Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Mmbabies keeps going and going...

...while we keep guessing and guessing. From the sandbox -- Look at the left side. -- azumanga 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least he didn't try to do anything to an article. Still, you have to wonder what part of "go away" he doesn't understand.Blueboy96 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've been watching this from the sidelines and made an edit this morning, only to have him 'revert' it. He's been really horrible this weekend, espcially when it comes to death threats on Christan artists... Nate 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought he was a Christian ... go figure ...Blueboy96 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he ever claimed to be one. Regardless, death threats aren't very Christ-like, so I'm comfortable in saying that if he ever claimed to be one, he's a liar. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So this guy's left death threats on articles pertaining to other Christian artists? I thought it was a specific agenda against this one. We REALLY need to take action or this could turn into the whole Sinbad controversy all over again. WAVY 10 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the "Sinbad" controversy? I'n not quite aware of that. -- azumanga 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

About that, I thought someone on Wikipedia made that claim. I just read the page and it started before a Wiki editor heard it. WAVY 10 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one from last night. -- Gridlock Joe 15:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BenH is back...

...and for the past week: click here for his latest. -- azumanga 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of "go away" does this guy not understand? I just gave him a long-term abuse warning via Twinkle.Blueboy96 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.Blueboy96 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to propose a change to the "Article Structure". I think this section... "A television station article should include: what kind of programming the station airs are there any original shows that the station shows?" ...should be removed as it was not addressed when User:A Man In Black and User:JzG were proposing the removal of newscast and original programming schedules. Something I fought to keep (with zero help from WP:TVS) and was threatened and ridiculed over. If it is not going to be addressed or fought to be kept, it should not be on this page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

KXAS/KNSD LIN question

Is the NBC owning 75% / LIN owning 25% (or whatever it is) of KNSD and KXAS true or is it another made up thing like the WPXI/Sinclair thing? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true. Per [1] : "We also have an approximate 20% equity interest in a television station joint venture with NBC, which owns all of the remaining interest. The NBC joint venture owns KXAS-TV, the Dallas NBC affiliate, and KNSD-TV, the San Diego NBC affiliate. NBC operates these stations pursuant to a management agreement and has managerial control over the joint venture." -- Gridlock Joe 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for attention to an article

I've been working on the article about NBC's New York City-based flagship station, WNBC. It could use some help from others interested in the topic, but I am mostly here because I'd like a few people to come and share their opinions on a few topics we have been having disputes over. For example, we are trying to decide if a paragraph is relevant to the article. I won't go into detail here, please come over and see WNBC's talk page. Thanks, aido2002 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem edits from IP

This guy--an IP contributor in Trenton, New Jersey (via Comcast)--has added incorrect info to several TV articles. I've just spent a good four minutes (thank you, Twinkle) reverting his poop. I thought he was a BenH sock, but it seems BenH is in Florida while this guy is in Trenton, like I mentioned earlier. He's been level-2 warned already, but keep an eye on him. He's staying along the Boston-New York-Philly-Baltimore axis so far.--Blueboy96 13:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

He's vandalized again--final warning issued.--Blueboy96 14:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Time for a block -- he's still at it. For instance, he still believes that NBC Universal owns WNCN. -- azumanga 23:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Newscast schedules

Recently, a single member of the Wikipedia community has taken a one person crusade to remove newscast schedules from TV station items on the site. Since I don't see any consensus that this should be done, it seems fair to open a dialog. The user claims the schedules are a violation of WP:NOT, which I can see on some level. However, the claim is nebulous at best - as a list of newcasts aired by a station isn't really a schedule, but rather a listing of the station's locally produced content. I'm eager to hear other thoughts on the matter (and suggest users refrain from revert wars until we settle the issue). Boisemedia 05:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be that "user". I don't claim them as WP:NOT#DIR, it would be admins User:JzG and User:A Man In Black who are citing that rule. I don't feel the same way. I am only citing that rule as I could get no one from WP:TVS to help me when this was originally being discussed. I posted here with no response. So, I proposed a slight rule change, no help, it was knocked down. So, with no help on either front, I did remove them, whether I agreed with the rule or not. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan on helping with the removal, which, in my opinion, would validate something we as a whole pretty much don't agree with. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you "as a whole" don't agree with it, why didn't you support Neutralhomer as he claims? Morgan Wick 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think station articles need local schedules. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to "check local listings" because it is an encyclopedia, not TV guide. I've seen encyclopedias include national network schedules, but never local station schedules, and there was apparently an edit war over the local schedule in Glendive which started this discussion. Glendive, people. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedias don't have local stations at all. Your point? Morgan Wick 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was that Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, and I stated that above. If people are checking Wikipedia for local TV listings, they are using it as a TV Guide. If they are not checking local listings, then there is no point in including local listings at all. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that users aren't checking Wikipedia for TV listings. However, if I'm looking up an item about a local TV station, I find value in the newscast schedules for several reasons. 1) It helps indicate how much news a station produces, 2) It helps me judge what time of day that station competes with others in its market, 3) It provides information on the titling of the newscats, 4) It shows how long those newsasts are. I'm not advocating we include a station's updated 24-hour schedule - but letting users know when regularly scheduled newscasts appear seems valid. Boisemedia 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that information readily available on each station's website, which is linked from each article? And if not on the station's website, TitanTV or Zap2It have that information, plus you can see all stations in a city together. For that reason, newscast schedules really aren't necessary in Wikipedia articles. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most stations go through TitanTV for their schedules (some make their own like WGME). I would like to make the suggestion that we add the TitanTV link in the external links section. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, there is a proposal right now to include historically significant television schedules on Wikipedia, reversing part of the old WP:NOT/TV Guide thing. Anyone is free to weigh in here. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If that passes, I will be the first to revert all the pages and bring back the schedules. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the rationale for a local newscast schedule being historically significant, NH? Without being sarcastic, I really am curious. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be historically significant, but since it is something that the station airs and it is original programming that is produced by the station, then I think that should be OK. Now, if there was a schedule of every program on KXXX-TV (syndicated, network, talk-shows, etc), then yes, that shouldn't be allowed. I think, since they are produced by the respective station, anchored by staff at that station, then I feel that a list should be allowed but it should stop there. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Mmbabies...

This time we have 68.94.98.93. I've already repaired most of the edits, and a final warning has been given (regarding KRIV, where I saw this issue first show up). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good bloody grief ... what's it gonna take for AT&T to nuke him for good? Unless he's using a friend's puter ...Blueboy96 01:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• He did it again ... I just reported him. Blueboy96 01:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours; it can be re-blocked if it starts up again on the same IP, but it seems it switches pretty often. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Firsfron ... reason he switches so often is that he's on a DSL account. Maybe get ahold of his ISP ... I've tried and I assume Azumanga's tried, but maybe they'll listen to an admin. Their abuse addy is abuse (at) swbell(dot)net.Blueboy96 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can try, but I don't guarantee anything, natch. I've semi-protected KTMD for now; regular users can edit it, but IPs and newly registered editors cannot. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you able to semi-pro the other Houston stations' articles (as well as his "faves" like The Gospel Bill Show, Muppet Babies and Maniac Mansion)? I have a feeling that as long as he has nis internet and the pages have no protection, he has "keys to the kingdom", with the desire to "vandalise the castle". -- azumanga 00:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can semi-protect articles, but protected pages are considered harmful, so I hesitate to use it extensively. Which Houston stations are getting the most vandalism? It's hard for me to judge. I've semi-protected these other three articles for now. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that protected pages are considered harmful, but I believe vandals like Mmbabies are even more harmful. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that a range block against AT&T is going to be the only way he can be stopped. -- Gridlock Joe 18:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents' worth from this evening: Semi-pro all of the articles. And Template:Houston TV too. His vandalism has been an almost nightly occurrence since he was blocked, and I'm tired of it. -- Gridlock Joe 02:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Remind me to remove the templates in two weeks or I'll forget. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A bot took care of that. Just a reminder to all to be watchful, since the semi-pro has expired, he may start vandalizing them again. -- Gridlock Joe 18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the blocks, that flipping idiot's still at it: 75.18.56.90. I want him expelled from Wikipedia more than immediately, even if it means disabling IP edits for ALL AT&T accounts. As long as there are ways in, he will vandalise. -- azumanga 01:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that isn't feasible. He's on a DSL account in Houston--the risk of collateral damage is too great. But I'm with Azumanga on one thing ... this has gotten to the point where we probably need to call the police. Blueboy96 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstfron: when protecting the Houston TV articles, you forgot to protect KPXB. Guess what article mmbabies vandalised tonight. -- azumanga 01:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't forget; there wasn't a whole lot of vandalism on that page, and we're not supposed to protect to prevent potential vandalism. It's semi-protected now, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

BenH is back too...

And for almost the past month: 76.7.121.99

Who likes to do some revertions for me? I would, but: (1) I'm at work right now (as I write this), and (2) there's over 100. -- azumanga 12:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP for 72 hours. I used rollback on the recent edits that appeared to be vandalism ("correcting" the spelling of Corvallis to "Corvalis", changing Retro Television's website to an incorrect URL, etc). I left the edits which are unclear to me are actually vandalism. That's only left seven edits in the past few days. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As the changes came across the VA, WV, MD, and PA stations (the stations I watch), I quickly reverted them. I also reported the IP to WP:AVI as well (thanks Firsfron for blocking him). Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, he finally did it--he went into my territory. He should have quit while he was ahead with UNC-TV (his edit there was actually fairly good, except for all the stubbing). But the rest--what a bloody mess. I may have to watchlist all the major NC and SC stations now--thought the guy was gone for good. Blueboy96 11:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he was in your territory at least five times before (maybe more) in the past year (which was the number of times he vandalised UNC-TV). -- azumanga 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any pages which aren't watched by WP:TVS members? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive this page ASAP!

This page is almost 180 KB. I'm not sure, but it might be enough for three archive pages. Morgan Wick 04:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WVLT-TV

The article for the station WVLT-TV in Knoxville, TN has lead anchor Alan Williams linking to a different Alan Williams, some Welsh politician. I do not know how to correct this so I am posting it here, thanks. -- 24.151.176.32 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link. -- Gridlock Joe 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A article name change...

"Independent station" can now be found at Independent station (North America). This was done to refocus the article to cover indies in the United States and Canada. Please make your notations. Rollosmokes 07:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We got another one to watch...

...another IP editor, 65.34.130.240, registered to Comcast. What this person does is add the cable slots the channel appears on. But the problem here is that he places them in entirely-wrong places -- many of them in the middle of the history sections. For instance, the article would talk about the station's ownership in the 1960s, when all of the sudden, it mentions that "W-So and So can be seen on cable channel 6", or something like that. Another one to keep your eyes pealed for. -- azumanga 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Broadcast templates

There appears to be some question about what the term broadcast means in terms of 'broadcast TV' templates. To me it is perfectly clear that broadcast is any over the air transmission, licensed or pirate or whatever. Local cable channels are not broadcast TV so they should not be included. Including these would open up a can of worms especially when a local market covers a large area with many different providers all carryinig their own local channels. Also local cable channels are not available to large numbers of people within the broadcast area. Without a clear statement on the project page on this, I fell they should not be added to the local broadcast TV templates. Vegaswikian 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My solution would simply to drop the word "broadcast" from the main headings of the templates, relegating them to the appropriate sections. This way, local cable channels can be easily included, without confusion or nit-picking. -- azumanga 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Which opens up a larger can of worms. Your suggestion would say that anything I can receive on my television set would be eligible for listing. For me that would mean maybe 10-20 traffic cameras with live real time full feeds and at least 10 real time camera feeds provided by one of the local broadcast TV stations. Also calling broadcast, broadcast, is not nit-picking. Also most cable channels are not notable. They are not even covered by this project since they are not a television station by the definition there. In fact, they are also not even mentioned on the project page. In the past, these channels have had a very bleak prospect when discussed on AfD. There is a difference between a television station and a cable or satellite channel. Vegaswikian 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other opinions on cable channels being included as broadcast stations? Vegaswikian 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You know I was just thinking about this. I don't mind having cable stations on their own tier. Though I think it should be titled "Regional cable and satellite channels". As far as the concerns about notability, no this shouldn't include the city public-access stations, unless they serve the entire market area. So NY1 and some statewide public access networks, maybe. I also wonder if we should add a row along the bottom to list neigboring DMAs. Squidfryerchef 03:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How would you address the problem with the cable channel not being available in the entire DMA? The one that brought this here is a cable channel in a census-designated place of 8,600 people being listed in the DMA box for an area with over 2 million people. I don't even think that the channel, KLBC, has asserted notability for an article, but that is a different issue. If we need cable, then add a box that can be more specific about the coverage areas. Vegaswikian 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than the broadcast vs. cable issue, I see no difference between a cable-only station that reaches only a small part of the DMA (plus significantly more people in a neighboring DMA) and a low-power station in Pahrump such as KPVM-LP, or even a full-service (but low-power) analog station licensed to Laughlin, such as KMCC channel 34. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For your question about neighboring DMAs. I'd rather see a link to an interactive map of the US with the DMAs drawn out and the one that lead you to the map highlighted. Don't know if this is possible, but it would be clearer then a list. With the list, it would be difficult to visualize where the neighboring DMAs are or how large they are. Vegaswikian 05:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We probably need to clarify what is meant by a "regional" cable channel. My idea of a regional cable channel is something like NECN or NESN. These are carried by many cable and satellite providers and their listings are in TV Guide. My idea of what doesn't belong in the template are local public access channels. In my area most towns have 3 of these channels, for general public access, schools, and city hall. And this is with >100 towns in the DMA. As far as "KLBC", I might be inclined to include it though because of the affiliation with RTN. Squidfryerchef 01:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Need some help fixing the LA stations

