User talk:Mtstroud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 16:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WZTV

Please stop reverting the WZTV article. The station signed on in 1968, not 1969. [1] --Zpb52 06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocate request

Do you want me to be your advocate? Does the station's web site confirm your date?

I will be glad to work with you if you have a source, which it appears that you do. Robert McClenon 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent source confirming WZTV sign-on

WZTV was formerly WMCV-TV. Here is an independent site which lends itself to the 1968 date. It states a certain person, Ken Bramming, was employed by and appeared on the station from October 1968 to November 1969 [2].

After it's cancellation in 1967 Bramming took a radio announcing job, but re-emerged as Dr. Lucifer between Oct. 1968 and Nov. 1969 on WMCV-TV17, and independent station, to host weekend horror movies.

This should provide another source which would not have supplied the Wikipedia clones with an actual sign-on date, but it confirms the station was on the air before 8/5/1969. --Zpb52 03:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPLN-FM

I left the "W" off the Category:Radio stations in Tennessee for WPLN-FM because all radio stations in Tennessee begin with a W. If we put them all in the W heading, the category wouldn't well organize the stations, don't you think? --Zpb52 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Hi, it's not usual to link to months, or indeed years unless there's a good reason. Dates which include a day and month, and formatting preferences will be invoked by linking it, e.g. 10 April 1962, however usually are linked: see WP:DATE fro more detail . Regards, Rich Farmbrough 11:24 15 June 2006 (GMT).

[edit] <BR> tags

You don't need to use <BR> tags in Wikipedia to separate paragraphs. Just put a blank line between the 2 paragraphs

like so. Kaldari 05:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Brinkleynbcnightlynews.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brinkleynbcnightlynews.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Succession box for WCLV

[edit] Use of succession boxes

I don't understand your use of succession boxes on some of the Cleveland radio stations. For example, why are there succession boxes for 96.5 and 98.1 FM on the WCLV page, when WCLV was never on either 96.5 or 98.1? --Hillrhpc 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Make a Deal

Hello Mtstroud, I reverted your edit on the scheduling section of LMAD because of its wordiness, the inclusion of the TV shows it ran against (not really necessary nor appropriate for an encyclopedia article - takes away from the main focus of the article), and it was unsourced. This information would be much better for a fan website. Please check out "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" for rationale on the reversion. Thanks! --Goldrushcavi 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your wanting to include the information and why you consider it important, but it is also unsourced and as such falls under original research, which is also not allowed. I don't know who we're supposed to "go before" if we have a disagreement (I know it's somewhere in the Wikipedia manual), but this would be a good opportunity to do so. -Goldrushcavi 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wkrg5013074.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wkrg5013074.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Blaxthos 07:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Personally, I cannot see why TV Guide, its present owners News Corp, or the television stations would press charges against Wikipedia for a harmless historical referent such as these images, as they certainly have no conceivable negative impact upon the sales of the magazine currently or upon station viewership. In fact, TV Guide has discontinued local station listings, in favor of broadcast and cable networks only, so I contend the copyright infringement charge to be a moot one.

What is telling about Blaxthos' accusation is that he believes them not "inherently notable." This, to me, is a subjective value judgment that runs counter to this website's encouragement of free expression within reasonable limits. I know that graphic storage space on Wikipedia is certainly not unlimited, and that priorities must be made, but I know that there must be far worthier targets of a purge (actual plagiarism, etc.). I suspect the user is acting from petty or malicious motivation. I intend to contest this blacklisting to the highest court of appeal, if necessary. If I passively accept his/her arbitrary judgment and the images get deleted, it is likely no one will be safe from him/her in the future.Mike 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please check out the following policies, which may help you understand our rules regarding acceptable content and expected behavior.
I hope this helps smooth out the wrinkles.  :-) /Blaxthos 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I overstepped permissible good taste in making the accusation against you, but before you proceed to delete these images, which I now realize I can do nothing about, apparently, may I ask whether you have done this also to others? That is, have you removed other images of past television station logos AND notified the respective editors of your rationale, as you did to me? If so, then you have satisfied the criteria of fairness. Otherwise, I will continue to pursue my protest against this. At least you must recognize that I clearly intended no intellectual or financial infringement upon News Corp, Annenberg, or other entities related to TV Guide magazine, past or present.

In my opinion, the rules regarding copyright are entirely too complicated to expect an average user to become intimately familiar with. I reckon the best way to deal with the issue would be for the Wikipedia board to simply eat crow and acknowledge that their wide-open policy is a failure. Perhaps an online course and quiz could be administered to potential editors beforehand, in order to make them aware of these policies. As it stands now, they are frustrating and thus have an inhibiting effect.

I await your response.Mike 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I make no assertion that you acted in bad faith, or had any willful intent to infringe upon any any copyrights. I am simply applying the rules as I understand them. Also, to be fair, I am not an administrator and have no ability to delete images or articles. The IFD/AFD process ensures that concerned editors may voice their opinions and a legal WP:CONSENSUS is reached. Instead of calling upon the Wikipedia board to simply eat crow and acknowledge that their wide-open policy is a failure I will simply try to abide by the rules set forth -- as you said yourself, the rules regarding copyright are entirely too complicated, which also means there is probably a reason for them that one may not appreciate. In such a case, it's better to follow the rules than to fight them. I know your intent was in the right place, but wikipedia isn't the place for everything that's ever happened on earth. Again, no personal offense was intended. /Blaxthos 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism

The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

--Flex (talk|contribs) 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Invitation declined. Please leave me alone.Mike 16:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Barth

Please see Talk:Karl_Barth#Neutrality. Barth is also being considered for removal from Template:Calvinism (against what I take to be the neutral position of keeping him). You may shed some light there. --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect my editing earlier today (Saturday, March 31) probably has convinced you and others that Barth is most certainly not a conservative Calvinist thinker, which that category almost entirely consists of otherwise. I would say that you would likely be justified in doing so, and that his devotees, such as myself, would not be particularly displeased. Thanks for your question.Mike 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/t/s/User_talk%7EMtstroud_c692.html"