User talk:Fightingirish

Wanna start a new topic? Just use the link to leave a new message. Thanks.

This is Fightingirish's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, Fightingirish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Allen3 ^talk 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Elliott

You added some wrong info to the Jon Elliott page. He hosts from noon-2. He is only going to be a temp host at AAR not a permanent.

THANK YOUUUU

Seriously, the HD image thing was horrid- thanks for making a new one. Simple. :-)

TPT

Why should TPT be split up into two articles? They are essentially the same channel. Channel 17 should not have its own page. Smkohnstamm 03:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, channels 2 and 17 should be split. And the articles for both should be in the form of their call letters. This is the form in which all radio/TV station articles take. Channels 2 and 17 are separate stations, with separate licenses, different sign-on dates, power output, etc. Granted, both stations are owned and operated together. But so are KMSP and WFTC. And KSTP-TV and KSTC. Should both sets of those stations be combined? I think not. --Fightingirish 08:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's fine, do whatever you think is appropriate, I trust your judgement. PS nice movie choices in the userboxes.Smkohnstamm 16:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thetubesband.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thetubesband.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I noticed that you use a {{radiologo}} template for radio logos, is there one for TV logos as well? If so, it would greatly help me in my fair-use rationales, which I normally just use {{Non-free logo}}. Take Care and Enjoy the rest of your weekend....NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{tvlogo}} --Fightingirish 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, many thanks. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thetubesband.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thetubesband.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCBS FM changes

I kwept the airstaff lineup but took down the management stuff. The Logo is the Classic vershion of the CBS FM logo it is slightly diffrent then the curent logo. If you want to get rid of a logo get rid on the 2004-2005 yellow a blue logo. The Q104.3 page has DJ lineup and management. I also took down the jack rateings someone had posted

DLA75

Radio station schedules

I'll chime in here, since I have been one of the people that has been removing these promotional schedules from articles. I really do feel that there needs to be some discussion of this topic, so we can sort this all out once and for all.

I am of the mindset that this stuff is mere clutter, and just duplicates what is on the station's website. And while the odd station here or there may have some solidity in their on-air roster, that is certainly not the case for most of the stations out there. Articles for TV stations don't have the whole on-air schedules on them, so why should radio stations? For large markets like New York, L.A., San Francisco, etc., I have been more lenient, since at many of these stations, a good deal of the on-air talents are actual celebrities, and are well-known in the industry. But Cleveland? No offense, but I just don't see the mention of the early Sunday morning public affairs show to be of vital importance. There is no real credible reason for schedules of this type to be included in an article. I will say that I have compromised a bit and rewritten some on-air schedules in truncated paragraph form.

I just posted the following at Wikiproject:Radio Stations. Here's the text:

I've run across quite a few of these things. These are long lists and schedules listing every on-air shift and every on-air personality at the station, even down to the Sunday morning public affairs shows. I've noticed that many of these have been put into the articles by radio station employees themselves. In fact, I'm currently involved in an editing conflict with a radio station employee who obviously think that adding this stuff is of vital importance. Take this one for example:

Programs

Weekdays

12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.: After Midnight with Blair Garner
5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.: Mantel and Michelle
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.: Michelle Maloney
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.: Michael J. (Also on WPOC)
2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.: Chuck Collier (Also on WMJI)
7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.: Kat Jackson

Saturday

12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.: After Midnight Weekends with Larry Morgan
6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.: Ben and Brian's Big Top 20 Countdown
9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.: Michelle Maloney
2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.: Chuck Collier (Also on WMJI)
7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.: The Big Time Saturday Night with Whitney Allen

Sunday

12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.: After Midnight Weekends with Larry Morgan
6:00 a.m. to 6:30 a.m.: Public Affairs with Ted Lux
6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.: Cleveland Country Classics with Chuck Collier (Also on WMJI)
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.: American Country Countdown with Kix Brooks
12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.: Kat Jackson
6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.: Scott Glaser/Daune Robinson (Also on WMJI, WMVX & WHOF)/Ryan Lloyd

Quite frankly, I feel this is rather excessive, is promotional, long, poorly laid out, irrelevant, filled with names of people few people really care about and merely duplicates information found on the stations' web sites. These are too directory-like and full of unimportant information. I think it's time to address this issue and see what others involved in the project think about schedules on radio station articles. Personally, unless we're talking New York or L.A. or some talk station, this is really useless information, particularly for a market like Cleveland. Especially when one can find this on the station's website. And it's certainly not a place to promote one's buddies.