Somebody's added U.S. flag icons to all the LA station articles ... it's well established this isn't appropriate fair use, and it doesn't conform to our style anyway. I've already taken care of KCBS-TV, KABC-TV and KNBC--but if someone can help out, it would be much appreciated. Blueboy96 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you got all the ones he/she did. I didn't see any other flag icons on the LA stations, although I had to remove some from AZ stations. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

State flag icons are in the same boat, aren't they? (See KTRK-TV.) -- azumanga 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There were some on WVEC-TV, but I ixnay'ed them. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Several other pages had the aniflags, I deleted the. The person who added the was User:Aznismyname2367, same person who added the AMS/NWA seals to pages. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

State flag icons don't run afoul of fair use, as the images are already in the public domain, but we did come to a consensus not to use them. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

AMS / NWA certification

As we all know, the use of the American Meteorological Society and National Weather Association icons to identify the meteorologist's credentials is not acceptable, as such use falls outside of "fair use". But should their credentials be identified? If so, maybe we should use plain text links to the AMS and NWA articles, instead of the actual icons themselves. Comment? -- azumanga 02:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen plain text Wikilinks used and I personally think it is OK. You would probably have to check the AMS or NWA member page just to make sure the person really does have their AMS/NWA seals, but those pages are easy to find. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If the weatherguesser is that notable, he/she should already have his/her own article, in which the AMS or NWA seals should be appropriate. Otherwise, I am against having components in the article that pull attention away from the original topic of the article. -- dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what azumanga is suggested is like "Doug Hill (AMS Certified)". Which is just a slight Wikilink, not a icon or an image. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if a weatherguesser's name is being used in a list, the AMS certification isn't relevant in that context. If the article includes specific discussion of Doug Hill, however, then in the context of that discussion, his credentials are relevant. But that's just one man's opinion. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:I Missouri

Template:I Missouri has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WB New Jersey

Template:WB New Jersey has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:UPN New Jersey

Template:UPN New Jersey has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BenH is back, again...

...and on a new IP, too. See: 72.236.190.51. -- azumanga 04:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Ben was in Florida? That IP comes from Tennessee...? ;;;;Firsfron of Ronchester 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he has relatives in the Bristol area (or he originally came from there), especially since the Bristol / Johnson City stations are also his frequent targets. -- azumanga 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He's corkscrewed up and down the Atlantic Coast so far ... I'm keeping an eye on the Charlotte stations, since it looks like they might be next. Getting ready to 4im warn him. Firsfron, get the banhammer ready ... Blueboy96 18:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the BenH and Mmbabies accounts highlight the need for more admins watching this WikiProject. Any volunteers? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently in training ... originally tried to become an admin in late April and hoping to try again soon (damn, I hope that doesn't come off wrong). Blueboy96 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies is already generally well-covered in that area, as his changes are reverted within minutes (his persistence is another issue altogether). BenH, however, is a problem, as his changes could remain for days, even weeks, before it's been dealt with. -- azumanga 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits were made to WJHL-TV, I have Warn3'd User:65.34.130.240, where more edits are coming from. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that the protection on Houston's TV stations have lifted...

...guess what one of mmbabies' targets are for tonight? Yes -- KVVV-TV, whose protection (with most of the other channels) expired yesterday. In addition, he also expanded to Bakersfield. See 71.156.123.70 . -- azumanga 02:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And now he's shooting the works -- see 66.139.10.84. That IP has since been blocked indefibitely. But as long as he can find a new IP, he WILL continue. Earlier, BlueBoy mentioned that it's best to call the police. Personally, I think it's better if we let something stronger handle this, as the crime's occurring across state lines -- FBI. -- azumanga 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys aren't serious with the talk of calling the police, right? Is there anything actually criminal about this guy, let alone "America's Most Wanted"? Don't we still have a policy against legal threats? Wouldn't it be enough to contact the ISP? Morgan Wick 00:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He used threatening language on some of his edit summaries. I don't think the FBI's the way to go, though--somehow I would think that this kid (and I'm assuming he's a kid) needs the Houston police to put the fear of God into him. And maybe remind his parents that they could be held responsible for what he's doing. Blueboy96 12:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone TRY calling the ISP? It seems that as long as this moron finds ways back on Wikipedia, Wikipedia remains in danger. -- azumanga 01:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I sent a boilerplate letter to the ISP, but never heard back. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time for a range block. The damage this character's doing outweighs any collateral damage. -- Gridlock Joe 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe Gridlock Joe's right ... if this guy were in a smaller city, I'd oppose it. But this is Houston we're talking about. At the very least, require anyone editing from that range to create an account in order to edit. If nothing else, it'll force Mmbabies into the open. Blueboy96 16:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, force him to make a new account, as, I think, the mmbabies account is still banned. If there was a range ban, he will be forced to open a new account, or use a non-AT&T source to do his dirty work (such as a library, school (once that's back in session), etc.). -- azumanga 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

After weeing what mmbabies did tonight (see 71.147.18.159), a range ban against all SBC / AT&T customers is the ONLY way. I would also include an apology to legit AT&T users explaining why. This has got to stop. Now. -- azumanga 05:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but are you advocating a range ban against a provider across the entire nation? For something limited to the scope of a fairly minor WikiProject? This isn't exactly Willy on Wheels we're talking about here! At the very least I would go for more of a global consensus (that is, bringing in more editors from "outside") first. Also, how soon before he gets a WP:LTA entry, or other public attempt for long-term admin intervention? Morgan Wick 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I may start work on an LTA page for this guy later today. And to be clear, I don't support a full range block--just requiring that anyone in that range to create an account before editing. As I understand it, that'll make it easier to shoot him with his first edit (which technically can be done per WP:BAN). Blueboy96 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant -- I don't want to have a total ban on AT&T subs from editing Wikipedia; I just would rather have them getting an account to do editing. -- azumanga 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If we can narrow the block down to *.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net, that would be better in terms of limiting collateral damage. -- Gridlock Joe 00:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(RI) I've semi-protected the Houston pages indefinitely, but that won't solve the problem of him moving on to other articles. I opened a discussion on WP:AN/I here. Could someone help me by providing other IPs that I missed? I know there are plenty of others. Like Morgan says, it seems like an awfully large range to block, but comments on the incident page are welcome. As for calling the FBI or the Houston police, what would they even do? It's true he has made some threats, but if his ISP isn't concerned... Firsfron of Ronchester 09:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's Mmbabies' rap sheet right here, 129 socks and counting. -- azumanga 18:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We got another one. He seems to be moving to more general vandalism. Morgan Wick 02:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think with the now three seperate death threats, that we should also let perhaps the Houston area police department know. Even though they are the rantings of an obviously disturbed person, we should let the police know. Perhaps they can track the guy down. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, when the time comes when mmbabies dies, no God, Goddess or Deity will be admitting him to Heaven (or their equivalent), and if they don't have anything like Hell, they'll create one just for him. I'm not a religious person, but him accompanying his vandalism with comments such as "Praise the lord, where every nation rejoyce. Praise the lord, with one mighty lord." and "Hallejuah, Thank you lord." make my blood boil and steam blowing out of my ears. And I bet the Christian God is reacting likewise for misappropriating praises in an act of crime. I just hope AT&T and the Houston Police know how serious this is. -- azumanga 04:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

...and people like him worry me. That is why I think we should let the higher ups in Wikimedia know what is going on, then have them let the Houston Police and AT&T know what is going on. If we can let them know when he is making these edits, I bet AT&T can trace them back to through the IP addresses and what modem used that IP address when....or at least I think you could. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit sums up what he thinks of blocks and our efforts to control him. He needs something and someone to set him straight, and his parents (if indeed he's doing this in an unsupervised bedroom and he is younger) to be notified about his belligerant behavior. I happen to really care about the project and hate to see users like him co-opt it as an outlet for their anger and wishes for how they want the world (or Houston media) to work. Nate 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And the "hits" just keep on coming -- see 75.18.59.21. Number 132, for those keeping track. -- azumanga 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 133. This "eggs" crap has got to stop. -- azumanga 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 110% WAVY 10 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Make that #134: 68.92.33.205. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if he'll be so cocky once he's forced to create an account and gets whacked. Remember, guys, per WP:BAN any sock of his can and will be blocked on sight. Blueboy96 12:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Last count, 136 137. WAVY 10 18:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's a good place on this page to put this: Mmbabies Sockpuppet Counter: 137 Morgan Wick 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How about at the top of this talk page, accompanied with some snarky statement such as "Mmbabies... Wikipedia's 'Osama bin Laden'" (which, I believe, he is). -- azumanga 23:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. Everyone knows Willy on Wheels is (was) Wikipedia's Osama bin Laden. Morgan Wick 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else imagine old-fashion-y news music when they read "Mmbabies Sockpuppet Watch"? Must just be me. :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, Mmbbies is the type that can create disaster for Wikipedia and make the news for real if he's not nipped in the bud soon. P.S.: Who's "Willy on Wheels"? -- azumanga 02:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A prolific vandalizer; if you Google, you will pretty much find out all you need to know about him. He's the reason any name with "On Wheels" is banned on sight. But on another note, the Puppet Count is much appreciated and a good addition to the page. Nate 09:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read the HRWiki's History Page, which mentioned Willy on Wheels and another serial vandal, NSMC. I wonder if Mmbabies will be listed there? -- azumanga 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 138. -- azumanga 18:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks enacted

Based on the level of disturbance, I've enacted a number of range blocks, including: 205.196.178.0/24, 64.219.76.0/24, 64.219.77.0/24, 66.139.8.0/24, 66.139.9.0/24, 66.139.10.0/24, 70.132.148.0/24, 70.132.150.0/24, 70.132.151.0/24, 70.20.136.0/24, 75.1.21.0/24, 75.1.22.0/24, 75.1.23.0/24, 75.6.212.0/24, 75.6.213.0/24, 75.6.214.0/24, 75.6.215.0/24, 75.16.218.0/24, 75.16.219.0/24, 75.18.56.0/24, 75.18.57.0/24, 75.18.58.0/24, 75.21.56.0/24, 75.21.57.0/24, 75.24.220.0/24, 75.24.221.0/24, 75.24.222.0/24, and 75.24.223.0/24 . These probably won't stop Mmbabies, but they are tentative blocks that can be widened or added to, depending on the collateral damage. The range block covers 7168 IP addresses. If these range blocks aren't enough, and if there doesn't seem to be a lot of collateral damage, there are some IPs beginning with 68 and 71 that might be range blockable.

Hang in there, guys! Firsfron of Ronchester 11:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's truly a shame it had to come to this ... but AT&T didn't seem to get it. As much as I believe that anon IPs should be allowed to edit, this is one instance where the potential legal danger to Wikipedia (given the threatening edit summaries and the death threats to Christina Aguilera and Nicole Mullen) demanded that we do something. Blueboy96 12:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the upper echelons of Wikipedia know about this? Maybe if Wikipedia's CEO or President (or whatever) sends a letter to AT&T, maybe they'll listen. -- azumanga 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone here (besides me) send a boilerplate? Five or ten of those, sent regularly, might have a better effect than anything else. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it: 71.159.62.236. He will continue as long as unblocked IPs are available from AT&T in Houston. As long as he can get in, he's winning. And he will keep winning until there is no way in, or he shuts down the Wikipedia project. -- azumanga 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what...139 now. (Same eggs and strange math), but he started targeting the Faithville and Superbook pages this time, among other pages. WAVY 10 16:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, mmbabies struck both before, though not as often as the others. Still, its two more articles to semi-protect. -- azumanga 18:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it -- and he's now invading Tampa Bay as well; see 71.156.121.128. Isn't there ANYTHING that we can do to stop him for good? So far, all our efforts have been in vain. -- azumanga 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And can we protect talk pages? As long as Gospel Bill's talk page is open to all, he will continue to threat with his "eggs" s***. (And no, I will not be resorting to his brand of "beeping".) -- azumanga 17:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we also need to protect the talk pages of any televangelist for the time being. His death threats on Jan Crouch under a Team Rocket rhyme are disturbing. I hope it doesn't get to the point where semi-protect has to be put on cable channels as well (which now seems to be a newly added modus). Nate 06:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we may not have much of a choice. WAVY 10 13:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, is it just me, or (at least with the Talk:Jan Crouch page; this latest sockpuppet's edit look more like a...um...spell? WAVY 10 14:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

75.1.20.29 -- the usual targets, the usual methods. This is getting older than the hills. -- azumanga 01:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

71.148.56.183. More range blocking and article protection is recommended. No, I take that back -- More range blocking and article protection is required. Recurring targets include Catch-22, Catch 47, Tracey Sketchit, KUVI-TV and Millennium (TV series), and many more. -- azumanga 17:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think he's taunting us with his real address in this edit, or is it a continuation of his earlier posts about bus drivers' personal info and TV stations "living" in an apartment complex? Nate 05:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. That address is not in the Alief school district. -- Gridlock Joe 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Entry on WP:LTA?

