Talk:WADL (TV)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Television Stations This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


Contents

[edit] Requested move

WADL-TV → WADL (TV) … Rationale: FCC-assigned callsign is WADL CoolKatt number 99999 02:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support for resason given as the correct dab title. Vegaswikian 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, but make sure both page histories get merged (see my comment below). -Whomp 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

[edit] Sept 2007

Diversitygroup (talk · contribs) and Cavern Kowalski (talk · contribs), I assume you're the same serson. Regardless, the edit you have made is a very poor edit because it is very promotional, which wikipedia does not allow. You mentioned adding at least the president name and the programming to the article. Would added the president and the programming that you mentioned in your edit comment be sufficient to stop this warring? --DBishop1984 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current version

I've done a cleanup on the edits done by Diversitygroup and Cavern Kowalski. These edits are a bit promotional, and were obviously badly formatted, but on the other hand they do correct a lot of misinformation, and,f rankly, the zeal to revert them instead of fix them has been the cause of a lot of the edit wars here.

Can people who object to this version please explain why? Everyone here is, I think, editing in good faith, and we should be able to work together to make a good version of the article. Phil Sandifer 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, less like the advert that was being posted. --DBishop1984 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree and do not object to this version at all. Protecting the article sooner to avoid this mess was probably a mistake on my part. --Geniac 14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The station hasn't replied at all about the new version, so we'll see how it goes. --DBishop1984 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


This was talked about today on radio. The response was very positive. They also wanted to thank the monitor who initiated the changes and all of the contributors who assited in the effort. They also stated that Wikipedia was a great tool. but everyone should be fair and edit without malice because that can be distructive. If it is a fact and it is current it belongs in the edit. All in all they thanked anyone who assited.They also said that everyone with a business or a reason to be listed should strive to make sure they are doing business in the correct way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavern Kowalski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You stated "If it is a fact and it is current it belongs in the edit." - Actually, no. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." In relation to recent edits to this article, the other policy editors should keep in mind is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Geniac 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)