In closing, many of the radio articles suffer from massive bloat. Take WCBS-FM for example. I tried paring this thing down, to be straight to the point and a nice read, without all the rambling. This was even after many people complained about how poorly written the article was prior. The thanks I got? People reverted all the changes and added even more crap, including a whole list of the station's management and sales department. Unreal! My goal is merely to help make these articles to the point, easy to read, free from spam and advertising, factual, filled with key historical and technical information, and above all, an interesting read for casual visitors. And quite frankly, I think this should be key to any article. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Fightingirish 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fightingirish,

Thanks for the note. You're certainly not wrong that many of these articles are poorly-written and need good copyedits to remove advertizing and listcruft. I recently removed a janitor from one station's list of staff. Do not be discouraged that your changes are getting reverted. The version of WCBS-FM that you had here looked pretty good (except that it lacked sourcing). See if you can't restore some of that to the article. If the changes get reverted by gibberish-inserting IPs, we can always semi-protect the article.

As far as the local schedules go, I wouldn't include them, but I'm not sure a slow edit war is the solution, either. You've made your case on WT:WPRS; let's see if we can't get some kind of a consensus. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing missing rationale tagging

Greetings. I see that you've removed a bunch of missing rationale tags without actually providing a rationale. Please don't do that. If a rationale is not provided the images will just be tagged again, and eventually deleted. You can find information on providing a rationale at Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline.--Gmaxwell 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCBS DJ Times

The the DJ shifs are not listed on WCBS FM.com why not have the times on the page?

AfD nomination of Go Vegan

Go Vegan, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Go Vegan satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Vegan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Go Vegan during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SLSB talk 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update anyone reading this, the Go Vegan article, which I created primarily to eliminate a bunch of redlinks, was kept, as SLSB withdrew the AfD nomination.--Fightingirish 11:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

In your statement, you brought up BenBurch. I wonder if you are aware that he was the third person to support my nomination, and he reiterated it today? You also made several other charges that were not substantiated. Can you provide some examples? - Crockspot 03:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from RfA talk page:

I think that says more about BenBurch than it does you. If you both are getting along, more power to ya. But this little harassment thing of yours from the get-go was one of the most apalling things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. But Ben is a good guy, and has indeed turned the other cheek. I struck the 'vandalism' part from my opposition, as it is a strong statement. However, I really don't consider this to be a very mature edit, do you? I have many problems with you being an administrator on Wikipedia. You've been a member of CU for several years where one of your main objectives was to stalk and ridicule members of Democratic Underground. Via CU, you have also made some rather vulgar, violent, racist and homophobic statements, and don't really seem too regretful of them. You have also used Wikipedia talk pages to wage flame wars with other users. And to top it off, I have heard accusations of you, MONGO, et. al. trying to stuff the ballot box via outside lobbying and campaigning (I saw an image of the email MONGO sent out). Frankly, this disturbs me. Suffice it to say, there is no way in hell that I can support your RfA. Too much controversy, too much immaturity, too many flamewars, and too murky a past. The extreme controversy currently surrounding your nomination is your comeuppance. You reap what you sew. And your absolutely deplorable online behavior in the past should be a sign that it is indeed time to grow up, that is if you seek a position of responsibility such as being a Wikipedia admin. --Fightingirish 11:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an immature edit (the diff above). It's also a year old. I made a mea culpa early in my RfA that my record previous to 2007 was a little spotty. I have improved a great deal since then. - Crockspot 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Station Stubs

Thank you for tagging KCCQ as a U.S. radio station stub. You might be interested to know that there are separate, individual templates for all 50 states so as to further classify these stubs. Thanks! JPG-GR 06:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freeform vs. progressive rock

Please see my comments and objections in Talk:Progressive rock (radio format). Wasted Time R 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split KMPX info from KFRC-FM to KMPX (FM)

You might be interested to know that I split off the KMPX info that you contributed to the KFRC-FM article into its own article, KMPX (FM) (after reverting a poorly-executed attempt to split to KIFR). I hope you are OK with the results. DHowell 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie afd

