User talk:JPG-GR/Archive 4

WCEN

I changed the airdate on WCEN to reflect 1959 in both the article and the column. I also changed it back to state that the station was licensed "in" the cities, not "to" the cities. I hope that works for you. It looks like you've done a great job doing a lot of work on the Michigan stations. Goosman99 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

no title

Why did you change the WKQI page about the Britney Spears suicide bet? I gave all the citations (sources are from the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press) necessary to validate the radio station's behavior over the issue! This particular stunt is worth mentioning considering how tasteless this bet was done. Furthermore, I listened to their station for years and if you notice their playlist, their airplay is more hip-hop inclined rather than following any particular radio charts that I have ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.129 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the WNIC change about mentioning how Rick James' Super Freak is played than less sexually-charged contemporary urban artists such as Destiny's Child, Rihanna, Ne-Yo, and Will Smith; you will especially notice this during their "Flashback Weekends". I thought that was worth mentioning and how hypocritical the station can be when it claims to be "family-friendly", when in reality they just play "oldies" despite the sexual content.

WP:SOAP and WP:OR, respectively. JPG-GR 18:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the Britney Spears suicide bet is NOT a "soap box" argument, if you would have bothered to have read the articles you would have seen it was fully supported by the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News. I find it surprising that you maintain/keep information in which the whole article is basically WP:OR, but when something is supported you consider it a WP:SOAP. I wouldn't have minded if you made changes here and there to it, but to eliminate it altogther is very suspicious in fact you're behavior violates WP:CENSOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxyzdetroit313 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a collection of day-to-day reports on a radio station. This "controversy" may or may not be a controversy in a month's time, and at this time doesn't belong here (maybe at Wikinews, maybe not). As for your continued original research as to station playlists, if you can't support your claims with a source, don't bother adding it. JPG-GR 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have received some posts on my talk page from Wxyzdetroit313 referencing a certain dispute that apparently described this user as a sockpuppet of 63.3.1.1. I have had previous difficulties with this sockpuppeteer and I wonder how you were able to identify this username as a sockpuppet? I had reported this as a sockpuppet case a couple months ago, but this person didn't have accounts, it was only listed as IP addresses. Now this person claims to have AOL and describes that as the reason for all this trouble. When I looked up the IP#'s a while back, it didn't show any evidence that this was an AOL IP. It came from UUNET Technologies, a branch of Verizon Networks. I'm not disputing the fact that this person may indeed be a sockpuppet of the IP address listed above; I just think that there needs to be more proof. This person seems to be complaining to me about this whole situation, and I'd rather just settle it straight away. If this person really is a sockpuppet, then there is no reason why he/she would have any room to whine about it. Thanks in advance for hopefully understanding. --Candy156sweet 21:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WHTS revert

Now, I'm not about to start an edit war over this trivial little matter, but why the revert on my cleanup effort on WHTS? --Fightingirish 01:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cleanup"? I reverted to remove the duplicated link you added. Nothing more, nothing less. JPG-GR 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you removing the "External links" links on all the articles? And I have been organizing articles to put the FCC and Radio Locater links at the bottom. Check my edit history.--Fightingirish 01:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I remove duplicate web links on sight. JPG-GR 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: KSL

Thanks for the kind words. I've been concentrating mostly on filling in history (including previous formats, call letters, logos, etc.). I do also work with structure (as many have noticed, I have a pet peeve about schedules, which are redundant, non-encyclopedic, advertising and are often put up by people working for the stations). I often remove them on site, which has gotten me into conflicts with several people who don't seem to understand the whole thing. I'm also fussy about sentence structure, grammar, etc.

The past few days, I've been working on early history, such as sign-on dates, years in radio, etc. It's a pretty massive project. So far, I've gotten through most of New York and L.A. AM radio.

Also glad to see others such as yourself active in the radio project. It's one area on Wikipedia that doesn't seem to get a whole lot of love.--Fightingirish 18:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry about posting this on your userpage. I thought it looked kinda funny for a talk page!--Fightingirish 18:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

hahaha no problemo. JPG-GR 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

-LP stations

I don't understand the problem. These stations exist. What makes full power the criteria? As for -LPs being non-notable, there are plenty of full power stations which do not have articles & as you said about -LPs some of them may not have articles for a long time! So therefore by the same logic, they too are worthy of not listing! As for formats, like another user said, several stations they have listed incorrectly. Therefore their info must be taken with a grain of salt. As for formats themselves, there is NO "news talk information" format, just "news/talk" or "N/T." WJHD is NOT a classical station, they are eclectic. Most H.S. & college stations are eclectic. That's how they're listed! Actually, www.radio-locator.com lists them as just "college" or "high school." I don't understand why data is being deleted. WRJI's format has been deleted. I've worked there! They are Spanish-language religion! There are a lot of other things that have confused & irritated me in this whole ordeal. I am simply trying to put in THE MOST accurate information, PERIOD! This a list of stations, not of just full-power. That's what the title says. It's not "List of full-power radio stations in Rhode Island." That includes -LPs. They DESERVE their place in the sun especially after the garbage that the N.A.B. pulled! If we were talking about Part 15s, then okay. They come & go with the wind. Also, don't threaten me with the block user garbage. I'm not the one that's been deleting accurate information!Stereorock 14:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes full-power the criteria is many months of discussion and observation at WP:WPRS. Low-power stations, with few exceptions, are not-notable. As I just explained at Talk:List of radio stations in Rhode Island, claiming that there is no such thing as a "News Talk Information" format is ridiculous, as Arbitron is the company that pulls rating information for radio stations. If they list it as a format, it's inherently a format. Once again, your personal experience at a particular radio station qualifies as original research and has absolutely NO place on Wikipedia. JPG-GR 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WBXX-FM.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WBXX-FM.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A Little Heads-Up

Took a look at the work you are doing (good job, by the way) and on the markets templates there are some on your list that are in red that exsist (some I created):

• Market 41: Template:Hampton Roads AM Template:Hampton Roads FM
• Market 56: Template:Richmond AM Template:Richmond FM
• Market 101: Template:Tri-Cities TN / VA Radio
• Market 115: Template:Roanoke AM Template:Roanoke FM
• Market 165: Template:Hagerstown Radio
• Market 175: Template:Morgantown Radio

Of course, markets listed in red on your list are just under another name, though I am not sure which. The ones listed above though, I am certain. I (along with others) have also created "unranked" templates so you will probably have to include those in any list. Hope this helps and feel free to ask if you have a question. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In theory, all 300 templates already exist, just under inconsistent names. There's a lot of work to be done there, which is what I'll be working on for the next little while... until someone decides they don't like it. JPG-GR 06:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie :) With some, like Morgantown and Hagerstown, they are pretty much under their right names (except they don't have the extra cities). With Roanoke, Richmond, and Hampton Roads, well, they are in the AM/FM break aways. All that needs done is to move them and then change the links around on the associated pages. You let me know how you are doing that exactly (be it by yourself or requesting it) and I can knock out markets 41, 56, 101, 115, 165, and 175 for ya and rename the "unranked" markets as well. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really doing anything in any set order. Best bet I would say is to watch them all (if you aren't already) and you'll see me eventually. JPG-GR 06:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Already done there :), I watch just about everything in VA, WV, MD, DC, and Southern PA. Let me know if you need help with them (I can knock those out before my next Pepsi) or just normal cleanup stuff. I am always wandering around somewhere. Take Care and Enjoy Your Evening...NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WV Radio Template

Is there anyway to keep the template "compressed", if you will, as it was before (the markets only took up two lines) and leave the setup as it is? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How about it's current version? Compressed, small, doesn't take up much space, but has the setup (though not centered) that you created. Like, Don't Like? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm gonna accuse you of WP:OWNing. Of the 50 state templates, more than 30 of them use this format. I'm trying to make them all consistent. If we can't have consistency, I'm wasting my time here. JPG-GR 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh chill....can I try and make something look a little different, make it not look like the same ol' same ol'? I just don't want something that is going to take up a ton of space. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a advertisement. Not a specific policy, but I think the point is clear. JPG-GR 07:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't even get your point. There was no advertisement there. I just wanted something that looks a little different, didn't take up so much space. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Things are supposed to look uniform and consistent, which is why most templates are the same colors and have the same basic formats. When it comes down to it, you don't like how it looks because its in your region, and don't care that it looks completely different. JPG-GR 07:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me you are not combining the AM and FM templates....if you are, that is a very bad idea, especially for the NYC and even Hampton Roads templates. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, the need for an AM and FM template is both redundant and unnecessary, esp. with the new navbox format. JPG-GR 07:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is necessary...take the DC area. TONS of AM stations and TONS of FM stations, put all those on a template together and you have a mess. Same thing with the Hampton Roads area, same thing with NYC and really any Top 20 market. The seperate AM and FM templates need to stay, cause you know they will just be recreated by a number of users. Think first before jumping into this, so you don't do all this work for nothing. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Irony - I actually kinda like your version here after having a night to sleep on it. Naturally, this means I need to go back and revise a bunch, but at least I don't have to figure what's Arbitron300 and what's not. But, that's for later tonight. I've also found a solution for the state radio lists that will prevent arguing and make my life easier/the task quicker. JPG-GR 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What a night's sleep and fresh eyes can do....it works for me alot too :) Let me know if you need any help. Take Care and Stay Warm (49F here)...NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Michigan Heads Up

Another user has found some "expired" or not working websites, one being at WIDG. Their website am940thefan.com is down and now has a "parked" page in it's place, so I removed it from the WIDG page until another website is found. Since this is your area of expertise, I figured you would want to know. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd noticed the edit, thanks. JPG-GR 03:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New Market Template

Hey, can you send me a blank template for the new market template navbox (ie: this) to my email link so when I make new sections for West Virginia (and I will) I can create the correct market template. Thanks...NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

{{navbox
|name=NAME Radio
|title=Radio stations in the [[NAME]] market
|group1=By FM [[frequency]]
|list1= 
|group2=By AM [[frequency]]
|list2= 
|group3=By [[callsign]]
|list3= 
|list4= {{STATE Radio Markets}}
}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Radio stations in STATE| {{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

•

Thanks! :) One question, do I add the • and the </pre> or is that just something that got in there when you copied? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are what made the box display that way. Go from double bracket to the end of noinclude. JPG-GR 07:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...thanks! I will give it a test run in the sandbox, so I know what I am doing. Again, thanks! Take Care and Enjoy Your Sunday...NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Callsigns

When the link is to [[WDNE (AM)]] adding "WDNE-AM" as what everyone sees doesn't change anything. The proper call sign is WDNE, but since there is a WDNE-FM, you want the reader to be able to tell the difference.