First, for reference, the archive location of the AIV discussion from last week.

With that, I'm wondering if we should add an write-up on Mmbabies to WP:LTA at this point, since he has now gotten to the point where we're at the six month mark and it's clear this has hit long-term status. It would definitely help to have a few more eyes to watch him if he somehow evades the range blocking or switches ISP's. Nate 10:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea. And he will evade the current block ranges, because I used very small ones to start off with. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just submitted the info on this Wikiabuser's edits. WAVY 10 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

State templates for defunct networks

I just nominated {{UPN Massachusetts}} and {{UPN Maine}} for deletion; you can find the nominations here. I might as well note now that other state templates relating to the gone-for-nearly-a-year UPN and WB networks apparently still live on; see Category:Intrastate UPN Templates and Category:Intrastate WB Templates. I don't think any of them are still in use, however. This is not an issue simply confined to Massachusetts, Maine, or New Jersey... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

TBN translator station articles redirected to KTBN

Ohconfucius had redirected nine articles about TBN translator stations into the article for KTBN. Since we strive to create an article for every TV station possible (with information), I reverted all of them and left a message on his talk page that we usually try to detail specific translator information in their articles, such as technical info, TVQ's and other station peculiarites (it was a translator of another station previously or started on another channel, for instance), and local template connections.

He also added details about each translator station he redirected into the KTBN article; since the network is pretty much mostly translators between their full-power stations and cable/satellite coverage, if we were to list every translator within KTBN, it would quickly become unmanagable and a huge list. I also let him know if he had any issues with the 'article for every station' goal that he could bring them up here. I'm just bringing it up for the reference of the project and my reversions. Nate 05:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He also did the same for at least thirty TX radio stations in Alaska, so fixing those also (though that's more under the purview of WP:WPRS). Nate 06:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, it would be next to impossible to list all of TBN's translators on a single page, since they have at least 200 to 300 of them nationwide. Furthermore, they all carry programming either off the national TBN feed, or from the nearest TBN station, not KTBN (which may have some shows or messages pertinent only to Southern California viewers, and not seen nationwide on the national TBN service. -- azumanga 15:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to confirm that. The FCC database often lists the LPTV stations as a translator of KTBN-TV. Bullhead City, Arizona translator K51IO is such a station and its Wikipedia entry is simply a redirect to KTBN. I'm not sure KTBN airs programming specific to SoCal - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm thinking that Ohconfucius is right in replacing the articles with redirects, but not in adding information about each translator into the KTBN article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I tend to take many of these KTBN repeaters with a grain of salt may also have something to do with distance -- it's more easier to take the fact that an Arizona repeater is rebroadcasting KTBN than it is for, say, a Virginia repeater to repeat that station, especially since the main TBN feed, without local idents, is on satellite and KTBN isn't. If the FCC does consider the main TBN feed to be KTBN itself (minus station ID), it could also be interpreted that TBN's full-powered stations are "semi-satellites" of KTBN, with local IDs and public affairs being the only variance. In light of this, especially farther away from Southern California, I say that it's more prudent to say that a repeater is repeating just TBN, and not KTBN. -- azumanga 00:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Satellites, yes. Repeaters, no. KPAZ-TV does run a local show at midnight, IIRC, and provides a local 602 number to call as well as the nationwide TBN call-in number. I guess it's a matter of station identification. KPAZ displays its local station ID on screen once an hour, and lately, has been showing the IDs of its translators in Flagstaff, Cottonwood, Globe, and Tucson (both), even though one of the Tucson stations, K57BD, and the Globe station, K41ER, are listed in the FCC database as KTBN repeaters. I don't know what KTBN or the national feed display for a station ID. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nate Speed

(Personal attack removed) -- Nate Speed. If anyone changes something that he does not like, he often changes it back, AND has a temper tantrum, threatening to block anyone who blocks him. Also, it seems that some users are playing into his own hands -- for instance, in PBS idents, he had a user remove the first two black and white NET idents, because they "scare" him. Someone honored that request -- twice. I brought back the idents, because removing logos because they scare is a form of censorship, which is against Wiki rules. And good thing I caught them in time -- they were earmarked for deletion, as they were orphaned. Keep an eye out for this man. -- azumanga 23:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks, Azumanga. They never de-escalate the situation. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. -- azumanga 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for understanding. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I hate sharing my name with others....(sigh). According to his userpage, he will 'block' anyone if they warn him on his talk pageabout something, when it's clear he has no admin power. Can that that be addressed with someone, or is he allowed to have that on his page? Nate 04:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you leave a friendly note asking him to remove that, citing a relevant policy? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, cited WP:No polemical statements and WP:No personal attacks. Nate 07:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone block Nate Speed, please? Despite telling him to shape up or ship out, he refuses to listen to reason. -- azumanga 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

List him on WP:ANI. I think his case is a little too complex for WP:AIAV, but your mileage may vary. Morgan Wick 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Newscast Schedules Revisted

I hate to post something again, but there was never really a consensus on whether newscast schedules should be removed from articles. Without revisiting the argument above, I propose this:

If they are added, they need to be added in a professional, non-tacky way, perhaps in a table format. Several articles, such as KKTV, KRDO, and KOAA have users constantly adding newscasts IN CAPITAL LETTERS and horrible grammar and spelling in the body of the articles. I have removed them about 4 times, because they make the article look dirty.

Thoughts, suggestions? Trodaikid1983 06:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I have been told, newscast schedules are not allowed under WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 10:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Should HDTV links be added to infoboxes?

As far early on since the beginning of the year, several television stations have the HDTV link next to the digital channel number, likewise for radio stations to use the {{HD Radio}} ( (Also on HD Radio)). Now HDTV mainly applies to local station's news programming at the most, not counting network and/or syndicated programming. I propose that the HDTV be allowed in infoboxes to distinguish a digital channel broadcasting in high-definition from just the plain old digital stations.

The reason behind this proposal is that several TV articles (New York) I added it to got reverted back recently to the one without the description because another wikieditor considered it as "redundant and unneccesary." Now, unless I'm missing something, is HDTV and digital necessarily the same thing? Otherwise, the HDTV descripts that were added by others may have to be removed as well. GETONERD84 10:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, others would know more about this than I would, but as far as I know, HDTV and Digital are like apples and oranges. Digital ain't HD and HD ain't digital. So, yeah, I would support adding something in the infoboxes (like the HD Radio tag) about which stations are broadcasting in true HD and not just digital or stretched out SD. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 10:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One question is why add this at all? In a few years, all of them will be digital/HD only. Is it worth trying to keep track of these changes which will hit every station, only to decide in a few years that this is no longer needed? I suppose that there could be a parameter added to the template. Then when the conversion is completed we could simply stop displaying that parameter. Vegaswikian 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unneeded for now. Solely digital channels are usually suffixed by -DT ore -DT3 anyways in the narrative and the infobox, and right now outside of network and some local newscasts time, it's just a simulcast of the analog station. Like for example WMLW in my area airs on analog 41, but also digitally on WDJT 46-2. What we have existing right now seems to work well for me. Nate 01:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the discussion? That's not what we're talking about. Morgan Wick 05:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well to clarify some points, after a question, I'll use KLVX as the station in this discussion. Has it been decided how to list what is being broadcast on the various channels? Without this decision, it is hard to say what should or should not be listed in the infobox. KLVX broadcasts the PBS HD feed on 11-1 (1080), their regular analog PBS lineup on 11-2 (480) and Current on 11-3 (480). What goes in the article about the station? If we need to include all three, then the infobox makes the most sense. Is it encyclopedic to show the format used for each channel? Should services like Digital Emergency Alert System be listed? Vegaswikian 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jamesinc14

Another sockpuppet that's testing our patience is Jamesinc14, who's taking advantage of both regular and IP accounts to vandalise articles, mainly those of TV stations. Examples include KARK-TV becoming a CBC Television affiliate; the Showtime pay channel in the US adopting the Showtime Arabia logo and Nick Jr. schedule; and in the List of PBS member stations, every PBS affiliate in the country is owned and operated by PBS themselves. In the past, he made WSB-TV and KYW-TV affils of Nick Jr. (which, according to him, is now seen on Nick from 6AM to 6PM).

Unlike Mmbabies, Jamesinc14 uses IPs from several internet companies, including Level 3, AT&T and Comcast. Stopping him will just be as difficult as stopping Mmbabies, esiecially with several ISPs involved. -- azumanga 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So that's the infamous "Nick Jr. 2" vandal? WAVY 10 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He is also infamous for posting a really annoying list of minor instances of kaleidoscope-like graphical sequences in cartoons and kids shows into the Kaleidoscope article; I've already deleted his instances of pictures of a kaleidoscope promo for the Simpsons on the Times Square NewsCorp screen twice (I even begged an admin in my last speedy delete petition to lock the filenames from being used again, but they didn't). It seems like I'm the only one watching the kaleidoscope article, so add that to your lists if you're watching him. Nate 01:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought "Cartoon Kaleidoscope" was a type of toy kaleidoscope (though I first thought it was a ficticious programming block). -- azumanga 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it is, but the list that is continually purged from that article just seems to be a compliation of network promos which used a kaleidoscope theme. Nate 04:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While we already have KARK-TV protected, we should have "List of PBS member stations" and "Showtime" protected as well -- he's been striking these places as often as three times a day, often with different IPs. -- azumanga 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He has moved on to other Little Rock stations, KATV and KLRT-TV. -- Gridlock Joe 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And now we have another account-based sock: Bjbarnett. Same MO, adding fictional affiliations and branding to KARK. -- Gridlock Joe 21:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know...

68.45.132.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has returned after a month of inactivity. As before, he's adding incorrect information to articles, such as claiming that WLNE-TV, KAAL, and WRTV call their newscasts "Channel 6 Action News" (and that the first two stations are called "6ABC" instead of "ABC6"; the incorrect brandings actually belong to WPVI-TV) and that it was on September 11, 1995 that the WBZ-TV/WHDH-TV and WJZ-TV/WMAR-TV/WBAL-TV affiliation switches occured, not January 2, 1995. I've already dealt with most of his edits and warned him a few times, but I figure this needed a little wider attention. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He vandalized WJZ-TV as well ... I've level-4 warned him. Can't believe the guy didn't get himself blocked last month. Blueboy96 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BenH is still around...

76.7.127.142 is what he's using now. Much of this IP's edits have already been reverted, but apparently he's still editing with it... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

4im warned ... it looks like he's stopped, but we can't be too sure with this guy. Blueboy96 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone do something and block him already? I had to revert alot of his cruft tonight (8/3), as that IP remains unblocked. -- azumanga 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the last warning was issued on July 31, so he couldn't be blocked. I just gave him a long-term vandalism warning ... after reverting more of his poop. Blueboy96 10:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know...

There is an IP editor, 76.212.131.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that is adding some factually incorrect information to articles and sometimes placing information in strange places. Sometimes, this breaks part or all of the infobox on the page. It seems the user (whose IP belongs to AT&T in San Diego, California) has made a very large amount of edits; I've reverted some of what he's done, and others have reverted other edits, but there still seems to be more that have not been dealt with yet. Three warnings have already been issued to the user. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

AT&T needs to examine this further. We've already had enough trouble from a certain IP editor using the AT&T system in Houston. WAVY 10 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are we having so many problems bringing anything up to AT&T, it's like they're too big to bring up such serious problems to. Makes me glad that I'm on a cable provider which probably has an actual abuse team working on complaints. Nate 09:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we got a prolific sock on our hands -- see KAMR-TV and WFAA-TV: "Blanche D.23" and "Dingbat2007" are doing the same crap as the IP account. -- azumanga 12:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already declared Dingbat2007 a sockpuppeteer. -- azumanga 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that he's going to vandalise each and every TV station on Wikipedia -- Dingbat already has four pages of stuff in his contribs list. Doesn't he have a life? -- azumanga 00:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dingbat2007 has now been banned indefinitely, which hopefully will strengthen our resolve if he attemps to pull this stunt again under another name or IP. -- azumanga 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of Television Stations by State

Just a couple questions - first of all, I was curious if anyone had started a template for lists of television stations. Looking at the lists for different states and the priority of this task, I would guess not. My next question is what qualfies for a list of stations by state. It would seem to me you would want only stations that physically exist in a particular state, but I see that, for example, Wisconsin lists Duluth, MN stations in the Superior area, MN list has Mason City, IA, etc. Thoughts? Rohdeaa 03:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually because the station is technically licensed for the other side of the state line; for instance KBJR advertises as a Duluth station, but is licensed to Superior, and usually its a matter of interpretation as to the dominant city in the market (the same thing for Mason City, as a couple stations are licensed to the Minnesota side of the DMA). As for the other question, we have a template for each DMA and the affiliates for each network by state utilized in each article. Nate 07:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We have another BenH sighting

76.7.127.152 this time. The bugger's gone in my territory again ... look what he did to WCNC-TV ([2]).

