User talk:Radiofox35

File copyright problem with File:Jammin925.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Jammin925.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Closedmouth (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:KSYU951ABQ.JPG.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:KSYU951ABQ.JPG.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 01:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mikemoral♪♫ 01:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Infinity Jammn925.jpg.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Infinity Jammn925.jpg.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In WBAV-FM, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page WSOC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited WZFX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KJMS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WSRB, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGCI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WCDX

Your additions to the WCDX page are not sourced with in-line third-party reliable sources. These kind of sources come from newspapers, TV stations, books and the like. Unfortunately, for what you trying to source, VARTV.com is not going to work. You need to find back issues of newspapers or TV station articles (via the Internet Archive) to source what you are trying to add. Until then, what you are adding will be removed as "unsourced". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I don't own Wikipedia, but I do know the rules here and I follow them. Rules that you are currently ignoring. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if people "really loved that station" or not, it isn't sourced. Read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. If you continue, you will be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Radiofox35. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. Thank you for your interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. We're well past the stage on Wikipedia where we are accepting content without any sources. All material you add to the encyclopedia has to be sourced to reliable third party sources such as newspaper articles and books. If you don't have any such sources for your additions, please don't add the content. It's up to you to add the sources at the time you add the content, not the job of established editors to do so. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Radiofox, the above comments by Diannaa and Neutralhomer are complete BS. I'll add the information back and with reliable sources and citations just to please them, but I'll make sure your information is back.--ɱ (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

All content added to the encyclopedia should be sourced to reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia:Citing sources states that "editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed." -- Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You cite a guideline that uses the word 'advised'. It advises editors to cite information. It is by no means a requirement. What world would we live in if every sentence in every article in the whole of Wikipedia had to be cited? That is preposterous and unrealistic. Indeed Wikipedia's policies declare it unnecessary and unrealistic for every sentence in every article to have a citation.--ɱ (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, an official Wikipedia policy, states that "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." That means that all material added to the encyclopedia needs sources. If you don't agree with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, there's plenty of other websites, or you could start a blog. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You read that policy poorly. The policy states that all information added to this encyclopedia must be verifiable (able to be found in a reliable source). It does not say "able to be found in a reliable source noted in the Wikipedia article". This policy barely talks about the necessity of citing or referencing verifiable sources; it talks about original research, that editors cannot add their opinions or ideas, that added text does need to be fact that is published in other reliable works. Therefore your point is null, and I reiterate that indeed Wikipedia's policies declare it unnecessary and unrealistic for every sentence in every article to have a citation.--ɱ (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources are covered under WP:RS. You obviously are unaware of the rules of Wikipedia. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N are the big three. You need to read up on all three, stop arguing with an admin (and an established editor) like you know better than both of us and stop digging the hole you are in. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrator or not, I wouldn't care. In so many places people tell you to treat all people on this Earth equally, one of those places being the Bible. I believe Jesus was the one to say it. So I treat rookies such as Radiofox well, supporting his edits, unlike you all who just love hitting that rollback button. And I treat administrators as I would any other editor. Just because they have more abilities on this website does not make them any better than I. Also, I am very aware of your policies, and follow them to the best of my ability. Guidelines I follow as guidelines should be - with reasonable prudence.--ɱ (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you follow the Bible, that's awesome, though it has nothing to do with this discussion. WP:V and WP:RS are policies, not guidelines and neither you nor RadioFox are following those policies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, WPV is a policy, and neither I nor Radiofox are guilty of breaking it. Neither of us published opinions or ideas. Sure, WP:RS is a policy, but neither of us broke that either. Why? Because my source is reliable, and whether or not you think otherwise is irrelevant. And Radiofox and I both used that reliable source, even if he was improper in using wiki markup to show it. Also, I never said I follow the Bible, I was just appealing to editors who do, seeing as Christianity is the largest religion by number of followers, as well as very predominant in the English-speaking world. I only follow the part of the Bible that coincides with the Jewish faith, that being the Tanakh. --ɱ (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Neutralhomer. I couldn't see any indication that VARTV.com is subject to editorial oversight or the like; it doesn't look like a reliable source to me (if you disagree, the Reliable sources noticeboard might be the appropriate place for such a discussion). And while Ɱ is technically correct when he says that reliable sources merely need to exist, the burden of evidence rests with the editor who wants content included. If you cannot provide a reliable source upon request, that content should be removed. Huon (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I wanted to mention that removal of content because of a lack of citation is only allowed if an editor challenges the validity of the information in good faith, while clearly here, the editor who removed the content was just unhappy at the rookie editor's usage of wiki markup and presentation of information. He also had no right to demand the immediate removal of the information, as that burden of evidence section says that editors can be given time to find reliable sources before any content be rightfully removed. In addition, both of the editors who confronted the rookie editor did fail WP:PRESERVE, a section of a Wikipedia policy that states that editors should retain information and fix it rather than going forth with immediate text removal.--ɱ (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ɱ: OK, one, don't speak for me. You don't know what I was thinking when I removed the information added. Two, if you look at the radio station articles in the Richmond, VA area, they all have a long history of unsourced content. Numerous editors, all acting in good faith, have added tons of information about stations, but never add any sources. Radiofox35 is a new editor (just like the others) and added unsourced content. I left a message saying what he/she had to do. You, Ɱ, stuck your nose in a situation that you didn't belong in and you both have tried to question and argue WP:V and WP:RS, which is laughable. You need sources, you don't have them. A site that gets it's content from original research isn't reliable.