Hello, please note that when you click on this afd it goes to the next one on the list. I think you need to do the template on the article. Good luck! Renee 01:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Forgot to add the template.--Fightingirish 01:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then

Yes, it just seemed like a collection of links to me. Perhaps you should create them after there's a need, or when creating them there should be some content... the lack of content was what really made it stick out to me. However, I'll ignore them, if you actually do plan on filling them with content. Sorry for any perceived offense.James Sugrono_{Contributions} 08:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More radio empty pages

I can eventually see the purpose of years in radio but you really need to add at least something to make it legitimate. You can't argue if you create empty pages if they are tagged for speedy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 08:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If however you plan on adding details asap please use the under construction tag so other editors know your intentions thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 08:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KSL (radio)

I'd like to thank you for your comments on the talk page for KSL (radio). You worded your argument very well and covered all the guidelines necessary. It's good to see another well-written editor working on the WP:WPRS project, especially in terms of content, as I'm more of a structure-type editor. Keep up the good work! JPG-GR 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~FYI, you posted your response to JPG-GR on his user page instead of his talk page. You should move your response to the right page.~~ Never mind, you fixed it. -- Hi Ev 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In Radio"

I noticed your "In Radio" links, via a warning placed on a anon's talk page. This is a REALLY cool idea. I added the relaunch (after three years) of "B94" in Pittsburgh, PA on the 2007. Are you doing just notable changes or format flips for all radio stations? I would love to help out, either way, as I work on ALOT of the radio stations in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don and Mike

You tagged Don and Mike as having poor or irrelevant examples, could you visit the talk page and give some specific examples?--Rtphokie 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Hey, I get it. You're really into this, I'm a noob who apparently stepped on your toes. I don't want to fight, and I respect the considerable work you've done here.

However, considering the nature of the wiki, I do feel the need to state my case, and I hope you're open to considering it.

The two things that make WMYX unique in Milwaukee are their marquee programming feature (The No Repeat Nine To Five Workday) and their cash contest (Phrase That Pays). Not all radio stations do that. All radio stations do things _like_ that.

My thought is that every radio station entry should include their programming features and promotional concepts, not in a way that markets them to the reader, but in a way that describes them (reporting the news, not sensationalizing or spinning it).

That's all I'm going for.

It's no different than the FOX Broadcasting Co entry displaying a current program lineup and list of previous and current network slogans. It's not encouraging me to watch, it's just an accurate description of what they're doing.

If all radio station entries were like WMYX is now, they would have a vague history and format description. Radio stations are more than that, and deserve something more.

IMHO. Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.26.176 (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very nice tone in that first paragraph. You're being rude.

The advertising slogans you mentioned are not very unique. There's at least a station in every single market that does both. And for many, many years, too. Not very original.

It's no different than the FOX Broadcasting Co entry displaying a current program lineup and list of previous and current network slogans. It's not encouraging me to watch, it's just an accurate description of what they're doing.

Apples and oranges. And slogans are encouraged. The stuff you added was cruft.

If all radio station entries were like WMYX is now, they would have a vague history and format description. Radio stations are more than that, and deserve something more.

You should take a look at other radio articles. In addition, check out the Radio Project. In addition, I suggest you also register, lest someone assume that your very first edits were vandalism.--Fightingirish 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KRBI.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KRBI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lovefm250.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Lovefm250.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Station Entries

First edits were not vandalism, they were my kids. Just because I do not wish to create an account does not make me an intentional vandal, or less of a citizen here.

Please do not mistake my tone, which came out of humility and respect. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make myself. I am a noob. I resepect your work. Because I disagree with you does not make my tone rude. Let's put emotion aside so we can deal with the philosophy of these types of entries please.

Reporting a station's programming lineup, marquee features, even promotional concepts, should be a part of every station entry. It's what gives a station its identity beyond a simple, bland format description and history. Furthermore, each station should have its own Marketing and Promotion segment, just like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_dew.

As a radio guy yourself, certainly you can see the value in describing a radio station more fully. Every radio station in every market does not have identical features. The Cleveland market is much different from the Milwaukee market is much different than New York City.

In fact, that's a great idea for an entry: Radio station promotional concepts. Collectively, radio has been responsible for a number of memorable stunts, events, and tactics that should be cateloged.

—72.131.26.176 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KABL2001.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KABL2001.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KABL99.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:KABL99.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]