The guy can't seem to stay in one place--first he went to Charlotte, then Harrisburg, then Detroit and then Northern Michigan. Blueboy96 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I keep a close eye, as he could try to strike the Hampton Roads stations before it's all said and done. WAVY 10 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

With vandals like BenH, almost any TV station is fair game -- I think he struck stations from coast to coast. -- azumanga 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This guy's like Mmbabies on steroids (at least when it comes to television stations) without all that "eggs" junk. (BTW, I checked his history and he did hit the WTKR and WAVY pages, but that was in June of last year, shortly after I joined). WAVY 10 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

He just had his idea of "fun" with a few DC stations ... I reported him. Blueboy96 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rampant image deletions

Am I the only one sick of this? Soon they're gonna want you to write a whole story about every freaking image you upload. I simply haven't had the time to save every TV logo I've uploaded. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, After Midnight is at it now. Check out his talk page. There's somebody posting about deleting images - I think he's actually getting off on it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yay, just what we need...another AMIB. Time to tag any and all radio and TV logos and images with fair-use rationales. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can restore deleted images if detailed Fair Use rationales are provided. Gimme a list of the images and FU Rationale. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CFIF might be right about them wanting a book about every bleeping logo we've got. Yesterday, I got a message that a non-admin had tagged WIBW-TV's logo because it didn't provide a source. I was under the impression that if we stated that it was that station's current or former logo, it would be a duh-huh that it came from the station. Good thing Gray Television still has most of its logos available on the corporate site. Blueboy96 12:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I caught one that had a FUR on it, but was still tagged for deletion. Forgot what it was, though. -- azumanga 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you remember which one it was, or see another one, please let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It was this one: logo for WMC-TV, where a deletion tag was added, even with a FUR statement. -- azumanga 02:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten a couple messages about images being tagged for deletion and in my Fair-Use Rationales, I always put "The logo is from the WXXX website." That is about as clear of a source as you can ger short of you getting the link to the actual image...better not give 'em any ideas. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WUPA's logo was deleted from the article last week under CSDi6, and it was from the station's website (I did a major edit on it before to remove promocruft). I've been doing the Wisconsin station logos whenever I can get a chance with FUR. It's to the point where I just saved out the F-UR template to a notes file. Nate 06:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you never know who might sue you and for why. Even if Wikipedia gets sued by somebody with no case whatsoever and just thought "i don't like this page, this sux" when everything on it is true and NPOV, it could destroy our little wiki. Morgan Wick 06:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another case involved WOTV -- that logo was found deleted, so I reuploaded it with a FUR. Guess what? it was speedy-deleted under CSDi6, again. So I reuploaded it with a FUR -- again. I have a feeling that a FUR, regardless of how detailed it is, does nothing against these deletions -- they'll delete it when they see it. This has to stop. -- azumanga 04:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page every time you have to restore something that already had an FUR. If that doesn't help, bring it up at the Village Pump or file an RfC. Morgan Wick 04:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a logo fair use template we can use? I believe that it's historical content having the logos up. If we need to, someone could call all the general managers of the stations and ask if the logos can be put up. Intergeek

The interpretations of some is that no boilerplate fair use template alone will pass muster, even though the rationales are the same for all of them. Morgan Wick 00:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, fair use rationale templates are acceptable, albeit grudgingly. It's the copyright template that is not accepted as a boilerplate fair use rationale. I use {{Non-free use rationale}} without a problem, but a rationale must be provided for each article in which the logo is used, which is reasonable IMO. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies: He's baaaaack....

He struck this page that was just started not too long ago. WAVY 10 14:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, two IPs last night: 68.89.189.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 71.147.16.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- Gridlock Joe 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. I've only received one autoblock request, so it seems extending the range won't be a problem. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way that we can protect those articles that he keeps vandalising? Is there anyway we can block him for good? So far, everything is in vain. -- azumanga 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's doing that weird 1x3=24 images thing again. I will expand the range block tonight. My other idea is to delete the images he's using (replacing them with the same image but with a slightly different name) so that even if he pastes that junk on a page, it will just be redlinked gibberish (and not FU images). I am open to other suggestions. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

One more tonight: 68.94.98.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- Gridlock Joe 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How hard is it to protect pages? He keeps attacking the same ones (such as Tracey Sketchit and Kellie Copeland-Kutz), plus a few new ones for good measure (like The Day After). As long as these loopholes exists, as long as AT&T's doing nothing, he WILL get in. -- azumanga 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard, but it isn't recommended. Morgan Wick 04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What Morgan said. It's easy to semi-protect a page, but I would be violating the policy about only semi-protecting pages which receive heavy, continuing vandalism. One lone instance of vandalism on the Kellie Copeland-Kutz page is definitely not "heavy, persistent vandalism". It has nothing to do with difficulty and everything to do with abuse of admin tools: I'm just not allowed to do it. And if I semi-protected every page Mmbabies ever vandalized once, or every page I thought he'd vandalize, I'd be semi-protecting hundreds of pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

However, considering that they are repeated targets for vandalism (and, in Kellie Copeland's case, death threats that carried over from his attacks on The Gospel Bill Show), we still have to do something to keep him from vandalising again. Otherwise, we'll end up reverting the same pages over and over again until the cows come home. I know the use of page protection is restricted, but there has to be some exception. -- azumanga 12:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think range blocks are probably going to be the most effective way of controlling him. It will take a while to get every range taken care of, but the ones we have in place now seem to be helping. At least it's not a nightly occurrence anymore. -- Gridlock Joe 12:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed he hit my talk page! WAVY 10 17:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just hope he doesn't go "national" with these lies, if you know what I mean. (I would've been specific, but, as they say, "Loose lips sink ships".) -- azumanga 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another one this afternoon: 68.91.101.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- Gridlock Joe 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Again - 68.90.46.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Postoak 04:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In his latest stunt, he practically spat on Marvin Zindler's grave by desecrating his article with a pic of Tracey Sketchit. Un-freaking-believable. -- azumanga 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And tonight (8/25), he's starting to move stations to the Houston market. Like El Paso's KSCE, for instance. I think we should really consider range-blocking all of AT&T in Houston -- this is, once again, almost becoming a nightly event. -- azumanga 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

With another Zindler attack no less. He also latched right onto my question about adding a title card to Gospel Bill, like I thought he would, which makes me think watchlists (like on the GB talk page) on a silent account we don't know about are part of his modus. I wish there was a way to block his access to watchlists, but bouncing IPs make that moot. Nate 08:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

New pages (Colby's Clubhouse, List of Colby's Clubhouse episodes), same stupid Kids' WB/Maniac Mansion junk. Go figure... WAVY 10 14:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On the watchlist question: He may be subscribing to the RSS feeds of the history pages. Morgan Wick 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Tonight I received a personal death threat from our friend using sock 68.88.233.113. Postoak 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

LTA

JetLover has now added a Long term abuse page about him, so he better realize we're fully onto him now. I expanded it further with some of the general observations of his patterns, and suggest others add in further references. Nate 04:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And now he actually has the gall to go in and confess "corrections" like this one, right on his own LTA page, unbelievable! Would this be the first ever case where we have to ask for a semi-protect on a page designed to track his abuse? The guy has nowhere to run or hide, but he just putters on and on. Nate 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of yet another spree tonight, I was able to get IP editing on his LTA blocked via WP:RFP via a semi-protect, while Gospel Bill and Nicole C. Mullen's talk pages got a week block (Nicole's actual article, two weeks) on semi-protect. Let's see if this frustrates him. Nate 07:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_US_network_TV_schedule_articles

Someone has recently nominated all U.S. network TV schedules from 1946-2007 for deletion. Feel free to weigh in either way, folks. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFD was closed this evening (08/14) with the decision as Keep. :) Thanks Firsfron for posting this. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for weighing in there, NH. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're Welcome:) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 09:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dingbat2007 and related socks

To be honest, I've lost track of which vandal this one is. Check out Special:Contributions/76.192.216.52 and Special:Contributions/Fran14. I don't have time today to stamp out these forest fires. -- Gridlock Joe 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He's a sock of Dingbat2007, who loves ficticious cities of license, and "The Health Channel". Block him -- again. -- azumanga 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all the changes made and Admin LessHeard vanU blocked the user for 2 days. I have the pages on my watchlist in case it continues. Take Care all....NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

A new block is needed, it looks like Fran14 just started a new spree; I just revered KHCW and KETH with fictional COL's added. I would do more, but I'm on a work computer. Nate 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The ikiroid has blocked this ID permanently. I wonder what the next username will be? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness, and thanks to whoever reverted the rest of his spree. His asking is that so? to my level 4 warning just showed he had no respect for the project. Nate 04:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian television question

How many of you are keen on Australian television? If so, I have a question: do the call letters for Australian television stations officially include the channel number? The reason being is that someone has been renaming the articles to be the calls, minus the channel number, citing the ACMA database. (Example: GTV-9 was renamed GTV.) I always thought Aussie calls officially include the channel, unless this is a recent change. -- azumanga 03:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Aussie, but from years and years of experience, call letters for television stations do always include the number and are the official names of stations there. I would check with WP:AUS just to double-check, but I'm pretty sure the number is within the calls. Nate 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? That sounds very unusual to someone from the United States, where the official callsign is all letters ( except for some low-power stations (translators?) which actually do end in the channel number ), but a lot of stations nickname themselves as callsign-dash-channel number. Squidfryerchef 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Nate and azumanga are correct. Here is a query from the ACMA - the callsign includes the channel number. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles are for the stations in general, not for the specific analogue transmitter. For example TCN-9 is Nine's Sydney analogue transmitter, and TCN-8 is Nine's Sydney digital transmitter. Also, relay stations are for example TCN-41. When referring to the analogue transmitter, you should say TCN-9, and when referring to the digital transmitter you should say TCN-8, however the official call-sign is TCN. Australian television station articles should only use three letters. Stickeylabel 02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

First, this conversation should be at WP:AUTV and not here. If fact, your search of the ACMA Radocomms proves that station articles should not contain channel numbers. If it were, we should create articles for TCN-8 and TCN-41. TCN-8 is just as important as TCN-9 and should not be discriminated against in the article name ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 02:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Systemic bias?

I have added Template:Globalize/USA and the link to WikiProject:Television Channels to indicate that this WikiProject deals only with US, or at best North American, television stations. The project's aims are barely intelligible when applied to non-US settings. For example, the first aim is to maintain a series of templates entitled "United States television navigational boxes". The fourth aim talks about "each state", and I think that it clearly means US states rather than UN member states. I wish project members every success with this very worthwhile endeavour, and invite you to consider renaming it WikiProject: United States television stations. 79.73.101.30 02:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the template to Template:Globalize/North America because I really don't see any bias against Canadian or Mexican stations here. DHowell 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Founded date in infoboxes

In reply to dhett's message here, is there any discussion establishing that the founded date is supposed to be the date of the initial construction permit rather than the on-air date? I've always assumed that the founded date was supposed to be the on-air date, as this is what is implied by the description at WP:TVS, which says "Date or year the station began service". This is what is typically given in printed sources like the Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook and the Television and Cable Factbook. Unfortunately, this information is often difficult to find online, as the FCC database doesn't give exact airdates, though usually the application date for the license to cover is within a few days of the actual airdate. If it is intended that the "founded date" be date of the original construction permit issuance, then I would suggest adding an "airdate" field to the {{Infobox Broadcast}} template, as I think the first on-air date is more important than when the original construction permit was issued. I believe it is irrelevant that there may be a long history before the station first went on the air; for example, {{Infobox Movie}} gives a release date, not when the movie was greenlighted or when it began filming, which may have been many years before the release date; {{Infobox Television}} gives the date the of the first airing of a show, not when the show was announced to public or some other earlier date. DHowell 01:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

When I first began contributing, I found that the founded date was usually the OCP grant date. The on-air date isn't always readily available, and even the yearbooks cited by DHowell and New World Man often disagree on the on-air date. How reliable then are they? Although the date that a station applies for a license is often when they begin service, that's not always the case either, nor is that verifiable. In the case of Tucson, Arizona station KXGR (now KUVE-TV), they applied for their license on December 21 2000, but according to their own filings with the FCC, didn't commence program testing until January 5 2001, two weeks later, and went dark again that night when the transmitter failed. The details are too lengthy for this forum, but the transmitter problem is documented. When was that station founded?