Now, in the case of [[WCIR-FM]], it just looks silly to have -FM on them all. The WikiLink remains the same, but in some places there is a -FM and others there isn't. It looks weird.

So, for naming pages, I can understand the -FM or (AM), but on templates, where we want to take up as little space as possible, it is just weird and looks uneven or even "half-assed" when you have some -FM and some not. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appearance issue. This is a naming issue. Radio stations are to be listed by their official names, not what you feel looks nice. Once again, this is an encyclopedia of facts, not a poster that's supposed to look pretty. JPG-GR 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what you got out of that? Seriously? OK, you are being a tad over-bearing on this thing. No one cares if it is -AM, (AM), -FM, (FM), -XM, (whocares), or anything else but you. You want a template to look like crap and half-assed, fine. But the page names remain the same, there is nothing in the naming convensions that say the template links have to be that way too. If so, you have alot of work to do. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The only work appears to be on the templates you have worked on, as I have yet to come across any outside of your area of expertise that use the non-existent "-AM" suffix. JPG-GR 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, WP:OWN. Cite this magical rule of they have to be this way (with link to the actual rule) or what we arguing about? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, let's completely forget that 99% of all AM radio stations ID as "WXXX-AM Whereverburg" Even WTOP ID'ed as WTOP-AM Washington. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, now that we got that settled. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch your edit summaries, or you'll be reported for violating WP:CIVIL (again). JPG-GR 08:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually you were the "confused" quitter. The "nutjob" knows who he is. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

4? No Sir.

That wasn't vandalism, that was a truthful edit. Anyone who would throw a fit like you just threw doesn't deserve the barnstar that was awarded to him. I am fairly certain that can be done. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The radio project

  UnresolvedUser:Neutralhomer has yet to apologize, but has ceased in violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA at the present time. JPG-GR 08:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While we've worked in different areas of the radio project, I'm still sorry to see that you've been pushed so far as to feel the need to quit. Hopefully, Neutralhomer will change his behaviour, and you'll feel comfortable enough to return. Cheers. --Ckatz 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. When there are editors who are more concentrated on how the encyclopedia looks (making pretty infoboxes and making all red links blue, no matter how non-notable a station may be) rather than the actual content and accuracy of the encyclopedia, I lose interest. He and I have had many conflicts in the past, and he has yet to show any interest in taking the time to step away and consider both sides of a situation, as he is always right, no matter what policy may be violated, no matter how ridiculous his arguments may be.

Frankly, I've spent too much time on WP in the last few months, anyway. WP:WPRS will continue on without me, and hopefully flourish. May the content editors overpower the stubborn ones. Thanks. JPG-GR 17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I gotta ask....was the "quitting" WP:WPRS just for show or are you and your sockpuppet actually going to do some work? I need to know, because either you have "lost interest" or you are editing articles I edit and moving articles I have created to keep an arguement going. I am not sure. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 09:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor and don't put merge tags on pages that don't need to be merged. Why would there need to be a merge tag on WWIL-FM when that is where is supposed to be, hmm? Da rulz07 didn't play by "da rulz" as he (or maybe you) moved WWIL-FM to WWIL, now it must be moved back. I have also had to request moves for WNNT and WLJS as they were incorrectly moved from their proper places. Tell "rule boy" about the naming convensions and how about you leave the radio station pages to people who know what they are doing. I am tired of cleaning up your messes. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 09:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya see, I did look at the naming convensions and the FCC database. Seems that WLJS is WLJS-FM, WNNT is WNNT-FM and WWIL is WWIL-FM...and that is following the naming convensions. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I utilized {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} and not {{merge}}. It is clear your apparent hatred for me clouds your judgment and somehow convinces you that I would intentionally begin undoing the hard work I did for months on end, and I'm sorry that you cannot see the bigger picture. I have not once made a damaging-to-WP edit, and don't intend to. But, your warped opinion of me is yours and yours alone. Just because another editor is working on one of your precious pages doesn't mean "OMG TIME TO REVERT WITH TWINKLE."

Additionally, I will continue to edit where I want and when I want, whether or not I'm an active participant in any project or not.

Finally, the sheer amount of information you remove from your talk page on a daily basis, which you feel is negative toward you, is a borderline violation of the talk page guidelines. However, it's your talk page, I couldn't care less - but you should probably be careful. JPG-GR 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First, remember, my talk page, I can delete what I want from it, when I want...same with everyone. Second, it appears an admin agreed with me and the pages were moved back to the correct "titles", if you will, per the FCC database and the naming convensions. So, is that admin's judgement "clouded" too?

JPG, you may think I have some hatred toward you, if you do, then, well, I can't help you. I only hate two people on Wikipedia and you aren't one...I don't even dislike you. You do annoy the crap outta me sometimes, but I don't hate nor dislike you. If you want to think I do, that is your choice. Also, if you think I have some "protectiveness" of the articles I create, then you are WAY off. I can't, per WP:OWN, also, they are articles, not people. Now, please...run along to the red links. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand WP:MERGE. Of course the admin made the move. No one disapproved of it. I'm the one who found it, you're the one who reported it, and then the uncontroversial move was completed. Where is there any disagreement here, other than in your interpretation?

Your denial of showing any form of WP:OWN is preposterous. When minor edits are made that affect content in no way, you revert. When small edits are made that you don't understand, you revert. It is clear by your actions that you would rather have -your- articles look the way you want them and the templates follow -your- interpretation of the rather clear naming conventions rather than have the whole of Wikipedia in general and WP:WPRS specifically be as good as they can be.

And, again, this is Wikipedia, and I will edit where I like. Your continued attempts to run me off ("Two of the Worst, Gone! One close behind.", "run along to the red links") are laughable at best. JPG-GR 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, what part of "WLJS is WLJS-FM, WNNT is WNNT-FM and WWIL is WWIL-FM" in the FCC database (which, if I am not mistaken, is what we base the naming convensions on) don't you get...or am I missing something? Also, it appears your "quitting" of WPRS was just for show and you are wanting to keep this little arguement going. It also appears that you are listening to what you want to hear (sounds like someone else I know) so I am going to let you go and do whatever, but when you mess up an article (by moving it to a wrong name) I will correct it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, apparently I need to spell out WP:MERGE for you like I did with the WP:WPRS naming conventions for you months ago. Merge means to combine. When two articles are on the same subject, {{merge}} is for combining the information of the two. Using {{mergeto}} means "this article and the other one are to be merged, and located at that other location" and {{mergefrom}} means "this article and the other one are to be merged, and located at this location." All the tags say is "hey, there's probably something useful here than can be integrated over there, and then this can be a redirect" which is EXACTLY what you requested, barring the possible lost of a fact or two. *BIG NEON LIGHTS* WE ARE ON THE SAME DAMN PAGE WITH THOSE MERGE/MOVES FROM LAST NIGHT.

I haven't improperly moved a radio station article that I haven't immediately moved back since I joined WP:WPRS months ago. You have no need to stalk my edits for that purpose (though I'm sure you'll continue to stalk them for whatever other reason).

I edited radio station articles before being part of WP:WPRS, and if I want to after leaving, I shall. This just means that I'm not gonna crank out automatically generated templates and station lists (I'll let someone else do that work the hard way, or develop an easy way to do it in 20 seconds like I was).