As I said above, you both need third-party reliable sources, which come from newspapers, TV stations, books and other sources. You can find back issues of newspapers or TV station articles on the Internet Archive. Back issues of newspapers can also be found at the Library of Virginia website. There are also radio station history sites all over the internet. But the burden of evidence rests with you both, not me, not Dianna, not Huon...you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(←) Sure a reliable source would be nice, and if you really thought that the information isn't correct, you can challenge it, but I still reserve the right to keep the information on the page for the meantime, until I make haste in finding one of the reliable sources that you say are more than abundant. Still, your deletionist attitude is unappealing, especially as it is contrary to that WP:PRESERVE. You should not delete the information if it is uncited or poorly cited. Try fixing it, or just instruct the original contributor on how to fix it.--ɱ (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it, the burden doesn't rest with me, it rests with you. You want to add this information, you want to use this source, you are the one who decided to stick your nose in this. So, the burden falls on you. Stop trying to pass the buck. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I get that, but I'm just telling you where you did wrong, and you don't seem to get that. You should not have removed the content so quickly or without challenging the information's accuracy. And you should have tried to fix it or instruct the original contributor how to. That's what Wikipedia's policies say to do. Now I will do my part, don't worry.--ɱ (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I did tell the user how to "fix it"...all the way at the top of this section. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Only after you edit clashed with him twice, reverting the edit twice. What I'm saying is to tell him how to fix it, even before one reverting edit, and certainly before two.--ɱ (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WCDX (Part 2)

The "sources" you added to the page are mirrors of this website and a business website with no information about WCDX. I have removed the information, once again, as it is still unsourced with in-line third-party reliable sources. It is best you listen to Dianna, Huon, and myself and not Ɱ. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Way to throw me under the bus for my good-faith edits. How partisan of you to make such a statement. You're essentially saying "Listen to the people who side with me and not those who side with you, because we're the right ones!"--ɱ (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't give me bull. You didn't find any "Newspaper clips and links", you find a business site with no information about WCDX and two Wikipedia mirrors. None of the websites you linked were newspaper websites, none. The information could be true, Dude, but unless it is sourced, it is original research and not allowed under Wikipedia rules.

I'm sorry that you're going to quit, but if you follow the rules (specifically WP:RS and WP:OR), you will find things will go a lot easier. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You should also read WP:BURDEN. You would see the burden of proof is not on me, but on you. If you want the information added, you need to find the proof and not mirrors of the same Wikipedia page (not reliable), blogs (not reliable) and personal websites (not reliable), along with original research (definitely not reliable).

I wouldn't have to "jump down [your] back" if you would listen and follow the rules. You aren't, so I have to be the bad guy in this. You follow the rules, you listen, we will get along much better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Radiofox35. The material you added is copied pretty much word for word from http://www.worldwizzy.com/library/WCDX, which is a Wikipedia mirror site that shows the way the article looked back in 2007. This cannot be considered a reliable source. The info was removed as unsourced and untrue, back in 2008. Please note that reliable sources are required for all additions to the encyclopedia. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Just to let you know, you are now at 3RR. What this means is you have reached the limit of three reverts to a page in a 24 hour period.. If you exceed three reverts in a 24 hour period, you can be blocked for edit-warring. Consider this your warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this tag should go on your talk page too, Neutralhomer. You've made at least three reverts to WCDX today as well. I should place a 3RR warning on your talk page...--ɱ (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to KOAS may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In November of 2013, the Long time "Oasis" (from the Previous [[Smooth Jazz]] format Moniker was dropped in favor of "Old School 105-7"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Radiofox35. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)