I found in this forum an archived discussion about the founded date, although from a slightly different angle, but the last word was that the license mattered. I don't see the relevance of the {{Infobox Movie}} or {{Infobox Television}} comparisons, as the history of movies and television programs aren't generally relevant. TV station history is, and occupies a sizeable part of many articles. I think an "on air" date in the infobox is an excellent idea, and I suggested to New World Man that he add cited references to the on air dates if he has them. But the "duh" test tells me that if a station's history precedes the "founded date", then it isn't really the founded date. In many cases, the history before the on-air date is more interesting than that after the station begins broadcasting. To that end, I also suggest changing the description of the founded date to reflect the date that the original construction permit was granted. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A question: do you know what 100000watts.com considers their "launch date"....be it the originial construction permit grant date or the station's first broadcast day? I ask, because I use 100kWatts as my "launch date" reference on the TV and radio pages I make and I don't want to be putting wrong information out. Thanks...NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't answer that. I stopped using 100000watts.com when Chip Kelley gave it up and the new masters started charging, cheap beggar that I am. :-) You can check the original construction permit grant date by following the FCC link in each article. Click on the application list link and you'll get the application history. The earliest date is usually the OCP grant date and is labeled BPCT or BPET. I wouldn't change anything you're doing until this discussion gets resolved one way or the other. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't pay for 100000watts.com either. A friend did and we share the username/password, works out for everyone. Though I have noticed that 100kWatts and the FCC pages are pretty close, most on the dot and a few off by a year. I will keep an eye on this discussion to see if I should switch. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

New Nielsen DMAs are in/Fall changes

Market templates will have to be changed and syndicated shows will need to be updated in articles. At least we'll have a least hectic fall this time without the strain of changing around for two new networks. Nate 06:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the DMA rankings in the top 80136 markets. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (Update dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

DMA rankings are updated. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Name change?

Anyone else think changing our name to WikiProject North American Television Stations would more accurately reflect our scope? Morgan Wick 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Given this project's heavy North American focus and the fact that WikiProject Australian television exists, I think the change would be more accurate. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Dingbat2007 sockpuppet?

User:76.212.131.221 is at it again. I've been keeping up best I can, but being at work, I can't spend much more time cleaning up. I've reported this user to WP:ANI and notified the vandal that (s)he has been reported, but if anyone can step in, I'd appreciate it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I think (s)he got frustrated when I was reverting the edits as quickly as they went in. Somebody needs an after-school activity, I think. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 76.194.67.235 is another sockpuppet. Same style of vandalism: fictitious cities of license, non-existent programming on DT subchannels, changing DT2 to DT3. Seems to favor the Texas Panhandle, Yuma, Arizona, Kentucky, and a few other places. Some edits are actually accurate. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And we have another --KWUN-TV. In fact, he had the gall to tell Gridlock Joe off for warning him against vandalism. He's about as incorrigible as Mmbabies and Jamesinc. -- azumanga 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Mmbabies, tonight he got in on the conversation on KWUN-TV's talk page here (along with my talk page). Please don't tell me these guys are becoming buddies off WP...Nate 05:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Mmbabies is casing the joint, plain and simple. He would like to get his grubby little hands on anything. -- azumanga 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mmbabies

I recently created a long term abuse page about him, WP:LTA/MMB. If you would like to add to the page, or comment on the talk page feel free to do that. Cheers,JetLover 06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We got another loony here...

And what's worse is that he's using several IP-only accounts. This person has been changing call letters to "W***-TV/W***-DT" (or K***-TV/K***-DT"), even for stations that did not exist in the era of digital TV. He also insisted that "NBC WeatherPlus" is two words, not one, and that digital subchannels should be referenced with a plus sign, not a decimal or space. Finally, he also written (and blanked out) at series of personal letters to WeatherPlus meterologist Kristen Cornett (see them here).

Known IPs connected to him include:

• 12.74.145.97
• 12.74.140.5

and all IPs in Kristen Cornett's talk page.

And of course, our good friends at AT&T are behind those IPs.

Can't anyone leave us alone? -- azumanga 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Came acorss this one myself on August 29th. Same thing, changing calls to W***-TV/W***-DT and what not. The user was using 12.74.143.111. I reverted them and the user was blocked for 48 hours. I just checked and that IP is from AT&T as well. Could this be User:Mmbabies? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's a dialup in St. Louis. -- Gridlock Joe 00:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And he put his name on one of the Kristen Cornett edits. -- Gridlock Joe 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since he put his name on there, think it might be easier to catch him and stop him than Mmbabies? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I nearly put an IAR speedy on it, but decided against it--the police or whoever need to be able to see this for evidence purposes. Blueboy96 19:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lists of current anchors, former anchors, etc in station articles.

I recently removed a long, unsourced list of current and former news personalities from a station article which was reverted. To me, the lists (especially when they included nn folk who flunk WP:BIO, seem to be something of an indiscriminate collection of information and borderline trivia. Is there some sort of precedent for this? Has this been discussed before? What do these lists of names add in terms of value to an article? youngamerican (wtf?) 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Added airdate field to {{Infobox Broadcast}}

Per discussion above and at User talk:New World Man#RE: On-air dates of television stations, I've gone ahead and added an optional "airdate" field to {{Infobox Broadcast}}. Please use this for first airdates. This field is modeled after the one used at WikiProject Radio Stations, where the {{Infobox Radio station}} explicitly uses "First air date", rather than "Founded". I also made "founded" optional, for cases where the airdate is known but the original construction permit grant date is unknown or difficult to verify (which is the case for most stations founded before 1978).

Personally, I think the OCP grant date is typically trivial information, as it is not usually reported in reliable sources other than the FCC, whereas the first on-air date, when known, is given in reliable sources such as the Yearbook and Factbook mentioned above. OCP grant date information is much more difficult to find for stations founded before 1978, and picking the OCP grant date over the on-air date gives undue weight to the information that the FCC just happens to make available online.

As noted above, sources are sometimes wrong or inconsistent in their reporting of on-air dates. In these cases, I would report the date as accurately as possible and indicate in a footnote or HTML comment what the sources say. For example, if one source says December 5, 1980, and another source says December 8, 1980, simply put "December 1980" in the infobox and let a footnote, or HTML comment, or the history section of the article, explain that the sources have conflicting information. In the case of KUVE-TV above, I would just put "2001" as the airdate based on the information given in the article.

I'm not sure that it is entirely correct to use the term "founded" at all for television stations. This term was probably copied from {{Infobox Company}}, where "founded" has a more standard meaning (for corporations, at least, there is a definite incorporation date). If people feel it is important for this information to be in the infobox, I would suggest renaming it to "cp_granted"; the header could say "CP granted" or "Permit granted". I won't do this, though, unless there is there is some consensus to do so, since it could require changes on hundreds of articles to implement properly. If someone could show me a reliable source (not using Wikipedia as a source) that uses the term "founded" with respect to a broadcast station to mean anything other than the original broadcast airdate, I'd probably change my mind on this.

As far as the relevance of pre-broadcast history, contrary to dhett, I believe the analogy to the pre-release production history of a movie or TV show in quite apt. In some cases, the history of what happened before public launch is very interesting and wholly relevant; in others, it is entirely irrelevant and very few, if any, reliable sources can even be found discussing it. But I believe from the point of view of the general public, the history of a TV station begins when it starts broadcasting. KJLA got its construction permit in 1986, but I'll be damned if I can find any information about this station before it went on the air (as KSTV-TV) in 1990, other than the FCC applications for transfer of ownership and some minor modifications to the construction permit, which I believe are entirely trivial compared to the station's much more interesting history in the late 1990's of trying to get extensive carriage on Los Angeles area cable systems while Arbitron had it as part of the Santa Barbara ADI.

In reply to the above question about what 100000watts.com considers their "launch date"; I don't have access to the current 100000watts.com, but at the Internet Archive one can find old versions of the pages on the site which became 100000watts.com. In 2001, the Los Angeles TV Directory page said KXLA "began operation" on December 19, 2000, and KAZA-TV "began operation" on July 9, 2001. KXLA's construction permit was granted July 22, 1985 and applied for its license on December 20, 2000; KAZA-TV's CP was granted June 2, 1998 and applied for its license July 12, 2001. The 2007 Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook gives "2001" as the on-air date for KXLA, and "July 28, 2001" as the on-air date for KAZA-TV. From this I conclude that the 100000watts dates are intended to represent the on-air date and not the original construction permit grant (further advancing my argument that the airdate is more important than the CP issue date); but I have no idea why the dates conflict with those in the Yearbook. DHowell 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I respect your opinion, and I feel that you've respected mine. Your change looks good, and if you'd rather give preferential placement to the Air Date over the Founded date, I'd support that. Also, I agree with you that the Founded heading is a bit awkward, and can be misunderstood - you and I have certainly had a different understanding of it - and would support renaming the heading if it could be implemented without having to edit every article by hand. If a bot could be developed to automate the work, that would really make it an attractive proposal. In any case, good work! dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The image police have implemented ED 209

Just a friendly warning: the image police are now using a bot to scan for "invalid" fair use rationales. One of the invalid conditions is that the rationale references a redirect instead of the exact article name. I just got notice that the KTTU logo was up for deletion because in the rationale, I listed it as being used in KTTU instead of KTTU-TV. The bot didn't recognize the reference, so it tagged the logo for termination. "Please put down that image. You have 20 seconds to comply." dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

More no-network-affiliate-in-state TfDs...

Yesterday, I nominated {{CBS New Hampshire}} as yet another instance of a state being completely devoid of any CBS affiliate based in and licensed to the state (not even a translator). Today, I nominated a similar template for The CW for the exact same reason. I think this finishes off the no-affiliate-in-state templates, unless it is decided that translators don't count as affiliates (and some templates listing such do exist for New Hampshire and Delaware). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Claremont-based W12AF is a translator of a CBS station, WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vermont, so I have recommended that {{CBS New Hampshire}} be kept. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the {{CBS New Hampshire}} TfD, since the template now appears to reflect W12AF's existence (and translators, apparently, do count). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PTEN

User:Rollosmokes is claiming that PTEN once is not a network on WWOR-TV by undoing my adding it as an affiliation once again. "(cur) (last) 15:44, 18 September 2007 Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs) (31,463 bytes) (Undid revision 158725325 by Spshu This was previously established -- PTEN was not a network, but rather a umbrella programming title)". It was established here: [[3]] that PTEN is a network. Spshu 14:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are just trying to rehash something from almost a year ago. Where you actually said "I did not state that PTEN was a network"...now you are? As far as I can see PTEN was a syndicated program distributor and Rollosmokes was right to revert you. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you intend to interven or even responsed to a talk message based on an archive discussion please follow the link to the previous discussion on the archive page. It is ilrelavent if it was a year or more a go. It is Rollosmokes who is incorrectly reverting me. Since you have not followed the conversion acrossed all the various talk pages there for it will be right of me to revert you (NeutralHomer) and Rollosmokes. You should look over these pages and on varies talk pages that Rollosmokes unilateral decides what he want regardless of other users. Your above quote of me was trying to come to a neutral ground with Rollosmokes. PTEN did also go from being a network to something less. Spshu 14:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Being that Rollosmokes has been here ALOT longer than I have, I tend to go with what he says. Also, if the discussion you linked is "irrelevant (sic) if it was a year or more a go", then what exactly are we discussing? PTEN was not a television network, hence all edits will be reverted, unless you can prove otherwise. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are the one claiming that discussion of over a year to be irrelevant: "I think you are just trying to rehash something from almost a year ago." Please follow the link: "It was established here: [[4]] that PTEN is a network." You have not proved otherwise that PTEN is not a network. So there for, we are not discussing any thing else but you and Rollosmokes being vandals. Spshu 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

...and you haven't proven it was. That link proves nothing. You have no external links to prove that it was a network. Also, I wasn't the one who said it was "irrelevant", that was a direct quote from you above. But no matter, if you make any further edits without external (meaning something outside Wikipedia) proof, then you will be reported to AIV for vandalism. Simple as that. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

...and your comment still indicate that you have not read the previous discussion as it does link to outside sources.Spshu 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the outside source for stance? Spshu 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not report each other to WP:AIV. This is not vandalism; this is an edit dispute. NH, the external link is from Broadcasting and Cable here. "(PTEN). The latter began in 1993 as a potential fifth network with two hours of programming per night, aimed at a consortium of 177 affiliates covering 93% of the U.S." We can hammer out an agreement here on this centrally-located page without the need for vandalism reports when this clearly is not vandalism. Any good-faith edit to the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Please read WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not, which is official policy. This does not need to turn into a revert war, and it does not need to result in the blocking of good-faith editors. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're back on this. Rollosmokes, you claim in your WWOR-TV edit summary that it was "established that PTEN was not a network, but an umbrella programming title". Where? Here? Certainly not here, for the opposite was true; every person who responded to the thread was of the opinion that it was a network - except you. You have a right to disagree; you don't have a right to claim consensus that doesn't exist. And if it was established elsewhere, you need to provide a link. There is no consensus to bolster your argument. NeutralHomer, I don't care how long Rollosmokes has been here; if he's wrong, he's wrong. And I think he's wrong. As for external sources, go back and read my comments - I provided external sources to back up my contention that PTEN was in fact a network, albeit, a short-lived one. That's in addition to the link that Firsfron of Ronchester just provided. No, there was a consensus. Those who contributed to the article(typo) discussion overwhelmingly thought that PTEN was a network. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No one thought to put this on my talk page? Well, my thoughts on this have been documented. And one other fact I overlooked was already handled by NeutralHomer, as far as TV Guide recognizing stations carrying PTEN-branded programming as PTEN affiliates. They weren't, so TV Guide, much more relevant back in 1993-95 then it is now, has to be considered as being a credible source. Something else to mention that may not have been already: PTEN-branded programming was also not advertised in a day-and-time specific, network-like manner (eg. Kung Fu: The Legend Continues -- Wednesdays at 8 PM Eastern/7 PM Central and Mountain), if I recall correctly as such. The stations had freedom over what nights they scheduled these shows. Real networks are much more firm on those things.