You've wasted more time in the last 24 hours accusing me of false moves (which never happened), improper use of {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} (which never happened), and sockpuppetry (which never happened). If you spent more time expanding your horizons, reading the various pages/policies in the Wikipedia namespace, not biting the veterans (which might make a new, good policy) and actually DISCUSSING edits to reach consensus (see: AM-FM vs. AM & FM templates; use of callsigns in templates, etc.) you, I, and WP would be all the better for it. JPG-GR 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I get what Merge is...what I don't get is why you decided to merge the pages on the incorrect named page. Why not merge the pages about WNNT on WNNT-FM instead of WNNT? Why not merge the pages about WLJS on WLJS-FM instead of WLJS? That's what I don't get. You can't say you are doing things by the naming convensions when you do something like that. That would be a false move. But again, since you appear to just be more interested in arguing and reading into things, I will leave you to that. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. Let's try this again. We both agree that the official call sign of the station is WNNT-FM, yes? We both agree that the article should be located at WNNT-FM, yes? I put {{mergeto}} on WNNT-FM ([1]) because WNNT is suposed to be merged to WNNT-FM. This is what we're both saying, this is what we're both doing, you just seem to be misunderstanding the use of the templates. Take the time and look at the templates. Take the time and look at that dif. Stop wasting your time and mine by saying "JPG-GR you seem to be more interested in arguing than reading blahblahbalh" when you continue to respond to the posts and you continue to refuse to look at the evidence that we're both working toward the same end, I'm just going about it in a way you don't fully grasp. JPG-GR 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I got all that. The page was finally merged to (moved to) WNNT, not the WNNT merged/moved to WNNT-FM. That is what I am not understanding. Same thing happened on WLJS and WWIL. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything other than a redirect located at WNNT (which is correct). Can you show me a dif to explain what you mean? The only moves I did last night were a few assorted AM stations to "WXXX (AM)" style to make room for dab pages. JPG-GR 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't, as the history of WNNT has been wiped. Remember, I am not an admin, nor do I play one on TV. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm not quite sure where the origin for this whole argument is. I didn't move the articles. I didn't tag them to moved away from where they're supposed to be. Whatever you did see occur, it wasn't caused by me. You're accused the wrong editor. JPG-GR 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, there are two editors called JPG-GR...sure. Maybe it was the one-armed man? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Ask one of your many admin friends to check the logs. I authorize it. Point them to this dif of me saying so. You're accusing me of something I didn't do, and since you would rather believe I am intentionally trying to hurt the project I put hours of work into (WP:WPRS) and not assume good faith, I'm sure you won't bother. It's much easier to paint me as the bad guy, because you're CLEARLY always right.</sarcasm> JPG-GR 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the logs of what you speak, either ([2] & [3]). I'm very curious as to what you thought you saw. JPG-GR 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I should have taken a screenshot before they correctly merged the pages. Seriously dude, you need to just admit you made a mistake and move on. You know you are in the wrong, been proven, and you are trying to make it out that, what, I am seeing things? Haven't had a good hallucination since 1988. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your radio project subpages ...

... are undeleted. Neil ☎ 10:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GREATLY appreciated. JPG-GR 05:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

err...

Dude, maybe it's the 15 hours of sleep, maybe it's the Vicodin, or maybe after yesterday, I am just tired of bickering. Since our paths will cross, since we like the same thing...radio stations...we have to find a way to co-exsist on here or we are both going to get in trouble.

I think there are other things we can bicker about then if there is an -AM or -FM on a template. My sole reason for them is if it looks like WDNE people might thing is is the disambig page when it really is [[WDNE (AM)|WDNE]]. Hence why, for just the template, I add the -AM and I only add -AM when it's like call signed FM station (WDNE-FM) is on the template. If you notice, there are a few where the other station is on there and it is just [[WDNE-FM|WDNE]]. Yes, it isn't correct, but for some users, they might not understand the difference. Remember, other people come across these too, not just radio station fans like us.

So, as a comprimise (sp?) could we allow those to say (for understanding sake) when like call signed stations are on a template we could place them on there as [[WDNE (AM)|WDNE-AM]] [[WDNE-FM]] but when there is no like call signed station, it will just be calls only, no -AM or -FM? This would also not anything else (naming of pages, etc) will be (AM) and no -AM since those have better explanation room? Would that work?

Also, I probably do owe you an apology about saying you had a sockpuppet. It looked like you and another user were making edits on the same pages and it looked a little weird to me. I should have done a checkuser before accusing you and I am sorry. The naming thing after having an admin dig up the logs (yes, they were buried after the admin moved the pages back) it turned out the user who moved them was not you....so I apologize. But, I think you owe me one as well. Asking MedCab to ban me (even for a short time) probably wasn't the best way to win me over to your side of thinking and throwing warning after warning at me. Dude, I like working with you, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you have actually taught me alot.

Before, I would not have made disambig pages, because I wouldn't have known why they should be made. I made that because you taught me. Adding the ''' ''' to the call letters of the first sentence of a radio page, you taught me. Naming articles, I didn't know about that, didn't understand it at first, but you taught me that. Adding the market templates, the state stubs, the WP:WPRS tags to the talk pages, you taught me that. I pulled up a page I created under my old user name...not the best, now the last page I created, awesome. See the difference you made in my editing?

Look, I am willing to work with you, but we have to find a way to work together and not bicker, I know it has to be giving you a headache. I am sorry if I upset you and I hope you return to WP:WPRS fulltime. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Before I even bother reading that (because it's quite irrelevant), WP:WPRS policy is that radio stations are to be referred to by their official callsigns as found in the FCC database. Your continued reverting of what you deem vandalism (because you don't like it) is, in fact, vandalism. I've already suggested to the rest of the WP:WPRS community to fix the other templates first, and hope you come to your senses and realize that you are fighting a battle that is pointless as the policy predates both you and I. Perhaps time is all you need. JPG-GR 05:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, after reading your post, thanks for the apology, and as I have stated many times before, when you are editing content, you are a formidable editor. HOWEVER, I absolutely refuse to compromise when the policy has already been set and has been set longer than both of us have been members of WP:WPRS. True, some users may not understand the difference, but as both of us have learned (and both of us in less than easy ways), there IS a difference, and there's no sense in mudding the water when the policy is clear. JPG-GR 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also of note - if I lose my mind and decide to continue creating sortable tables for List of radio stations by STATE, I'm gonna leave the Owner and Format columns empty, as you seem to have access to a source which can grab all the info easier than I can. Of course, that's a BIG IF that I'l start up again at all. JPG-GR 05:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK....I think this works as a BIG compromise, instead of the -AM, I made it (AM). Example: [[WDNE (AM)|WDNE (AM)]] I think that works for you, because it shows the correct call sign (which is what you want) and it works for me, because it ain't confused the crap out of the "everyday" user. I don't like the way it looks, but eh, it'll do. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

STILL completely unnecessary. Unnecessary disambiguation that the user doesn't need to see. I fail to see why you refuse to follow the stated policy, especially when it's so clear AND I know you understand it. JPG-GR 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because you have never shown this "policy" and you have no consensus. Please don't make me regret trying to make nice with you. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your ignoring of the clearly stated policy on WP:WPRS and the confirmed acknowledgment of said policy at WT:WPRS does not make a lack of consensus on my part - it makes a clear stubbornness on your part. JPG-GR 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am tired....very, very tired....so do me a favor and quote me the rule. Also, it is also stubbornness on your part for not wanting to stray from the rules ever so much, so as to not confuse other readers. Remember, we are creating these pages for others, not just ourselves. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• "For articles on stations located in countries which do use government-issued call signs, the official call sign should be used."
• "For all stations with call signs, check that the call sign used in the article (and article title, where applicable) is the correct one for that station."

Rules are rules. By utilizing non-existent suffixes such as "-AM" and unnecessary disambiguation such as "(AM)", you are confusing new readers. By following the rules, I'm not confusing anyone - if anything, it is then easier to find editors who aren't following the rules, so then the naming conventions can be explained to them. Wikiprojects are implemented to keep things structured. JPG-GR 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in those for templates....nothing. Also, with your current attitude, I regret trying to be nice to you. The above shows you have no intention to work with me or try and co-exsist, no matter how much you say on ANI or MedCab. Your attitude shows you have no intention of trying to work together on this project and you will continue to bend the rules to your way of thinking and be damned anyone else. It also shows that you are and have been actively OWN'ing the articles you work on. I have done my best to be nice and to find compromise and middle ground, but your actions show that my trying to do so is in vain. I tried. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you think the guidelines for WP:WPRS don't apply to templates is ridiculous. JPG-GR 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• For articles on stations... and ...used in the article.......I see nothing about templates. If you see templates, well, I don't know what to tell ya. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say anything about templates. Templates don't have special sets of rules, barring the WP:MOS. Templates that are maintained by a WikiProject follow the rules of that WikiProject. You're just arguing this small issue of semantics because you aren't getting your way. Why you can't just see the greater picture and the good of the project going forward is beyond me. JPG-GR 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Templates don't have special sets of rules".....OK, so, why are you saying there is? Revert, move on. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Special rules for themselves, i.e. templates don't have a separate rule set. However, they do follow the general rules of the greater project. JPG-GR 19:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, Dude....you can't say they don't have rules then say they do. That just makes my head hurt worse. OK, I am going to sleep (23 hours without, it's time for sleep) and I will consider your offer on my talk page later. But we need to work this template thing out. We can't cite rules that don't exsist. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates do not have their own set of rules, but they follow those of their parent project. As the rules of WP:WPRS clearly state that all radio stations shall be referred to by their official callsigns at all times, this applies to the templates as well. JPG-GR 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Those rules say nothing about templates, so you can't say templates fall under those rules when that's not what they say. They say "articles"...not "templates". BIG difference. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 11:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue about this for multiple days. It's the policy. Everyone else seems to understand that. The consensus is there. Just because you don't like it, and want to use this weightless argument is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the facts. Believe what you like, do what you like, but know that when I change those templates, I'm working for the project and when you revert, you're working against it. JPG-GR 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You have no consensus, you don't even have policy. You have nothing. You are making up rules as you go. You admitted that there are no rules for templates, then try and tell me that there is, but they are the rules that say nothing about templates. A word comes to mind...vandalism. Also, I thought about it and if you are going to be so OWN'ing over this, what do you think will happen with the state by state pages? Unless you can chill out and tone it down a bit, you are going to have to find someone else for the state by state pages. If you can chill out, tone it down, stop carrying the pretend Wiki rulebook in your shirt pocket, I will reconsider that. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you entertain me, dear Neutralhomer. First of all, if you don't want to help with the state lists, I don't really care. If I opt to do them, I'll do them. If I opt not to, I won't. I was just trying to include you, as you've shown you have a resource that can quickly provide info that I don't have access to. If you'd rather cry about it, go right ahead. The project will move forward -- because it's about the project, not you. Be included, or not. It's not my job to stroke your ego.

