Talk:Mike and the Mad Dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mike and the Mad Dog article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

[edit] *DISCUSS*

Some kind of source for the ranking of the "Top 4" teams in New York is needed. I'm taking it out until someone can provide some objective criteria. (Attendence, merchandise sales, etc.) HandsomeSam57 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (By the way, I hate the Mets AND the Yankees, so don't accuse me of bias one way or the other!)

[edit] Unauthorized website

The paragraph regarding the blog as an unauthorized website has no place in this article. First, it is not notable in an of itself. The hosts have mentioned it in passing only, the article is about the show itself. Furthermore, this method of inclusion looks sloppy. If you want to use the Newsday article as a reference to verify notability of the article, fine, but its very obvious your are using the paragraph to promote a blog which we do not do. ZFurther discussion on this talk page is welcomed but I am removing it pending further discussion. -JodyB talk 14:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the pragraph here for discussion:

There currently is an unauthorized website of the Mike and the Mad Dog radio show that contains a message board forum for fans of the show. During the time when Mike Francesa was filling in for Imus he mentioned the presence of the website, referring to it as an "unauthorized website". Mike said on the air that the fans detail every second of every show and wondered how they could find the time to do this. Neil Best of Newsday mentioned the website in one of his articles. He also links to it at his blog and frequently cites it as a resource to the Mike and the Mad Dog Radio Show. Here is a link to the blog post by Neil Best in which he mentions his February 6th article citing the website. http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/2007/10/sportswatchwatchdog_back_on_th.html

GordonGecko has now been told that his edits are inappropriate by two independant administrators and myself. I would hope that if he continues to add this info, that the proper actions are taken. We don't have to assume good faith when there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I went over to the site this morning to give it a more thorough look and found a forum post about this issue. I spoke with the site admin/owner and a few of the regulars, and they now understand the situation, as many already did. The admin removed a request that the forum attempt to overwhelm us with the links, and replaced it with a request specifically asking the regulars not to add links on Wikipedia. The issue should be resolved, as those who I spoke to agree the link failed to meet our policies. - auburnpilot talk 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I read the thread there and I must apologize for bringing all of that to your doorstep. I honestly thought it was a minor issue, but boy was I wrong. However, I must once again thanks you for doing your duties so diligently. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)