I do not deny that PTEN wasn't created with the original intention of building a fifth network. But it was what it was, and that was a blanket syndication title, much like the Universal Action Pack and Operation Prime Time were. I'm sticking to it. Rollosmokes 09:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't care who is right in this situation. But when I look at the Chris-Craft Industries page and it says that PTEN "was planned to expand into the fifth television network but fizzled into a syndication brand"...that means it wasn't a network.

According to the links you gave on the pervious talk page, one says it is on a transponder and one says it was a network. But we have one reference...from a blog? When have we ever trusted only one reference and when have we ever used a reference from a blog?...come on. But also, according to your post on the previous talk page (and according IMDb...much more trusted) PTEN was nothing more than a distributor. Just like the Chris-Craft Industries on Wikipedia says.

Unless you can give a reference that isn't a blog (a NY Times article, a Wall Street Journal article, etc.), I'm sorry, but I am not convinced. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Broadcasting and Cable isn't a blog, and IMDb calls ABC a "distributor", too. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

ABC is a distributor too...under "Disney-ABC Domestic Television"...as well as a network. Same thing with CBS and NBC ^[[5]]. OK, so we have one article...one...that says it was, a Wikipedia article that says it isn't. I think we are going to need more than that, in either direction. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 09:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used to cite Wikipedia, NH. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If so, then that makes Spshu's entire arguement null-and-void. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a contemporary (circa 1995) list of affiliate stations. I do not suggest that PTEN be added to the station infobox, but a note, with reference, could be added to the text, indicating that the station in question carried PTEN programs. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Firs, with all due respect, all that link shows me is stations that carried Babylon 5 via PTEN. It doesn't say via PTEN the network or PTEN the syndication distributor. It actually says neither. I agree, though, that a reference/note should be made, but I worry by doing that, it will open up a whole new can of worms with people adding "WXXX-TV carried programs from Disney-ABC Domestic Television" or something of that nature. Perhaps we should write something up (you, more than me...I am on meds...ER trip, am fine) that would make mention of PTEN but wouldn't open the "this-station-aired-syndicated-programming-from-so-and-so can of worms". Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend...NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear about your trip to the ER. I hope you are alright. The list I provided is just a contemporary list showing PTEN affiliates. I always prefer to use sources from the era, instead of using sources from decades later, whenever possible. That link was never intended to provide verification of network status. The fact that the company called itself PTENetwork indicates it was attempting to launch a network. You are absolutely right that this could open a "can of worms". That's why I wanted a full discussion of the issue, including the Paramount Television Network (1949-1953), which sources at the time indicated was a network, but which modern sources (like McNeil, 1996) list as syndicators; the Mutual and Yankee television affiliates of 1952; ON; PTEN, MyNetworkTV (people were arguing last year that since it only launched two shows and had low ratings, that it was a syndicator), etc. This discussion would not be binding, but it would help us establish a rough consensus concerning obviously conflicting sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm glad you're doing OK. At the very best, a visit to the ER is basically a waste of a day, albeit a necessary one. I hope the meds do for you what they're supposed to do.

Firsfron has taken most of my thunder here, but you can't bust me for a blog reference and request a NYT/WSJ source, then turn around and cite a Wikipedia article to back up your argument. Next, you claim, and I quote, "according to your post on the previous talk page (and according IMDb...much more trusted) PTEN was nothing more than a distributor." I never made any such statement; I'm not sure where you got that from. And IMDb is not a reliable source either - it's also a wiki, just like Wikipedia. I mentioned them as an aside, not to back up my point, and Firsfron has correctly pointed out how meaningful their "distributor" label is.

In addition to the Broadcasting & Cable article Firsfron cited, an article in the LA Business Journal briefly mentions PTEN by name, differentiating between their launch and selling shows directly to independent stations, which is what a syndication service would do. PTEN did the same thing that UPN and MyNetworkTV did at inception, and those two are generally considered networks, with a few exceptions. The fact that PTEN's programming didn't air at a set time was not due to them being merely a syndicator, but rather due to them having secondary network status at many stations, meaning the stations would fit PTEN shows into their schedule after primary network obligations have been met. Again, that's no different than UPN or MyNetwork, who often were and are relegated to secondary network status. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for stealing your thunder, Dhett. Thanks for the link to the LA Business Journal. I read it, and it doesn't really clear the waters: it refers to PTEN programming as "off-network", but, as you say, it also indicates they was a difference in strategy: they weren't just directly selling the programming, as a syndicator would do (plus, it could be argued that "Reverse compensation" like The WB/CW, is a form of syndication anyway). IMDb is fairly reliable... they make mistakes, but they have some good overviews. My problems with them are:

1. They list all networks and all syndicators as "distributors/production companies". You cannot make the distinction between syndicators and networks using IMDb, because they make no distinction. They list NBC as "Distributor"/"Production"; same with other major networks.
2. They often list the same company separately. Paramount Television's 1950s programs are listed separately from Telemount's 1950s programs, although it was the same company. Telemount-Mutual is also listed separately (and they're all very incomplete). There are 9 separate listings for Metromedia's syndication service.

You raise a good point about secondary network status: secondary affiliations start looking like syndication because they have to air the programs out-of-pattern, just like a syndicator. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Firs, dhett, many thanks! I am feeling better today, the meds did their job...WELL. So, if my post last night kinda didn't make sense, that's why :) But, I am feeling much better. Just some lower abdominal (sp?) thing that hurt like hell. All is well, but many thanks :)

dhett, you do I have a point, I shouldn't have gotten on you for the blog reference than referenced Wiki, that was my fault, my apologizes. My point was that since this is kind of a...don't want to say disputed (but for lack of a better word)...topic, I was wanting as many references in one way or the other. If PTEN is a network or not, I don't want someone coming in later and saying we only have two references or something. That was my point.

My "according to your post on the previous talk page (and according IMDb...)..." statement, I apologize for misquoting it to you. It was on the previous talk page, but I am not sure who posted it. I thought it was you, my mistake.

Where I guess I am confused is when some pages say distributor or say network, I am like "which one was it?"...that's why I think we should reference the thing to death. Also, since it didn't act like a network (no set schedule, times, etc.) it is kinda tricky to call it a network. I can't say for the start of UPN or WB (where I lived at the time, we were lucky to get ABC, CBS, and NBC)...so I didn't see their launches.

Let me ask a question: everyone knows how The CW or MNTV airs syndicated programming on Saturdays (Sundays too for MNTV)...would that have been like what PTEN did?...or airing their shows out of sequence like what WFFF-TV does with The CW? (WFFF airs FOX from 8 to 10 and CW from 10 to Midnight) If so, then I understand. I still think we should reference it to death so there is no confusion one way or the other.

Again, my apologizes if I have been a little testy, that was not how I intented to come across. Thanks again for wishing me well. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 14:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No offense was taken; I was just being matter-of-fact. I should add that I was properly busted for citing a blog. I went back and read that and smacked myself when I realized what it was that I cited. Weak.

I don't think there's going to be an easy answer to this specific question. There is a real dearth of information on PTEN. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising, considering that they never really got off the ground. We'd probably be having the same argument about MyNetworkTV in 10-15 years if they'd stayed with the telenovelas. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the WWOR-TV article is what started this whole mess, perhaps I can suggest a compromise? Start with Spshu's version, remove PTEN references from the infobox, and remove the word "the" from the following sentence in the text of the article: "Chris-Craft was partner in the Prime Time Entertainment Network...". The result recognizes a role for PTEN, but doesn't elevate it to network status, nor does it relegate it to syndicator status. Without more reliable external sources, that's the best I can think of. Thoughts? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That works for me:)....and those edits have been made on the WWOR page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. If we do that, then we'd have to give consideration to all other similar partnerships. I removed the line from WWOR-TV, I offer no compromise, and it should stay off. Rollosmokes 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It could....but if worded correctly, I think we could pull it off so it doesn't. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how many "other similar partnerships" would that be, Rollo? I think you're greatly overestimating the impact. Furthermore, your "I offer no compromise" statement gives me reason to question whether you're acting in good faith, and I'm beginning to suspect you're just trying to make a point here. Not kosher. I'm satisfied to wait for others to register their opinions, but I will expect you to abide by the consensus, even if it goes against you - again. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If worded correctly, like Dhett has done, I don't think it would open that can o' worms where we have Mutual added to pages, Disney-ABC Domestic Television added to pages...and as it is written now, I think it does just that. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting my previous comments on this subject:

Reason for it being consider a network: 1) it branded its self a network - Prime Time Entertainment Network. 2) It complies with the definition: "A television network is a distribution network for television content whereby a central operation provides programming for many television stations." 3)It was an by all accounts an attempt to launch a new network as above sources and PTEN article sources indicated. Spshu 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional - 4) If you question PTEN's network status could force us to get more technical and reevaluated UPN, WB and the CW as TV Networks as I out line at My Talk page. And for that matters, PBS as they don't national set a programming schedule. Operation Prime Time, Action Pack and the like would fall into branded alternative programming. Stations most likely purchase them as a package deal and could show them at what ever time they wanted. Spshu 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

above referenced to my talk page quoted here:

It was not a "blanket title for sydnicated programming" until CC/United Television pull out. The Federal Trade Commission & Federal Communication Commission does not consider a "TV Network" a TV Network untill it offers 15 hours of prime time(note 14) (7 PM to 11 PM) programming. I remember when the WB and UPN where starting up and that the were not offically considered networks. PTEN was structured the same way MyNetworkTV (MNTV) is now, sydnicated arm (20th Television) together with TV Station company consoritium (Fox Station Group). The Neworks prime time hourly offerings: MNTV 12, the CW 13, Fox 15, ABC 22, CBS 22, NBC 22. I remember reference when UPN and the WB were starting up that they were not offical networks as they were below the specified hours but people considered them networks and as far as I know they never exceed 15 hours of programming. So as it stands you would have to remove MNTV, UPN, WB and CW as networks. But I think that most people would consider them as networks, since that was the intent when they were started as the affiliates got the whole programming. Spshu 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

5) The local stations were owners of PTEN. 6) PTEN did have a set schedule which was provided by the Variety article: "With its expansion, the PTEN sked will change. "Kung Fu" will remain at 9 p.m. Wednesday, with "Babylon 5" moving into the 8 p.m. slot previously occupied by "Time Trax." That series will move to the second night." and listed in PTEN Article. * In reference to TV Guide listings, currently my local paper does not recognize the Detroit WMYD as a My Network TV but as a CW station in the cable channel chart but does in the daily listing dispite pointing it out. TV Guide was (is?) owned by News Corp. which owns FOX. * Thanks, dhett, for the offer of a compromise that PTEN is something inbetween a Network & a sydicator. I tried that back in Nov 2006. If you go in back to the history WWOR-TV you could find in amoungst the "reverted ownership attempt/unilateral disregard for consensus" against Rollosmokes by administrator David Levy. Even the quote of the PTEN article NeutralHomer used at my Talk page was an attempt to meet at a netural ground. Spshu 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Syndicator vs. network

There are any number of companies which could be considered networks or could be considered "just" syndication services. As long as there has been network television, there have been companies interested in launching networks, some who actually attempted to do so, and some which were ultimately successful. I think it would be a good idea to discuss them all here, now, to establish a consensus on which ones are networks, basing our decisions on Reliable sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the first. In my opinion, the following...