Secondly, I've already shown what the policy says. I'm not gonna argue policy with you, and I'm not gonna explain it in a hundred different ways, as I've been asked to do before. You read what you want to read, and ignore the rest. If policy doesn't jive with what you're doing, you claim policy doesn't say anything about what you're doing. Consensus has been reached on this, yet you refuse to acknowledge that. Do what you like - the policy will win out in the end. The irony of it all - you keep quoting WP:OWN, yet it's the templates in your area of expertise that you refuse to make follow policy, unlike all the others. I invite you to read the following article: Pot calling the kettle black. JPG-GR 18:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

MY ego? HAHAHAHA!! Good one! I could care less if you "include" me in anything, personally. Like I said, if you tone this little attitude yours down, then I will be more than happy to help you, but when you go on for about 12 sentences of your own "ego-stroking" then I don't see that happening. You cited policy that says nothing about templates and then claim it includes them, it shows you are not interested in working for the project, but how you want the project to work for you. You have ask for no consensus and claim yourself as being that consensus. That, my friend, is a MAJOR ego. So, don't come to me with this "ego" crap and that you are "including" me (like I have to be "included" to do something here?) and that I am "crying about" something. Because all you are doing now is dancing around the real point....you are making up rules and OWN'ing every radio station article and template out there. That, my friend, is egotistical. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Try reading WT:WPRS for once - consensus is right there for you. JPG-GR 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I see 6(!) posts from you and two by individual editors, for a grand total of 8. One post, by another user, asked if it couldn't be posted another way. So....where is your consensus? 2 people don't a consensus make. You need at least 10 to make a real honest-to-God Wikipedia consensus. You, posting 6 times, doesn't make one. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also curious as to the "Notability" post on WP:TVS. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And, I'm curious why you are stalking my edits AGAIN. JPG-GR 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The lack of any dissenters AT ALL in a 7+-day period, with the exception of a single separate suggestion, is proof enough for me. Additionally, it would appear (at least to everyone but you), that the policy on callsigns is clear, as stated by myself in many places and User:Rtphokie in the discussion. The policy on callsigns is wide-spread - templates don't get to follow their own special rule-set that you've made up arbitrarily with no discussion at all and which goes against set policy. JPG-GR 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look, from October 16th to Today, the only people who posted on the WP:WPRS talk page were WOSlinker, Dravecky, Vegaswikian, You, and myself. That's it! In that amount of time on WP:TVS there could be TONS of people posting on their talk page. Did you think that maybe, just maybe, the WP:WPRS talk page doesn't see that much traffic and that you should post that in other places? Also, I am also a member at WP:TVS, so I check that page often. I see something that interests me on my watchlist, I look, I also see your post. Stalking, no. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, if we're going list the AM and FM stations combined, I'd prefer to see "WDNE • WDNE-FM" (the actual call signs) to either "WDNE (AM) • WDNE-FM" or "WDNE-AM • WDNE-FM". Sorry, NeutralHomer, I'm with JPG-GR on this one.

On the other hand, if we're going to pick nits, is there any reason that FM frequencies are being listed before AM frequencies in the new templates? I would think that the logical order would be AM before FM; both alphabetically, numerically (kHz < MHz), and chronologically (AM was around before FM). DHowell 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey DHowell, you actually have a good point there. I think having the AM's first, then the FM's listed on the template is a good idea. I perfer it that way myself. Think that is something (via a WPRS consensus) we might be able to do for all templates? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's worth a try. DHowell 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded there regarding the order of the rows on the templates and the sorting on the sortable tables. JPG-GR 22:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see here for a reply to your previous post about the AM/FM or FM/AM on templates. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I do watch WT:WPRS, you know? JPG-GR 23:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As do I, but there is that thing called courtesy. The above, was a courtesy post. One of those things people do when they are being polite. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't need them, as I keep a closer eye on this stuff than most, and being bothered by that orange bar just to see a simple notification of something I've already noticed is highly unnecessary. JPG-GR 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, having a polite note on your talk page is "highly unnecessary"? I guess they don't teach politeness nor courtesy in Michigan. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Any warning tags you place on my talk page (which shows your continued abuse of them) will be instantly deleted. Please refrain from this, as I have asked you to stop this behaviour on numerous occasions. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you violate a policy and I notify you of it doesn't show my abuse of warning templates... it should your abuse of policy. JPG-GR 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'm wrong, you're right. Whatever. Just a thought, you have taken our discussions/arguements to ANI four times now, I haven't taken you to ANI ever. Not once....and you call this "cooled tempers"? I say if you have to report me to ANI every 20mins, your temper is still red hot. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reported you to WP:AN when you've violate policies. You haven't reported me because I don't violate policies. I think that's pretty clean cut. And, you can't possibly be calling my temper "red hot" after you just felt the need to insult myself and 9+ million other people. JPG-GR 23:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You see 9+ Million people? Where? Anyway, you have violated policies and continue to do so, I just figure we can work these things out, but obviously you are reading the rules your way and are trying operating WP:WPRS they way you want it to operate. That's massive OWN'ing, which is breaking a rule. Whaddya know. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

9+ million people. The population of the state of Michigan, the state which you just insulted about 30 minutes ago. If your attacks are so offhanded that you don't recall them 30 minutes later, you should probably refrain from making them in the first place, i.e. follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. As for your alleged issues of my violations of WP:OWN, I lump them in the same category as your alleged issues of my violations of WP:SOCK - unfounded, unproven, and unsupported. JPG-GR 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, 9+ Million in Michigan, wow. Anyway, well, they obviously don't teach politeness and courtesy in Michigan if you are "bothered" by a courtesy message, something you say you find "highly unnecessary". So, essentially what you are saying is you find courtest and politeness "highly unnecessary". Hence my statement, which I stand by. Also, if anything on any template or Michigan page is changed, you revert it and throw a hissy-fit, that is OWN'ing. Also, I wouldn't wave WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL around, there are about a half-dozen examples of both above from you. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I must truly thank you - nothing amuses me more on a daily basis than you reading what I write and then either completely misunderstanding it or warping it to somehow defend yourself. I don't need any courtesy message because they aren't necessary - "I ain't blind" - I watch my watchlist and see edits to pages, such as WT:WPRS. If anything, some might call your constant courtesy messages an attempt to disrupt my editing - but, that would be assuming bad faith, which I don't do. The implication that I revert "anything" template or Michigan-related implies two things - (1) complete and utter wikistalking, in that you have every page I watch (or have ever edited) watched and (2) selective vision, as I don't do nearly as much reverting as you do. Also, I'll lump your accusation of my violation of WP:NPA along with all of your other unfounded, unproven, and unsupported allegations. Next, please for the love of God, refer to me as a Nazi, so I can laugh myself into a coma. JPG-GR 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now why would I call you that, that would be just plain rude? Dude, you turn everything I say into a way to defend yourself, then run and tell mommy when someone says something mean. Turns out WP:AN cares about as less as ANI did. So, reporting me to the Admins....you are 0 and 4 there. You, my friend, are the Miami Dolphins of reporting people to ANI/AN (by the way, Miami is 0 and 7...you have some work to do). - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I "have some work to do" - are you implying I'm trying to get you banned? I'd just like to see you follow policy more often than not. Perhaps it is a lost cause? JPG-GR 00:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually I am....mostly because you have already tried to get me blocked...so a ban seems like the next choice for you. Also, if you look at my other posts to other people, I am polite and nice to them...so, maybe it's just you? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If I apparently cause you to be so un-polite, then perhaps you should do as you did long ago - stop posting on my talk page? (which, out of sheer curiosity leading me to check, you've posted to more often than any other page on Wikipedia) JPG-GR 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I had stopped posting on your talk page but I thought, "I should try and be nice"...and I tried. Look where it got me. But seriously, maybe you should take a step back and read what you write, it might surprise you. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you for proving my point...that you, in fact, do keep a VERY close eye on my edits and do infact "stalk" my contribs page. I think that was fairly evident. Also, you didn't get my point. I wouldn't work with you until pigs fly...had nothing to do with WP:WPRS, just you. But like everything else, you have to spin it off onto someone else. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalk your contribs? No. Watch your talk page? Yes - waiting for your response to the query you deleted. JPG-GR 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of radio stations in California & List of radio stations in California by market area

Hi. A few months back I had started working on these lists, with a goal of reorganizing the all the California radio station lists. My idea was:

• Have a separate sortable list for each market area in California.
• Make List of radio stations in California transclude these lists so that all stations in the state would be sortable. See User:DHowell/List of radio stations in California.
• Make List of radio stations in California by market area transclude the lists separately for navigational purposes.

The idea was, each station's information would only need to be edited in just one list, which would then be transcluded to create the other lists. I would put HTML comments in the transcluding lists explaining where the edits for individual radio stations should be made.

A while back, you redirected some of these sublists to the main statewide list, but this messed up the List of radio stations in California by market area, as well as my User:DHowell/List of radio stations in California.

Within the next few days, I'm going to try to finish the job I started a while back, unless you can explain concrete objections to the way I intend to do it. I am starting by reverting the redirects so you can see what the lists are supposed to look like. I will try to finish up by Friday, if more pressing matters don't command my time. Thank you. DHowell 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPRS is currently working on combining all of those lists linked at Template:USRadio (with the exception of "market area") into one page, to be housed at List of radio stations in STATE. If you want to create a page at List of radio stations in California by market area, be my guest and be bold. However, the main list, List of radio stations in California should (by precedent) be comprised of info for all the stations in one non-transcluded table (see List of radio stations in Michigan, the first one completed a few months back, for an example).

The only reason I edited your page was to remove it from Category:Radio stations in California. If you've got any questions, shoot them my way. JPG-GR 05:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"WP:WPRS is currently working on combining all of those lists linked at Template:USRadio (with the exception of "market area") into one page, to be housed at List of radio stations in STATE."

