't exist, since I'd made 34. I linked to that one, thinking that the mistake was in linking to 32.

Fortunately, I made an image of the circle with the pinstripes, and numbers 1-0, so I can easily make any number. I'll get right on this, and, thanks again. Silent Wind of Doom 08:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Scott Brown, from my perspective

This user, who is suspected of being one of many sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg (see above comment by TV Newser), left a small bit of vandalism at KTTV on August 26, which I cleaned up.

After recognizing the name (he has also used the same name once before, though without the "Mr."), I left this message on his talk page:

"This is getting ridiculous. You have already been tagged as a sockpuppet, yet you continue to evade your block. I deleted the vandalism you left on the KTTV page and have alerted other users (and, more importantly, administrators) to watch out. Do all of us a favor and keep your useless, meaningless rantings to yourself and your supposed Yahoo forum and leave Wikipedia alone!!"

To which, he replied under the heading "GET A LIFE YOU FREAK!!!":

"Hey Rollosmokes. What in the hell is wrong with you? Maybe you don't appriciate my posts. And you think I'm causing trouble here, Give me a Break!!! So if you can't give me the respect I deserve, You can kiss my a$$!!! Cause you're really pissing me off by not welcoming me here you a$$face (originally BASTARD)!!! Mr. Scott Brown 05:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Now this, from a friendly administrator:

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please remember that even if a contributor's edits are total vandalism, there's never any need to resort to personal attacks. I am specifically talking about your message on User talk:Mr. Scott Brown. Thanks, and feel free to contact me, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think I personally attacked Mr. Brown. I was just merely stating what would happen to him if he continued to act distruptive by vandalizing pages, creating a user page filled with cruft and lunatic-like rantings, and, more importantly, evade his blocks from previous attempts. I think my comment was very civil, unlike those CoolKatt number 99999 have left for me and others in the past. (And, look at what's happened to him!) Rollosmokes 06:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My deepest regrets and apologies to you

Hey Rollo, I would like to owe you an apology for what happened. Maybe I got a little bit too carried away. Listen, I'm not really here to cause any trouble, I'm just trying to be reasonable regarding my own articles. And regarding the KTTV article, I just thought I could add some more info about the station. I wasn't really trying to mess it up. Maybe the reason why I'm getting carried away with myself these days is because I'm dealing with several issues, One including the fact that TVNT may have an anniversary coming up about my embarrassing moment last year. Again, I am very sorry for what happened. And even though I take sole responsibility for that incident, I'll make sure it does not happen ever again. Mr. Scott Brown 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

• CoolKatt is banned for one year from articles which relate to US television stations. He may continue to comment on talk pages.
• CoolKatt is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts. After the expiration of any ban imposed by this decision that ban may be re-imposed should he resume tendentious or disruptive editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999#Log of blocks and bans.
• All of CoolKatt's subpages that do not comply with Wikipedia:User page#What about user subpages? shall be deleted.
• Should CoolKatt violate any ban imposed on him by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999#Log of blocks and bans

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

RKO General

I made the changes to the station charts for several reasons: First and foremost, look at other television and radio station charts such as Metromedia, Tribune Broadcasting, Hearst-Argyle, Gannett Company, and a few others. The style is consistent throughout. The changes I made keeps the charts in-line with the others. Second, with regards to radio stations: AM stations do not use an -AM suffix after the call letters. Again, you will notice this in the Metromedia radio station chart. If you want to keep the suffix, though place it inside of parenthesis, then that may be fine. But AM stations should read (for example) "WOR-710" or "WOR (AM)-710" but NOT "WOR-AM-710". (FM stations, especially those birthed from AM stations, usually have the -FM suffix after the call signs.) I attempted to make similar changes some time ago, but they were quickly reverted. I can say perhaps someone is trying to claim ownership of this article, which is a no-no. But I'll reserve opinion until I get a response from this comment. Rollosmokes 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Rollo.

(1) You're right about AM stations not officially using an -AM suffix. Will revise accordingly.

(2) Just because the other charts may be consistent does not mean they're right. You use WOR-710 as your example. Nowhere on WOR's website is the name rendered with a hyphen in the manner you seem to like. And nowhere does the Federal Communications Commission render the name as WOR-710. I chose another example at random: KRTH. It refers to itself as K-Earth 101 and KEarth 101, but never K-Earth-101. The FCC calls it KRTH-FM, never KRTH-FM-101.1. Oh, that's got a funny name. How 'bout WRKO? That calls itself WRKO and WRKO Radio 680 and WRKO AM and even (sorry, Rollo) WRKO-AM 680, but never WRKO-680. Same with the FCC. On this basis, I'm going to remove the hyphens...not because I "own" the article, but because it's right. And I see no reason to bold the names of the networks that TV stations are affiliated with--in standard Wikipedia style, bold is generally reserved for the entry name where it first appears in running text and significant variations on that name or referent. (Obviously, as the central topic of the chart, bold is appropriate for the station call letters themselves.) If bold is used for TV networks in charts in other articles, that's of little relevance to this article that's in question. Maybe you'd like to bring those charts in line with preferred style, and get rid of the unnecessary bolding.

(3) Speaking of which: You impute that "someone" (er...I guess that'd be me) is perhaps "trying to claim ownership" of the RKO Pictures article. I don't know how such a thing is possible in a wiki format, but since you believe it is, shall we not observe that perhaps "someone" is trying to claim ownership of informational charts across multiple articles? A "no-no" or not? And not only do you--to use your language--appear to be trying to claim ownership, you're not even getting it right. Which is the real "no-no," yes?

Peace. Dan. —DCGeist 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up:

You know, there's a case to be made that the RKO General section--that is, the narrative and the station charts--should be its own article. It's of only limited relevance to the article it's currently part of--RKO Pictures. While I find the history fascinating, it likely seems extraneous to most people looking for information on the movie studio. The section is more than enough to constitute its own article--and a good one. The narrative could be summarized in a few sentences in the RKO Pictures article, with a featured link to the new RKO General article. Your thoughts? Best, Dan—DCGeist 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with DCGeist about the idea to split the article with a new "RKO General" article! 00:18, 4 September 2006 151.29.145.226

Overmeyer Network on WBMO (WATL)

According to your edit to the WATL page, channel 36 was brought back in 1969 as WBMO affiliated with the Overmeyer Network, but according to the Overmeyer page, the network launched in 1967 and lasted less than a year making it impossible to be affiliated with the network at that time. Could you please clarify this for me or on the WATL page? Thanks. --Dleav 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me.--Dleav 00:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)