...are true NETWORKS: ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, CW, My Network TV, Univision, Telemundo, Azteca America, Telefutura, TBN (yes, even they are), Pax/i/ION (so are they, unfortunately)

...were networks: DuMont, UPN, WB, NET

...is on the bubble: Overmyer/United

...were syndicated services: Operation Prime Time, PTEN

That's where I stand. Rollosmokes 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the response. I don't think anyone is questioning A/C/F/N/P. I'm not even going to consider them.

NET (National Educational Television): The PBS predecessor network, 1952-1969); usually considered a network, but Alex McNeil, 1996 Total Television, page 3, says "in a sense, NET was less a true network than a distributor of programs to individual educational stations throughout the country; it was not until late 1966 that simultaneous broadcasting began on educational outlets."

PaxNet/PAX/i/ION/whatever they're calling themselves this year: They have station branding and stuff, but their Prime time schedule is full of second-run syndication programs: old reruns of sitcoms and Diagnosis Murder. And (as an aside) the i year was terrible: paid programming all day long. And ION doesn't even use Nielsen Ratings anymore [6].

United/Overmyer: Only had one show, and that only lasted a month or so. McNeil (pg 464) lists The Las Vegas Show as syndicated, though it acknowledges ON/UN was an attempt at a "fourth network". And the whole reason they lost money and had to shut down was because of the transmission lines leased from Bell, and they used Nielsen Ratings.

Paramount Television Network (1949-1950s): McNeil (pg 840) lists their programs as syndicated, but the 1949 ads advertise a network.[7] White (1992)[8] discusses the network; by 1953, Paramount denied they had ever operated a network. King & Vance (1952) Production Encyclopedia , 716-717 list a number of Paramount affiliates. TTM states "Tulsans soon witnessed the best programming that five networks could devise. KOTV had a choice of programs from the Paramount Television Corporation, NBC, CBS, ABC, and the DuMont Network".

Mutual: One source [9] states "Mutual Television Network [...] never broadcast a single nationwide television program and did not ex­ist as a television network long enough to see the completion of coast-to-coast coaxial cable construc­tion. Another [10] goes even further: "As television began its rise there was a short flirtation with the stations owning Mutual to start a Mutual Television network. Bamberger Broadcasting's WOR-TV New York and WOIC(TV) both had letterhead printed with "Mutual Television" as one of the subheadings, but there is no evidence that a cooperative television service was actually initiated." Yet sources at the time indicate Mutual did launch a television network; it is listed in King & Vance (1952) with a number of affiliate stations (WNHC-TV in New Haven ABC/CBS/MBS/NBC/DuMont; WSPD-TV in Toledo ABC/CBS/MBS/NBC/DuMont; KHJ-TV in Hollywood Don Lee). This site claims KPTV in Portland, OR "As Portland's only television station, KPTV spent its first twelve months "cherry-picking" programs from NBC, CBS, ABC, DuMont... even the Mutual network." And IMDb lists Telemount-Mutual as producers of "syndicated" Cowboy G-Men. McNeil lists Cowboy G-Men as syndicated (page 184). I know of no other Mutual programs.

More later... Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Federal Trade Commission & Federal Communication Commission does not consider a "TV Network" a TV Network untill it offers 15 hours of prime time(note 14) (7 PM to 11 PM) programming. I remember when the WB and UPN where starting up and that the were not offically considered networks and were considered some else -- I don't remember it -- it was alternative programming 'something'. PTEN was structured the same way MyNetworkTV (MNTV) is now, sydnicated arm (20th Television) together with TV Station company consoritium (Fox Station Group). The Neworks prime time hourly offerings: MNTV 12, the CW 13, Fox 15, ABC 22, CBS 22, NBC 22. I remember reference when UPN and the WB were starting up that they were not offical networks as they were below the specified hours but people considered them networks and as far as I know they never exceed 15 hours of programming. So as it stands you would have to remove MNTV, UPN, WB and CW as networks. But I think that most people would consider them as networks, since that was the intent when they were started as the affiliates got the whole programming. Spshu 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (Orginally posted on mytalk page Spshu 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the FCC page. We all remember how Fox was able to succeed by programming just under the number of hours to be considered a network. The Prime Time Access Rule, though, is from 1995. PTAR states "For the purpose of the PTAR, a “television network” is an entity that provides more than 15 hours of prime time programming per week on a regular basis to at least 75 percent of television households nationwide (NPRM, ¶ 9). By this definition, there are currently three networks subject to the rule (ABC, CBS, and NBC)." Even in 1995, Fox wasn't considered a network, even when it was luring major affiliates from CBS! The PTAR rule is, in my opinion, too exclusive for our purposes here (and I know you weren't supporting the rule, just discussing it in reference to WB/UPN). Plus, applying the PTAR 1995 rule retroactively (to networks before '95) is anachronistic. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your right, Firsfron of Ronchester, I am not in support of using this rule as most consider WB, UPN and CW as networks but you request outside sources.

net·work 2. Radio and Television. a. a group of transmitting stations linked by wire or microwave relay so that the same program can be broadcast or telecast by all. b. a company or organization that provides programs to be broadcast over these stations: She was hired by the network as program coordinator

. "network." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 01 Oct. 2007. <Dictionary.com [11].

netlet -- fledgling networks UPN and the WB; any network with less than a full weekly schedule of programming; "With the advent of cable and the netlets, the Big Three networks have seen their audience share erode." (See also, weblet) Variety Slanguage Dictionary

weblet -- fledgling networks UPN and the WB; any network with less than a full weekly schedule of programming; "The weblets are making inroads in the weekly ratings race." (See also, netlet) Variety Slanguage Dictionary

Here are some definitions as sources. The definitions don't seem to give to a cut off point for full networks. Spshu 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that something crosses the line from syndicator to network when it begins actively promoting its banner title on-air to viewers, as opposed to insiders - that is, when it is possible, just by watching, to know that this is a network program and it's coming from network X. My Network TV would thus (sadly) qualify, but unless people actually saw ads mentioning PTEN on a regular basis (and judging from this discussion, it doesn't look like they did), PTEN would not. Morgan Wick 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably a syndicator. I had not even heard of PTEN until I joined here. WAVY 10 Fan 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PTEN shows were apended with the PTEN logo thus it was advertised, Morgan Wick. Many of PTEN's affiliates (40%?) also were secondary affiliates which if I recall correctly was a problem with the DuMont. Thus in those cases, those stations would less likely to advertise their affiliation with PTEN but their primary affiliation. * WAVY 10 Fan, I have never heard of DuMont or the The Tube TV networks until I got here. That does make them any less of a network. Spshu 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is more documentation on DuMont certainly than PTEN. I'm covered by media in the Hampton Roads area (thus name) and think unless it aired on WGNT (then an independent) and I haven't found a promo yet, I don't think this came to that area. WAVY 10 Fan 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it aired on WGNT acording to that article and the list of affiliates in the PTEN article. Firsfron of Ronchester asked in this section for use to use Reliable sources to come up with what a network is so as to apply it to PTEN and others. Here the creator of Bablyon 5 is shows some musing about the poor effort of the promo person for PTEN. Spshu 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies (September into October heading)

Sorry for starting a new topic, but the former one is buried. I'm discouraged after all my semi-protect requests last night for Kellie Copeland-Kutz, Marvin Zindler, Community Educational Television and my talk page were rejected due to not enough disruptive activity, even after citing his LTA. I guess we'll have to keep a closer eye on all of them (well, I'll keep a closer eye on my talk page). Nate 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And he's continuing to branch out to other markets as well -- Austin and San Antonio is now on his hit list. See 75.16.216.111. I wonder how long until he has the run of the nation. -- azumanga 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I 4im warned him in case he decides to have any more "fun" today. It's a near certainty he'll rear his head again tonight--this will make it easier to zap him.Blueboy96 22:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

One other thing he's been doing recently is using talk pages to make new articles, on either non-notable or ridiculous subjects. Since these talk pages have no articles, I always nommed them for speedy deletion. Since he cannot make an account without being targeted (never mind that he's being targeted anyway), he's getting desperate to make his mark on Wikipedia. -- azumanga 12:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again, from 71.159.62.118. This time he removed all of the call letters from the San Antonio TV template. He will get the usual treatment. Blueboy96 20:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Blueboy96 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole time again ... from another IP range. The usual remedies apply. Blueboy96 04:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus this, too. -- azumanga 04:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the latest IP addresses by this mental midget are tracing back to the Dallas area? One to AT&T Services in Richardson, which is where Dingbat operates, and the other from SBC (AT&T also right?) in Plano. So could it be that our demented duo is in fact the same lonely boy, or is one just using the other's M.O.? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not the same ... the node name indicates it's still a Houston IP. AT&T Internet Services must be headquartered in the Dallas area. Blueboy96 11:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would've marked 66.141.23.10 as a latest sockpuppet, but its talk page has been "protected". -- azumanga 01:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I used his user page instead. -- azumanga 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, salting an IP's talk page is way too extreme, IMO--even for a yayhoo like Mmbabies. Can you say "collateral damage?" I left a note with the salting admin. Blueboy96 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not even part of his MO, really, and usually if he leaves talk messages it's nothing inflammatory at all. Even semi-protect would be too much. Nate 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing I should mention -- in his latest stunt, he is now bent on extending the Houston city limits to "sea to shining sea" -- see KFXK and WOGX. Can he be stopped? -- azumanga 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies struck again -- according to him, there's now 52 Amendments in the US Constitution, instead of 27. -- azumanga 16:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And I had five of those speedily deleted...he put messages on the talk pages of the fictional amendments from 43-52. Nate 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He struck again -- 68.90.247.13. -- azumanga 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tonight, 68.90.226.71, 68.92.54.220. Don't you just love two-for-one specials? And yes, I'm being sarcastic. -- azumanga 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And a new one at 75.6.213.216. Nate 04:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Two new ones since Thursday: 68.94.96.54 and 68.92.205.68. We didn't catch the former because he strayed out of his usual patterns, but editor Yamla was so concerned about a death threat against Jaci Velasquez they reported it to the Plano Police Department. He's also now onto quoting Casey Jones from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in his threats. Nate 22:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we'll finally get some action ... if his parents (I'm still assuming he's just some wet-behind-the-ears kid) don't know what he's doing, they will in short order. Blueboy96 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

But why Plano? Isn't Mmbabies usually a Houston-area sock? Or did the person reporting the crime merely report to the nearest police department? -- azumanga 03:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And as you can see from the edit summary on the talk page (both pages), he noted that as well, basically thumbing his nose at us. The ISD is located in Plano, which probably means that the server is there, also. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he doesn't know that the Plano police will likely forward this to the Houston police. Sounds to me like somebody's getting a knock on the door very soon. Blueboy96 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Taunting

Tonight he had a new IP at 68.91.111.242, and on this edit to Talk:John Hagee, he left a real address and phone number for someone while throwing a racial insult towards Hagee. I looked up the phone number in Google and it does lead to someone (will not reveal for privacy purposes). If this is his home phone number and address, what is he thinking? And do we forward this information to Houston PD in case it isn't and he's threatening whoever is at this address and phone? Nate 00:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Chances are that the address and phone is Mmbabies, not John Hagee -- who, by the way, is based in san Antonio, not Houston. Unless his faily-tale mentality insists that he is based in Houston. And if it is Mmbabies' address, he's really playing with fire, since that information will come in handy for the cops. Or worse -- criminals. -- azumanga 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I was saying that I knew it wasn't Hagee's actual home number/address, but if you typed in the number linked into Google it led to the real occupant (possibly a relative/family member of MMB), which I don't want to be revealed. However it might be a good idea for the edit to be purged and an admin to use the information for abuse reports towards AT&T and HPD. Nate 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He really needs to be reported to RFAR. -- Gridlock Joe 15:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tonight (11/6), he vandalised under two IPs, including this one, where he, once again, left addresses and phone numbers (check the histories). He is starting to become a serious liability to Wikipedia, and he needs to be stopped now. Not tomorrow, not next week, but now. -- azumanga 05:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another appearance by the other vandal

Yes, it's another Dingbat2007 sockpuppet. Texas Panhandle, Yuma, Boise, the usual. Plus, this time he found One Tree Hill (TV series) and proceeded to put his touch on that and articles from much, if not all, of the cast. What an idiot. Anyway, the new sockpuppet address is 76.201.20.253; it will get the usual treatment. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another IP vandal

In case anyone has noticed, "62.194.218.87" has been making unhelpful edits to several television station articles. Several of us have asked him/her to stop, but in true vandal fashion our requests have been ingored.