I agree completely with this. When I am finished, there will be exactly two statewide radio station lists, one fully sortable table, and one which has multiple tables by market area. All other statewide lists will become redirects to the main statewide list.

"If you want to create a page at List of radio stations in California by market area, be my guest and be bold."

As you can tell, I've already done this.

"However, the main list, List of radio stations in California should (by precedent) be comprised of info for all the stations in one non-transcluded table (see List of radio stations in Michigan, the first one completed a few months back, for an example)."

Why do you object to the use of transclusion? If you take a look at User:DHowell/List of radio stations in California, which is what I intend to replace the current List of radio stations in California, it is functionally equivalent to the current List of radio stations in Michigan. The transcluded lists are combined into one single sortable wikitable! Granted I've used some template trickery to accomplish this, but by doing this, there will be no redundancy between this list and the market area list, since they will both transclude the same lists. The only reason I haven't replaced the current list with this one is I want to make sure no information is lost and I want to understand any objections you might have.

"The only reason I edited your page was to remove it from Category:Radio stations in California."

The reason the page was being categorized was that it was transcluding pages which you redirected to List of radio stations in California. The original market area lists had the categories with in <noinclude> tags, the main statewide list did not. I take responsibility for this, as I had never adequately explained what I was doing with these lists and had abandoned the task before completing it. I intend to complete it now. DHowell 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion may work in a state like California, but it won't in many other states, as most states have radio stations that don't belong to any particular market. For consistency's sake, the full list is the better and more practical option. Rest assured that we are probably a long way's away from creating the California list, so feel free to do as you like in the meantime - perhaps you will do something that works well and will be integrated elsewhere. JPG-GR 04:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, I'm going to continue ahead with my work on the California lists. You might be right about the other states; I'm guessing that California probably has both more radio markets and more radio stations than any other state, and the vast majority of stations are in an Arbitron-ranked market, so it is in a unique situation. DHowell 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of sheer numbers, I don't recall exact statistics, except that Texas leads by far in terms of the number of stations. I'm sure California is top 5, or 10 at the worst. JPG-GR 22:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Final Post

...cause now you scare me. "waiting for your response to the query you deleted."...that is the definition of stalking. It is also you trying to have an excuse for what you are doing. Do me a favor, steer clear of my talk page, would ya? Now...I am going to leave you to your stalking gig and go watch "NCIS" now. O_o! - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked you a question. I had been waiting for your response. Granted, I could understand how you would be "scared" by such a foreign concept - when you ask me a question, you already hear the answer you want to or don't want to hear, based on the situation. Also, I give you a lot of credit for consistently managing to resort to name-calling every time, because you can't seem to maintain a discussion without resorting to it. I'm sure I'll see you posting on this page within the month, I have faith in it.JPG-GR 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, way to go reverting good faith edits just because they're by me ([4]). And, that's from my watchlist, before you start assuming it's wikistalking. JPG-GR 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

State Lists

After thinking about it at great lengths and debating it in my mind, I have decided to update the pages your have completed and will complete with state information. This is not an attempt at trying to work together (that ain't happenin'), this is solely about working for the greater good of the project. Gimme about 20mins (to finish my lunch) and I will get to work. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines, Maryland is next on the list of states to be done - but I'm not generating a list to replace the current list until I know you're on board. Until I hear for sure, I'm gonna skip to the next one, New Jersey. JPG-GR 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

According to 100000watts.com, KZTL in Paxton, NE hit the air today along with sister KRNP. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

May very well be true, but if the FCC database says it's still under CP, I think we need to side with them (at least for a couple days until it gets updated). JPG-GR 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, what is source that you are using for the information on the pages? Kinda curious, cause on the Alaska page, there are a few missing and I want to make sure that you are using an updated source. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using the FCC database, though it's a data pull from late August, so there may be some info missing. However, I just removed KIAL (which you added), as its not in the FCC database. JPG-GR 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See, here is what is weird about KIAL. The station has been in operation since 1978, but on the FCC database, it has never came up. The only thing listed is this...which is a CP for a station on 1450 AM. Problem is, KIAL is alive and kicking. I am not really sure what to do with this one. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's not in the FCC database, I'd argue it must not be a licensed radio station. It may exist, but if its not licensed, it doesn't belong in this particular list. *shrug* JPG-GR 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That goes without saying...I am wondering, should we have perhaps a seperate section for say station's like KIAL where we just aren't sure, maybe mention. This is kinda like they problem WP:TVS ran into with W10BM. Either way, it's an anomally in that state, at least. On to...whichever one is next. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For now, I'd say just leave it off. The article for the station is barely a stub anyway. JPG-GR 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "barely" is the word for that page...sheesh, that's, um...sad? I will fix that later. OK, I knocked out AK and CT. I am going to take a break for a couple. My head is killing me, damned TMJ is working overtime today. I will be back in about 20mins. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, you probably just noticed my revision to Template:Missoula Radio, that was my fault. On Wiki sometimes, my TWINKLE links don't load immediately. So when I click on the screen to get the "wheel" button moving and then the TWINKLE links finally do appear, it revises whatever you have done. So, the revision was not intentional, it was a mistake on my part and a slow load of TWINKLE. It was immediately re-reverted, so no worries. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, didn't notice that revision. As a general rule, I've removed most of the templates from my watchlist - there's too damn many of them. JPG-GR 02:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, those lists are a mess! Were you going to make these tables sortable? That would allow us to get rid of a bunch of other poorly maintained lists (by freq, by city, etc)--Rtphokie 00:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but they are sortable. Slowly but surely, 50 states will mean 50 lists and no more. JPG-GR 02:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I am back up and running. My TMJ was killing me and I crashed around 4p and didn't wake up until after 7a this morning. That's what a TMJ migraine will do...that and temps dropping 30 degrees....MUCH OUCH! But, I am up and at 'em and see what I can do today.

You have the oddest sleep patterns of anyone I've ever known, and I work in an industry that produces weird sleep patterns. JPG-GR 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

About the WV page, what stations did you correct and/or remove (if any...besides the LPs). It helps to know in case it is something that's something that needs corrected on the station's page as well. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As you said, the LP stations were pulled (as they weren't part of the database dump). Other than that, I can't say for certain. If there were anymore removed, they're either unlicensed or changes since August. JPG-GR 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In the quick check of the page, I didn't see anything missing (minus the LPs), so it looks cool :) Also, on this page, if you see it means I have updated the page through 100000watts.com. I didn't know what to use to let you know the page was updated, so I used that. If that gets in the way of things, of course, you can remove it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 16:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WELD-FM will soon be licensed to Moorefield, so I thought I would get a jump on it :) I can vouch for them operating from the tower licensed to Moorefield, but why they aren't IDing as "WELD-FM Moorefield" and the licensed on the FCC database hasn't changed, I can't say. The WNTO one, I didn't know about, according to 100000watts.com it was licensed to Racine, OH...no worries on either though. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Both changes are pending (i.e. under construction permit). Give it a week, and you'll probably be right on both original counts. JPG-GR 00:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WNTO is on the other side of WV, but WELD-FM I can hear and I have to say it is weird to hear a rural radio station amongst the mass of DC/Baltimore/Hagerstown/Harrisonburg cookie-cutter stations I get here. It is kinda nice :) Oddly, the only place you can hear Paul Harvey. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Olympics medal count

Hi, I'm not sure what problem you were trying to solve with the creation of this template, but I think it might create more issues than it solves:

1. It does not use the standard Olympic formatting templates {{RankedMedalTable}} and {{flagIOC}}, so the results will look different than any other medal table of the hundreds already present on Olympic articles
2. It assumes that there will be ten distinct ranked entries, with no allowance for ties. This is not an uncommon situation (i.e. on the first couple of days of a Games in progress, or for the final tables of older, smaller Games like the 1928 Winter Olympics medal count)

Since the two templates that are currently up for TfD each have zero mainspace transclusions, I'm not sure where you think this new template would be used, unless you wanted to retrofit it into existing articles. If that's the case, I would say that those articles have medal tables that have been stable for many months and already have a consistent table format, so there is no compelling reason to complicate things with a new template. I realize your work was very much a good faith intention, but please reconsider whether it is really needed or not. Thanks, Andrwsc 20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no Olympics expert - far from it. I was just patrolling TfD, and came across those, and made a streamlined template that seemed to cover the issue. The prior existence of any other templates or standards were unknown to me. Just trying to be helpful. JPG-GR 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't doubt your helpful intent! (And if you'd care to be involved in any Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics work, we can always use more people!) But would you object to my suggestion for you to put a {{db-author}} tag on it? Thanks, Andrwsc 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Andrwsc 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For excellence in cooperative editing and putting the project first despite your personal issues with NeutralHomer--Kubigula (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Islamc political violence"

Atleast you agree that "Islamc" is indisputably wrong spelling. So lets atleast move it to "Islamic political violence".Bless sins 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hawai'i Page

Hey, on one station, I added a wiki-link because the listing might be a little confusing. For KKOA 107.7 in Volcano, HI, they play a Paniolo Country format. But for people who don't know what Paniolo is (it is a Hawai'ian cowboy), I added the wiki-link so the format looks like this > Hawai'ian Country. It is a little different from the other pages, but since this is kinda confusing, I thought it might do. If you have another idea for that entry, please let me know. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me *shrug* JPG-GR 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

State Lists

I know you are continuing to make the state-by-state pages. If you notice I am lagging a little behind on getting them fully updating, it is because my TMJ is really killing me. I will work on a couple tonight though. I will be a little slow for a couple days, until these up and down tempatures level out. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. I'm just trying to get as many as possible generated before I have to go back to work. JPG-GR 00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We probably should go through, once we are done with the state-by-state lists, and make sure each page has AML/FML and AMQ/FMQ links and categories to their respective states. I have noticed alot of pages that don't. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

