User talk:Kfbk
I'm sorry, but I had to revert you on KFBK. This was done partially to bring it back into harmony with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines shown there. All edits that don't comply with these guidelines are changed to match what our MoS recommends.
In addition, there seems to be some slight POV in your edits. I would also recommend you click on the aforementioned link to read about our neutral point of view policies. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing subjective about KFBK's article.
Objective Fact: New local management was brought in by Clear Channel in 2005
Objective Fact: More than half of the news department has since exited some been replaced by recent grads at a lower salary, other positions remain open due to budget (and long-term plans for the facility which I am not able to publish until San Antonio announces them)
Objective Fact: The only overtly conservative local talk show has been replaced by an overtly left-wing local talk show, also due to budget (the gone host was an experienced, award winning journalist; the replacement host is the oldies DJ husband of one of the memebers of the new management team. It is a fact that this radio station is struggling to make budget and replaced one show with another to avoid losing a high-producer from the sales side whom they could not afford to lose. We left that out because to people outside, like you, such a fact could appear to be subjective.
Objective Fact: KFBK lost both aircraft and associated traffic reporters (3) to budget cuts. They outsource traffic to a Clear Channel traffic service that uses the CHP Sig Alert web site as source material, and also serves several other radio stations in the market. Material formerly exclusive to KFBK may be heard on any radio station in the market that broadcasts traffic.
Bias: read the second sentence of your own words above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.107.10.168 (talk • contribs) 15:35, June 27, 2006 (UTC).
I'm sorry, but this wasn't about facts. It appears to have been due to the fact that the paragraph in question did not really fit our neutral point of view policies. NPOV is required on Wikipedia, and, unfortunately, there are no exceptions to this. It's just how things work around here. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You may continue to snipe our radio station, if that is your recreation, which we suppose it is. We will simply assign this page to our promotions department and let their interns monitor and restore this article as frequently as necessary, or until I see your face in the next meeting or hear your voice on the next conference call. If your objection is mere formatics of this article we welcome your help in that area, our only concern is accuracy.
We were however amused by your line that Wikipedia isn't "about facts"! We shall have to revisit the dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "encylopedia" again for it has apparently been changed since last we looked. On the other hand my NPOV observation here is that people who lecture other people about the definition of objectivity (NPOV) really ought to at least be aquainted with what the word means.