So far today, I've had to clean up their junk from WTNH-TV, WAGA-TV, WBTV, WMYA-TV, and WSAZ-TV. The edits are all the same -- this user adds crap in the infobox. I've already left yet another warning message, but it's time for this user to be blocked in some form. Rollosmokes 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He obviously didn't get it, according to WSAV-TV (diff), WJCL-TV (diff) and WTVM (diff). Reported to AIV. Blueboy96 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Blueboy96 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sock of Dingbat2007

From 76.194.64.13 this time. The usual junk about "The Health Channel"--he's been all over the place today. My God, what is it with AT&T? Blueboy96 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As you guys can see, he's gone on quite the spree today--some help reverting his poop would be appreciated. Blueboy96 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up after him yesterday under Contributions/76.199.87.51, and got him blocked thru WP:AIV. I think somebody needs a girlfriend - a real one this time. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Today's vandalism is cleaned up now. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And this is what dingbat had to say about it, from User_talk:76.194.64.13: "look, ever since i started editing Wikipedia all I did was write Jared for all the Houston Television Stations and that was it. i'm gonna take this chance of editing on Wikipedia without any fear, without your voice in my head telling me that i can't." I have a feeling that we have a "Mmbabies II" brewing here, and that means trouble beyond belief. -- azumanga 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this is gonna be nearly as bad as Mmbabies ... at least this guy isn't making threats to people's lives. And speaking of Mmbabies ... he actually got in the act himself yesterday. Even 4im'd Dingbat ... too funny. Blueboy96 12:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to make sure that Dingbat2007 and Mmbabies aren't the same person? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know -- Mmbabies's IPs originate in Houston; Dingbat's IPs originate in Richardson, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. -- azumanga 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget AT&T; what is it with Texas?? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in addition to these two, it produced George W. Bush too. (What???) Morgan Wick 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And Lyndon B. Johnson, and Ann Richards, and Ross Perot - HEY WAIT!! THIS ISN'T THE OFF THE AIR BOARD!! ;-) dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought we were going to make it through the day, as lonely boy's favorite targets were semi-protected, and IP address 76.194.64.13 was blocked for 24 hours, but as soon as the block came off, the vandalism began anew. Reverted all vandalism, once again reported to WP:AIV and left warning on talk page. I plan to make note of all IP sockpuppets and times of vandalism and report the abuse to AT&T Internet Services. Anyone else is welcome to do it if so inclined. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And he's still up on AIV as of now (8:34 Eastern). Time for another LTA entry? Blueboy96 12:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. And it seems our friend's using dial-up proxying or something ... his latest IP comes up as being from Encinitas, California--a suburb of San Diego. Blueboy96 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Last night (10/2), 76.201.23.223 was blocked for 24 hours. After the block expired, guess what happened. -- azumanga 02:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From Richardson again--somebody obviously had too much time on his hands while on vacation. Blueboy96 12:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have compiled a log of Dingbat2007 and suspected sockpuppet activity and have reported it to abuse@sbcglobal.net, which is the abuse address given in the WHOIS for the IP addresses. Let's see if it has any effect. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fran13. Fran19. 76.201.23.223. Sigh. -- azumanga 03:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

All reported to WP:AIV after major cleanup. He's coming after Arizona articles now. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (fix by dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Update: Named accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Yada, yada, yada. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time that we community ban him and give him the same treatment as Mmbabies, because I have a feeling Dingbat will be back -- again and again. -- azumanga 12:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. This user has seemingly NO intent whatsoever of editing constructively. WAVY 10 Fan 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What are we doing with Mmbabies that we aren't doing with Dingbat? When I see edits from the AT&T range of IP addresses or a Fran* account, I look over the contribs and if they are the same nonsense, I begin reverting all new contributions without even checking their merits. If the article is new, as Dingbat has started doing this week, I CSD3 it, no questions asked. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

76.195.180.167 and Fran12. And I can imagine that Dhett would like part of his life back for reverting another round of Dingbat's mass vandalism (thanks again, Dhett). -- azumanga 01:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just doing my part. I have his most frequent targets watched, and he always manages to hit them. He also vandalizes around the same time of day, so I usually know when to look for him. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And Dingbat has given us a two-for-one special as well -- Dingbat1994 and Dingbat1993. Can anyone community-ban him? -- azumanga 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think this guy is already banned ... who in his right mind would unblock him? Blueboy96 22:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a difference between regular banning and community-banning, other than increased vigilance and zero-tolerance for the latter? -- azumanga 23:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that he's old-style community banned--no admin (or rather, no admin in his right mind) is willing to unblock him. He was blocked after only one day as a vandal-only account ... a lot like Danny Daniel. Blueboy96 12:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And the beat goes on: Dingbat1991. Fortunately, there is only a limited supply of years he can use - at this rate, they should be exhausted in about 40 years, give or take. Thanks to Sandahl for dispatching him so quickly. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

List of television stations in North America by media market

...tagged for deletion, due to "copyright infringement". Rankings, names of markets, even the counties and cities they serve -- "copyright infringement".

That list has been here for HOW LONG? I expect "strong keeps" from everyone here. -- azumanga 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing -- if the list does gets deleted, I think we should identify stations only by the states they are based in, as an act of boycott, as theit COLs may give away the markets they are in. And to keep them guessing, remove the "TVQ" links. Yes, I may be sarcastic, but I am angry. -- azumanga 17:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The AfD nom was the user's first edit ... see his contribs. In my opinion, this should be a speedy close. Blueboy96 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the article was saved -- the talk page for the discussion of its deletion has been deleted itself. -- azumanga 18:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because the discussion was misplaced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/copyright infringement. That was deleted after it was moved to the correct location, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in North America by media market, and the old location was considered to not be suitable for a redirect (which makes sense). The nomination still exists, and it appears that it is still open. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has been kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Tube Music Network has shut down

As of Oct 1 per www.thetubetv.com. Adjust your favorite TV station articles. (Thought a post not involving PTEN or a vandal would be a refreshing change.) dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but we are not adding this to "Major defunct networks" on the {{American broadcast television}} template! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Variety Television Network (VTV)

Does any one know any thing about this network? I just came a cross a reference to it on the Clear Channel site as part of a press release: "...six stations affiliated with Clear Channel’s Variety Television Network (VTV). A chart of the individual broadcast properties, by location and network affiliation, is attached below." Spshu 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, VTV, which is subtitled "Variety Channel", is more branding instead of network -- so far, I only saw it in use for WAWS (for its MNTV affil), and I know WXXA also has a VTV channel. I don't know if they have a uniform schedule, of if they're limited to the programming in their parent station's library. You can access CC's station list, including which stations has VTV, here. -- azumanga 03:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking out the WXXA site lead me to VTV's webpage which indicates a standard schedule but with the option of local programming preempting VTV programming. I have started Newport Television and included a section for VTV. Spshu 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Template: Seattle TV

This template has really gotten out of hand. It has every single DT channel listed. It also lists just about every single translator in the state. None of the other templates are like this. 24.17.230.22 22:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- I made the template more reasonable, or reversed them (Template:Spokane TV was the same deal). Also, the person responsible, Mike1948, has been advised not to do it again. -- azumanga 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And after I reverted the changes, he changed them back. I already warned him twice. Can someone talk to him? -- azumanga 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

One more note -- he's also not as knowledgable about TV markets -- in the Seattle TV template, he included translators in Kittitas County -- which is in the Tri-Cities market. -- azumanga 03:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Equity name change

I don't know why this seems to have gone pretty much unnoticed by pretty much everyone (including me, admittedly), but Equity Broadcasting seems to have become Equity Media Holdings as of a little over six months ago (March 30, 2007). This, of course, is apparently not showing up on the various station articles for Equity's stations (and maybe something should be done about the name for its company navbox, {{EBC}}). I'm not going to change a whole bunch of articles at this time (I've only updated their station in Burlington, Vermont, WGMU-CA), so I'm just putting this out there... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why EBC's former site was leading to a webmail login...that's a good explanation for it. Nate 01:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice/Help Needed

Changes made by this user seem a little fishy to me. One that stood out was that WITF-TV (Harrisburg, PA's PBS station) was once an NBC and an ABC affiliate in the 50's. Other changes were made for numerous other stations just like this but since I am not sure about histories, could you all take a look. If it is vandalism, I will be glad to revert. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another Dingbat2007 sockpuppet to me. Same M.O., except that this editor seems to have a Dutch IP address. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So, do I revert? I don't want to revert changes that are correct. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I say "revert" -- looking at the talk page of the aforementioned person that initiated the changes, it seems that he has an unfriendly reputation -- and that's just since the start of October. -- azumanga 12:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A tougher call. You identified edits as vandalism on 10/2. If they were, in fact, vandalism, and not just wrong information introduced in a good-faith edit, then you've answered your own question: vandals' edits are reverted. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...just wanted to make sure before I clicked the ol' Vandal button. If you all see an edit that is correct, please let me know. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with serial uploader

CarloPlyr440 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded several station logos in which he claims to own the copyright. He's been blocked twice for this, but he just uploaded several logos today. I've reported him to AIV and am in the midst of reverting all of his stuff ... but as you'll see by his contributions, it's quite the spree. Some help would be greatly appreciated. Blueboy96 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a week, but keep a lookout in case he starts creating socks ... I think I got most of his bad uploads, but any help would still be appreciated. Blueboy96 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed him "fixing" some articles, such as the pending sale of WRAL and WRAZ (not true), the sale of WCCB to Fox (not true), and the denial that the sale of some Fox O&Os (like WJW, WDAF and WBRC) was going to happen (it is). With that, plus the misppropriation of copyright (with his block record to match), I have a feeling that he'll be going down hard. -- azumanga 00:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has to end that way ... I've done some thinking about it, and I'm starting to think that a week isn't nearly long enough. This guy's history is very similar to that of longterm vandal Verdict. Same sort of behavior--uploading fair-use images deceptively labeled as free (in his case, claiming that he owns them). I'm gonna see if he can be blocked for longer than that at ANI. Blueboy96 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

His block ran out yesterday, but everyone needs to keep a very close eye on his contributions. This is worse than BenH, Mmbabies and Dingbat, guys--what we're dealing with from this guy isn't just pelican shit vandalism, but behavior that could get the Wikimedia Foundation sued out of existence. Check any images he uploads, and if he's misappropriating copyright again, they get I7 speedied--do not pass go, do not collect $200. And at least one admin's willing to indef him if he's caught.Blueboy96 12:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He's back to editing. He's had some edits undone, but the ones I've seen, I've been able to verify, which makes him a bit more difficult to handle. At least with Dingbat and Mmbabies, we know their edits will be nonsense, so we can justify reverting with extreme prejudice, so to speak, but it's harder to blindly revert when 4 out of 5 edits are correct. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is more serious: User uploading logos that they lied about copyright or user making death threats with images of fried chicken? You be the judge. WAVY 10 Fan 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I don't consider the death threats to be in any way credible, I'm going to say the former. I will say though, that the "death threats" are stupid, as they make it easier for us to request to the authorities that they really lower the boom on that clown Mmbabies. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens when I have to work OT ... he uploaded an image falsely labeled as free again. See the history for WBRC. I'm opening an ANI thread on this guy to see what should be done next, given the long time frame between his previous uploads ... but I'm hoping this guy gets blocked for a very long time. Blueboy96 16:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Noticed an admin was kind enough to fix the rationale ... Carlo got lucky, at least for the moment. Blueboy96 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. Blueboy96 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearchannel/Newport/LK

I'm new to wiki, so I hope I'm doing this right. I'd like to submit some corrections/information about Clearchannel/Newport Media/LK. I'm an employee of KFTY, and our page, as well as I belive all Clearchannel station pages are incorrect.

The application to assign control to Newport has not yet been approved, yet these pages state that Newport is the current owner. Clearchannel still owns and holds complete control of all of these stations. This can be verified on the FCC website. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_sear.htm Enter the call letters on the form at the *bottom* of the page.(group search)

Similarly, the applications to assign from Newport to LK and from Newport to Cowles have not been approved.

Also, the page for KFTY is missing some relevent information from the past month or so. There are rumors (and at this point that is what they are) that KFTY may become spanish. Also, KFTY is no longer on the analog cable lineup. This article sums it up: http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20071012/NEWS/710120352/1033/NEWS01 --207.230.144.240 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)wlh99

I have left a note with the editor responsible for the incorrect information. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

KETH-TV 14 off the air in Houston

From Radio-Info: http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,83289.0.html

Mmbabies has gone too far this time!!  ;-) dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Greetings. As a member of WP:WPRS, I was curious what notability guidelines you guys/gals cite when a television station's notability is called into question. Thanks! JPG-GR 06:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, if it has a license and is not merely a repeater of another station, it's notable. There are some exceptions in which it does not meet the above criteria, but they're notable one way or another, such as pirate TV stations (such as Star Ray TV), or the hundreds of TBN repeaters from coast-to-coast. -- azumanga 07:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And I would question the notability of the hundreds of TBN repeaters also, even though I've written articles for a few of them. I seem to be in the minority opinion, however, so I don't press it. I would consider the hundreds of satellite-delivered repeaters of Calvary Chapel, K-Love and Air 1 to be non-notable, as they are fully automated and offer no local programming. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10