State-By-State Pages

Hey Dude, I will work on those pages in a couple. Haven't been online much (other than to look at my watchlist) in the past three days, so I will get a-hoppin' here in a couple. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Don't slam Rtphokie, he is doing some really good work. These pages need to be made and he is making them. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BNL

I invite you to respond, if you wish to, to the the discussion of an obsessed user who was recently shot down by an admin on his editor assistance request to have the citations deemed invalid for no good reason. He's commented on the talk:Barenaked Ladies page. I'm also attempting to cite some other sources right now for the article including the CBC documentary which is available on DVD, etc. But this is no longer his argument, since he has realized he can't win that one. TheHYPO 03:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on it. For instance, he's already slipped up and forgot to log in once, proving that he is the registered account of an oft-blocked user 192.197.54.136. I don't necessarily have anything to contribute, but I'll be around to rv any vandalism he does. JPG-GR 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Interlochen Public Radio.gif

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

KQLV/KQRI

Thanks for splitting these articles. It's been a crazy month or so. - Dravecky 06:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

List of radio stations in Indiana

Howdy- I have been working on an article for South Bend, Indiana, and was trying to compile a list of stations in that market. I was happy when I found the List of radio stations in Indiana with a South Bend section, and simply linked to that. With the new format, is it possible to link to the article, presorted by city and sitting on the south bend section? Thanks, I appreciate your help. cntrlaltdel33t 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... not that I'm aware of, though that would be nice. Perhaps this would do instead: {{South Bend Radio}}. JPG-GR 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Rtphokie

Hey Dude, I will see what I can do :) Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend...NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How does this sound? Kinda gives him a "step by step" in making articles. If I missed something, please let me know. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as he listens, that should make things a little easier to maintain. JPG-GR 07:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. From the looks of things, he hasn't edited since about 8am EST yesterday (11/10). - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

FCC Application Window

Looks like the FCC has opened the window on new applications (and there are a crapload of 'em) so I would keep an eye on the state pages and templates to make sure these applications don't wind up on there. I see no reason why they would, but this is Wikipedia, where anything can, and does, happen. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Radio Stations in Minnesota

I appreciate your work on the List of Radio Stations in Minnesota, but in your current revision, you erased lots and lots of data in the page. Is your formatting the new Wikipedia standard???

Mattdp 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The new table is the new format for radio station lists, yes. Feel free to fill in additional information (i.e. owners and formats) if you like. Thanks. JPG-GR 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

List of radio stations in Florida

Your massive (and undiscussed) change wiped out a huge amount of data on that page (station formats and markets), and messed up a lot of links that directed to specific markets on the page. The idea of a sortable table is nice, but unless you add a section for the market area, I will revert back to the previous version. Your edit referenced a discussion at WPRS, but I find no such discussion, either on the main page or the most recent talk page (I didn't go searching through the archived discussions). The original sort was by market, because with stations located in smaller towns, it isn't always obvious where the stations are located. Do you know where Murdock is located (note that it's a redlink)? Without knowing that WBCG, based in Murdock, is in the Fort Myers market, one would be hard-pressed to know where the station is located. Without a market listing, one has no idea whether the Orlando market has a smooth jazz station; it does, WLOQ, which is in Winter Park. (Of course, since your change nuked all of the formats, it's a bit moot right now.) Horologium t-c 14:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion to change to sortable tables took place at WP:WPRS months ago and has been a long, drawn out process. Florida is the second to last state to get to. Any links to specific markets on the page or any references to markets in general would be better linked to the various market templates, such as Template:Miami Radio. JPG-GR 18:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, on further analysis, I found only two links to specific market sections, both of which I have since updated to point to the templates. As for WBCG, if it is notable enough to warrant an article, the article will list which market area it is in. Additionally, if it is in the market, it should be included in Template:Fort Myers Radio. JPG-GR 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, who is going to re-add the 300 or so formats that were nuked? That's a lot of work you created for someone else if you don't plan to do it. Additionally, the market area thing was brought up in the discussion (I searched the talk archives and found it back in August) and you just shrugged it off. I'm still deciding whether to revert back, but if I don't, I am going to "repurpose" the station owner column and use it as the market section, since it makes more sense to be able to sort radio stations in a state by market rather than by owner. I used WBCG as an example because I knew the station was in a redlink town (there are not many of those in Florida), and because it's not really relevant whether it has an article or not, it's still not possible to tell where it broadcasts from a list that absolutely should include such information. Horologium t-c 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All 50 state lists are being updated to the new format with the information available in the FCC database. The owners and format columns are not as easy to pull from the database, and have often been found to be out of date on these list pages. As has been discussed numerous times elsewhere, market information doesn't belong in a table like this, as many stations don't belong to a particular market, whereas many belong to many.

And, the list does tell where the station broadcasts from - listed in the city of license column. ::::The whole purpose of the recent list upgrades was to bring all the lists to a similar format, a project that is working nicely so far. JPG-GR 20:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what you are saying is that you are not going to restore the information that was deleted by your edit. In that case, I will revert to the previous version, which was better organized and had more information. If you want to add the format data for all of the stations, that's fine. Wait until you have all of the information in place before you substitute it in. Horologium t-c 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The format and owner data will be filled in shortly, but not until all the data can be verified with up to date sources. JPG-GR 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability Standard for Radio and TV Stations

After being struck down in his attempt to have the articles on radio stations WRNY and WRRC deleted, Mr.Z-man has made an attempt at changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations. This is a REALLY bad idea. This puts not only the work of WP:WPRS, but the work of WP:TVS, and potentially Wikipedia itself at risk. We need to let Mr.Z-man know that changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations is a bad idea...REALLY bad idea. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

...and obviously he isn't done. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with either of these stations and therefore have no comment on this matter. This is exactly why I've been pleading on deaf ears to User:Rtphokie that creating articles for every radio station is ridiculous. Just because a radio station is licensed doesn't make it notable in itself, whether we're talking Wikipedia or the world in general. I abstain. JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally would like to have a seperate website for just radio and TV stations. Be it owned by Wikimedia or Independently owned, but with Wikimedia software, I would like to see it. It would allow a "happy medium". - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the chemical element comparison in the current discussion was first brought up by me as an example of things where notability is the standard even when some things are more notable than others. The minimum standard is notability, not fame or legendary status. If we can have an article, by policy, for every major league baseball player with as little as one at-bat then an article for each FCC-licensed station easily exceeds that standard of notability. - Dravecky (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who would argue that radio stations are like the chemical elements has had a little bit too much mercury in their water. JPG-GR (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor, try and be a little more helpful and stop giving the "other side" of the notability discussion ammo. "None of that proves notability"....yeah, that'll help. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because I'm a member of WP:WPRS doesn't mean I'm a robot. I'm yet to see a valid argument presented for the notability of these two stations. The only side I'm on is that of Wikipedia policy. JPG-GR (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Never said you were a robot. But as I have said, if a precedent is set for deleting stations that some feel are non-notable or the notability standard is changed, the work many people, including yourself and I, have done will be for naught. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The current notability policy says that many of these radio stations are not notable. There is no change - just a lot of article about radio stations that aren't notable. JPG-GR (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what, we just have articles for WABC, WNBC, WCBS, maybe WTOP...couple stations in Chicago, KYW in Philly, WBAP in Dallas, KFI and KABC in LA and KCBS and KGO in San Fran? Just leave it with the big ones? Then what is the point of WP:WPRS? Where will it stop? Move on to the TV stations? Newspapers? Small towns in Michigan? Virginia? Smallest rodent? Bug? Bacteria? You need to think of the precedent it will set. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

*shakes head* I'm not gonna argue with you here, because we've proven time and time again that when we argue, we don't get anywhere. Keep it to the review and the pump. JPG-GR (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of WP:WPRS is "improving Wikipedia's coverage of radio stations." That doesn't mean "create a thousand stub articles full of data that can be gathered elsewhere if necessary." JPG-GR (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just saying, look at the precedent...look at what could happen. You have to think about these things before changing something major like a notability standard. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT CHANGING ANYTHING. If a radio station isn't notable, it doesn't get an article, just like everything else. That is the POLICY. Just because WP:WPRS and WP:TVS have been following an undocumented standard doesn't amount to a hill of beans. JPG-GR (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The thread on the Village Pump is called "Radio and TV station notability"...and it is on the Policy section of the Village Pump....hence requesting a change in policy. Hence, changing something. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing policy, not a change in it. JPG-GR (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And, regarding this, don't throw my name around like that. I understand that by editing on Wikipedia, I agree to license my contributions under the GFDL, which means they can be edited, deleted, mutilated, at will. If tomorrow all the work I've done is determined to be against policy, then so be it. JPG-GR (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was a compliment. Each person I mentioned, be them members of WP:TVS or WP:WPRS do a helluva job on a daily basis. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is This Necessary?

"This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing"

Are you trying to start a fight? Cause by doing that, you aren't showing good faith. You want to "stir the pot", that's fine, but you are the only one going to get in trouble. I think you need to settle down. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: FYI

I didn't created, the kid I am helping did. I just moved it. I know it will get deleted (well the logo), but I don't want to let the kid down. Let him have his fun. I know I was happy when I made my first userbox. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, you acknowledge that you've violating policy, yet don't care? JPG-GR (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You want to think that, go ahead. *laughs* You are trying to pick a fight anyway you can today. Between you, Mr.Z-man, Secret, and Bbatsell I think I might break my record for happy pills. You people really know how to annoy someone and give a person a migraine............again. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And you really know how to disregard policy if it doesn't suit your fancy. JPG-GR (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To steal a line from Calton: Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle for you on line 1.. ....and doing something like posting that nice "This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here." crap wasn't completely disregarding policy...namely WP:AGF. I like how you had it and the diff erased. Not quick enough that I didn't see it, but quick enough. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I love how you always think I have magical admin powers. No difs have been erased. You were canvassing, and weren't the only one. The appropriate template was placed. The appropriate template is in place, and the record of it being placed is in the history. JPG-GR (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was on the wrong page, still....this was necessary? That wasn't completely violating WP:AGF? So, don't act innocent, that I am the only one violating policy, cause I'm not. You have walk over WP:AGF any time you can. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a violation of WP:AGF. That's a warning to users arriving at the discussion who may have been prompted to vote because of canvassing. If it was a violation of WP:AGF, it wouldn't be in heavy use across Wikipedia. Once again - just because something isn't going your way, doesn't mean policy is being violated. JPG-GR (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure....accusing someone of Canvassing is assuming good faith. If accusing someone, anyone of anything is your definition of "good faith" then you have a warped view of that very practice.

....and if I might ask, what "isn't going my way"? Personally, I think it is about 50/50 at the moment. But, hey, like I said, you all are setting the precedent and rewritting the rules here, not me. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One, whether you realized it or not and were aware of the policy or not, you canvassed. That's a fact. There's no assuming involved in that, so there's no violation of WP:AGF. Two, the contents of someone's userspace is irrelevant at this point, as they have not been discussed. Finally, it may be 50/50 via a !vote, but there's yet to be a convincing argument for the notability and inclusion of EVERY licensed station, IMHO. JPG-GR (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that diff, that you failed to read, is Mr.Z-man's attempt at a rewritting the WP:CORP rule for radio stations. Yeah, he's rewritting the rule for radio and TV stations. Just like I said.

Also, I am starting to wonder why you are a part of WP:WPRS in the first place. It seems like you are against the addition of articles about radio stations and TV stations...so being a part of a group about radio stations would seem...silly at best. What is it you want? Do you want some 4 or 5,000 articles deleted because of a rouge admin's definition of notability? Do you want the work you have done to be erased with a key stroke? If you do, then what are you doing here? We don't type massive articles, created templates and the like to see the deleted or want to see the deleted, but I think you do. Cause you are sure as hell showing it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) As usual, if you aren't getting your way, it's clear everyone is against you. JPG-GR (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is against me, eh? Isn't it a bit early for paranoia? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Never stopped you before... JPG-GR (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop it, both of you. You're both being incredibly incivil. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hard to be a word that doesn't exist. JPG-GR (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of fair-use images in UBX

Got a question for you - if I come across a UBX which is using a fair-use image (such as a logo), what is the appropriate procedure to follow? Is there a template to place? Thanks for your help. JPG-GR (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just remove it and let the author know its not permitted. See our policy on such things at WP:FU. To summarize it fair use is only permitted in mainspace, so any other use should just be removed. (If the UBX looks ugly for a day or so while the creator finds a new image, thats an acceptable loss.) Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Carbon as this week's WP:ACID winner

Zginder (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

State-By-State

Hey Dude, I am going to work on the State-By-State pages now. Sorry I have not been working on them lately. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No big. JPG-GR (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

...and of course, right when I get started, something pulls my attention from what I was doing. *sigh* - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"RadioStationsProject|template" Goof

Thanks for correcting those templates for me. I messed those up (obviously) and I thought I had gotten them all. Sorry about that. Thanks again! Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Userbox format

I think maybe you're trying to do a good thing, but I don't dig going OCD over the way userboxes are done. There is more than one way, and I hope you will respect individual creativity. Thanks.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only modified one UBX tonight, and that was correct a coding error that was causing it to improperly align. As for anything "OCD", I'm making the directorys display them consistently, which has nothing to do with any individual's creativity. JPG-GR (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wvbug.gif‎

Two (TWO!) F-URs are provided. If you don't like them, then post your own. Make sure they are for "West Virginia Public Radio" and "West Virginia Public Television" as they are used on their public radio and television networks, not just on those 4 channels. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot fill out the FURs because I don't know the source of the images. The FURs you have provided to not meet all the necessary qualifications needed to fulfill the policy. If you want to continue removing the warning template, be my guest, but in the end the images are likely to be deleted. JPG-GR 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, your overuse of the term "vandalism" is akin to "the boy who called wolf." JPG-GR 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

West Virginia Public Television

West Virginia Public Radio

Both use the same logo. WV Public TV and WV Public Radio are Statewide networks. The radio stations operate under the branding "West Virginia Public Radio". Due to most editors not liking having a dozen and a half stations under one heading, hence the individual articles.

Also...where in my above statement did I say the word "vandalism"?

Any other questions, do let me know. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep repeating yourself and not reading what other people are writing. Read the FURG. I have no intention of either (a) walking you through the policy when others have already tried nor (b) fixing your images when you refuse to do so (mostly, as I noted before, because I don't know the original sources). Also, "vandalism" is in almost every edit you perform with Twinkle, many of which do not come close to qualifying as such. JPG-GR 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm unfamiliar with editors who don't like "having a dozen and a half stations under one heading." The only two people who I've seen intent on every single station having its own article, whether or not they can be/should be combined are yourself and create-them-all-even-when-not-notable Rtphokie. JPG-GR 21:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Originial Sources...try looking at the top of the page.

West Virginia Public Television

West Virginia Public Radio

Also, take a look at the image page. There should be NO reason for having to list a dozen and a half translators and full power stations, when they are part of a network. Tag away.

Also, lay off the personal attacks. One more like above and I will report you myself. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, now you expect me to do for you what you don't do for yourself? The difference is - I don't care if that image gets deleted. Also, thank you for tagging Image:WCMU-FM.jpg which I'm getting ready to correct, at which point I'm sure you'll copy exactly what I do. But, c'est la vie. JPG-GR 22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I plan on doing it the same way I am doing it now. About 80% have had their F-URs accepted, 20% don't (even though they are all written the same way). I am not going to write a freakin' novel for a F-UR...it is stupid, silly, senseless, and a couple other words I can't say in present company.

Also, thanks for keeping the personal attacks in check. I appericate that. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean 80% haven't been tagged yet', at least if they don't follow the FURG. JPG-GR 00:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No..."about 80% have had their F-URs accepted"....when an admin says the F-URs work as written...then I have no worries. Try reading the sentence next time, not making something up from what you read. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I refuse to believe that an admin has looked at 80% of all your image uploads, but go right ahead and imply as such. Secondly: Pot. Kettle. Black. Regardless, I'm not gonna argue this with you all evening - I'll just sit back and watch as you fight with a bot over and over and over because you refuse to read the FURG. JPG-GR 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, refuse to believe whatever you want....free country, not like I am forcing my opinions or my ideals on you.

I am arguing with Betacommand...not the bot...but thanks for playing. Also, after this edit, it appears you are "gonna argue this with" me "all evening". Just so you know....I do enjoy a nice long argument. Probably why I was so good at Debate. Ready...and go. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you forgotten every interaction with me over the last year? I'm perfectly aware that you like a "nice long argument." I also know it's not worth arguing with you, as you're always right and I/policy/everyone else is always wrong. I've no interest in arguing with you any time, past present or future, as I believe my time is better spent working on WP in general and WP:WPRS specifically. JPG-GR 04:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I am pretty sure you have that one backwards. Even when faced with evidence you are wrong, you still claim that you are right and the other person is wrong. As for working on "WP:WPRS specifically", if doing thinks without consensus and against the rules of Wikipedia, is your idea of "working", then you are.... - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "edit summarys"

Im trying to up my edit count, this would slow me down. My changes sre in very poorly written articles. it is very clear what i mean when there are only two sources and no citations in a three page long article. No need for talk. Your suggestion might lower the speed of me bringing up my edit count.--Mustufailed 03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a pretty lousy reason. It is likely at some point you may be accused of vandalism for not properly filling in this field. JPG-GR 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. edit count= prestiege. More edits= better.--Mustufailed 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That is inherently wrong, but if you choose to believe so, so be it. JPG-GR 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well okay. Now this is wasting my time. Need more edits, faster.--Mustufailed 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, by making edits just to make edits, not only are you costing yourself any "prestige" in the long run (as anybody looking through your edits could see this - a zillion useless edits does not a prestigious editor make), you are possibly harming the greater project. JPG-GR 03:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you need to relax. I notice you blocked my speedy deletion proposal. Are you stalking me now? and also, if you look at the admins, they all have high edit counts. Edit counting is top priority for me. My tags call attention to serious problems. And i propose reasonable deletions. Please respond to these comments and explain to me how you can justify trying to preserve that article. Do it fast, to. Need to get back to reaching my goal of 1,000 edits by Monday.--Mustufailed 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No stalking needed - it's on my watchlist. High schools are inherently notable. Regardless, the CSD you provided was not valid. More importantly - you don't become an admin because you have a high edit count, but useful edits. If anything, a "race" to get edits accumulated would probably hurt an attempt to be an administrator in the future. JPG-GR 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Well you have put anothe black mark on my record with this block of deletion. You are going to hurt my edit points.Not acceptable. Okay, if you have response make it quick. Need to get back to reaching goal of 1,000 edits by monday. I notice your counts are probably very low for how long you have been here. Maybe you just just resent the fact that you lag in production--Mustufailed 03:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You are rather amusing. JPG-GR 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well i thank you for giving me a few edits on userspace(a relatively usless feature on this site). Apparently, you dont see the importance of the most impoortant thing on wikipedia- many users making many edits, to make a bigger and better encyclopedia. I suppose you find that mausing. but i dont, sir.--Mustufailed 03:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Im done wasting my time on this converstion.Could have made 120 edits in this time.--Mustufailed 03:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: WYPO

If you would have looked at the edit history on the article you would have seen the link, but you action show either that you failed to do so or you had a mental lapse. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule which has always been true until this one instance, if the FCC database doesn't have a license on file for the station online, the station hasn't changed. It's not my job to go running around Wikipedia because you fail to utilize the edit summary field. Also, you should probably re-familiarize yourself with WP:NPA. JPG-GR 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is. You can't say you know what you are talking about, if you don't bother to look things up.

FCC AM Radio Database Query

FCC FM Radio Database Query

FCC TV Database Query

FCC Broadcast Call Sign Reservation and Authorization System

Those pages (through the FCC website) will help you better look things up. When in doubt, once you do a search, click on "Call Sign Changes". That sometimes helps as well. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NH, take your own advice from above on personal attacks, when YOU know darn well that I know what I'm talking about: [5] JPG-GR 04:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that wasn't a personal attack, that was me giving you four links of which to look things up on the FCC database and a piece of advice (see "call sign changes"). If you took that as an attack, then I don't know what to tell ya. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake i left a word our in my initial reply, so let me rephrase, "looked at the edit history on the article you...." should have read "looked at the edit history on the station article you....." --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I did not check the article, as most station changes on these lists in the last month have all involved redlinks. In the future, now that I've seen the FCC database can be slow in rare instances, I'll make sure to have two counter-sources. Have a good one. JPG-GR 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re to comments on my page and not here, simply put i dont give an "s"--Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I Love That

If an arguement isn't going your way (or you see you can't weasle your way out of some blame) you archive it. Dude, you are going to have to face these issues sooner rather than later. Especially your attitude, that is going to get you in a helluva-lot of trouble very, very quickly. That isn't an attack...that's the truth. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As for getting in a "helluva-lot of trouble very, very quickly," remember who's been blocked twice and who's been blocked zero times. I figured my statement of having no desire to argue with you was clear enough, especially with the archving. Since it's not, we'll go and do it the old fashioned way - I'M SICK OF ARGUING WITH YOU AND IT'S NOT WORTH MY TIME. IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO ADD TO MY TALK PAGE, DON'T POST HERE. JPG-GR 05:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

More to the point - you have 2+ times as many posts to my talk page than to any other page on WP. That should be a cause of concern, I'd think. JPG-GR 05:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So...since you are into yelling at the moment, let's do this...STOP CAUSING PETTY ARGUEMENTS WITH OTHER EDITORS AND STOP ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT RADIO IN GENERAL....cause ya don't.

The number of posts...that's cause you are just so damned fun to argue with. You act like you know everything, then when you are faced with facts and someone tells you to chill, you get pissed and either archive everything or go off on a rant...which always misses the point entirely. Getting old fast, my friend, getting old fast. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One - the day I am your friend is the day I take my own life. Two, "missing the point entirely" is the debate you're having at User talk:Betacommand that shows your complete ignorance of the FURG. This is the end and me archiving so, consider all future non-WP constructive issues posted here by you ignored. JPG-GR 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa Dude

"....I take my own life" - I don't care if this is Wikipedia or not, you don't talk like this. If you are having suicidal thoughts, then you need to call 911 right now. That is not something you say lightly, especially here. Jimmy Wales has said that if someone says something like that, we take it serious and we contact the police department in that person's community immediately. Don't do that again...arguement or not. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow...

...and you said you had correct F-URs on all your images. Guess not. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WAMM-AM

A "correct" fair-use rationale is in place for that image. So I have deleted your IFD post and removed it from my talk page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WCYK

I have removed that one from my talk page and removed both from the deletion list as there is nothing wrong with them. You are just trying to pick a fight. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with your the FUR you provided, however the images themselves violate the FURG because they are of an unnecessarily high resolution. JPG-GR 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please....show me where it says that. I am supposed to help the logo is freakin' huge?! I don't think so. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos.

This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded.

Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization.

Right....they are talking .png files and crap that like skylines. When the logo is that big to begin with, it can't be helped. You tell me how to shrink the damned thing and we are in business, otherwise, you are just trying to pick a fight...and this from someone who wished not to hear from me again. Make up my mind, would ya please? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the logo fair-use license for logos. What does that have to do with ".png files and crap that like skylines"? JPG-GR 06:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK....I kinda figured you would do that. You want an arguement and that's great, but I ain't dealing with you tonight. Go argue with Calton or someone. You wanted to be left alone, but you sure as hell are wanting attention tonight. So, either make up my mind or leave me and my migraine alone. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some Dilaudid waiting on me. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Well, here are the warning templates, image templates, and the entire universe of templates if you get bored. Enjoy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude

Give] it a rest, will ya! - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WRBZ

Fine with me if WRBZ is merged with WRBZ (AM). Someone did a much better job with the history on one article than I did on the other article. I was really just briefly summarizing what I knew, but this other person did it better. As for whether the detailed history can be found in the sources I identified, that remains to be seen.

I would have said this on the WRBZ page, but I couldn't figure out how that worked.Vchimpanzee 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico radio station stubs

Heh, it is nice to know there are a few of us working on the nuts and bolts of the WPRS infrastructure. - Dravecky (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And what a large, nutty infrastructure it is. ;) JPG-GR (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Polbot

I am not understanding your post about Polbot. Why would there need to be a "knowledge of each image" to add a F-UR? If the F-UR is correct, then having knowledge about it doesn't matter.

It is a little odd that people are complaining about Polbot, when it is actually doing a service....adding F-URs to images. Like I said above, if they are correct, then how they go there, by bot or by person shouldn't matter. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Polbot

Ya know, people kinda like a response when someone asks them a question. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 10:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange edit

Hi there. See this edit where I've restored some comments that your previous edit removed. Could you watch out for that sort of things in future? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I must've been looking at a diff and then responded. Thanks for fixing it :) JPG-GR (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to WBXX (FM). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You know better. NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to WBXX (FM), you will be blocked from editing. NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you been warned not to "template" experienced editors. Check the website of the station. The station has recently undergone a ownership and programming change. Your continued trolling of my edits and blind revertions are hurting the overall project. JPG-GR (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's see, the website that is owned by Clear Channel, that is wbxxb95.com (huh?) and you had the station listed as owned by Cumulus when the license, by the FCC, says CapStar (Clear Channel). So, when someone tells me to "check the website" and that is has "undergone a ownership...change" and the evidence doesn't back that up...that's vandalism. Trust me, I do my homework. Hence your vandalism warnings. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is, contrary to your belief, not anything someone else does that you do not agree with. Stop trolling my edits. JPG-GR (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

When you mark a station as owned by Cumulus and it is clear (according to the FCC) owned by CapStar (Clear Channel), then you, sir, are a liar and lies here are called vandalism. Everything after that is considered vandalism too and reverted as such. Don't like, don't lie. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

...and if you could be trusted, I wouldn't have to keep an eye on you like a parent keeps an eye on a five year old. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to WBXX (FM), you will be blocked from editing. NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WBXX (FM). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR Note

To violate the 3RR, you have to revert 4 or more times. We both stopped at 3, so both you AND I are clear on this one. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just Curious

Do you feel better that I lost my TWINKLE? Does that make you feel "big" of yourself? Cause it doesn't impress me. You vandalized a page, you got busted, you reported me, and I got in trouble. But I ain't pissed. I stopped a vandal and just because I lost TWINKLE, I know I did my job. So you can gloat or celebrate, whatever. Just know, I ain't mad at you...I am happy, because I stopped a vandal. Take Care and Merry Christmas....NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:WBXX (FM)

I have a response there. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

From the WBXX-FM talk page

See, that wasn't so hard. If you and I are going to work in the same area, you and I have got to find a way to co-exsist....and don't think I am being nice because I got "de-twinkle'd", cause I'm not. I think it is the 3 Vicodin talking (sometimes the Vicodin talking are right). If you and I are going to continue to work the radio and TV articles you and I need to find a way to work together and sabotaging each other and starting pissing matches ain't working. I will let you think on that while I find another Vicodin (my migraine is killing me). - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WBXX-FM

Don't forget to add a reference other than the station's website. As we all know, station's websites are not always the most up-to-date or most referenceable. A newspaper article would be best. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WBXX Links

Lemme help ya out there.....

• [6] - third line
• [7] - scroll down just a little
• [8] - cluster website

Those should hold up. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

...and I would perfer an answer, please. What is with this? I don't think we need this MASSIVE thing in the category. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Category

If you don't give a reason for the mass adding of your "Please do not remove or change this Template:Cfr message until the survey and discussion at WP:CfD is closed..." message in several radio categories, I will revert all changes as unnecessary. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason is apparent if you follow the links. Removing the notification while discussion is ongoing will result in a report to WP:ANI. JPG-GR (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask to "follow the links", I wanted a written out reason. If I don't see one in the next 20 mins, I will begin reverting.

Also, the call signs on the WBXX-FM page are wrong, see the FCC page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) I'm not holding your hand anymore like everyone else. Read up on WP:CfD, actually follow the links, and join the discussion if you like. If you revert those warnings, as is clear from the message, you are committing blatant vandalism. (2) As for WBXX, the callsign list debate is due to swapped calls and frequencies earlier in the year - which you wouldn't know much about, as you aren't from this area. The callsigns you keep reverting to (and I have decided to live with), are those for 104.9 FM in the area, NOT for the history of the station currently called WBXX.

As neither of these issues should be being handled on my talk page, as they are related to a CfD and an article specifically, any further discussion will take place there, and your comments here will resume obtaining no response. JPG-GR (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)