Talk:WTEL (AM)

message: Seriously this article need s a massive overhaul. It looks more like a fan site then an Encyclopedia article, with parts of similar information spread out in the page. Their is also a lot of trivial information that adds no or low value information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
*Personalties: needs to be renamed schedule, interns need to go, they change to regularly to be of value, as well as producers, and fill in host. The section should stick to the regular schedule making notes of shows that have occasional or "off-day" broadcasts. Scores at the top and the bottom of the hour, again, to much "subject to scheduling", these schedules are rarely constant, and are of no real value. Frequent call-in guests need to be made it's own section.
* Frequent broadcast locations and Special broadcast locations: combine the two sections, a list is not helpful unless you explain what it means, people who do not listen to WIP or know noting of US sports radio. The list should only stick to the ones that the broadcast from on a regular basis.
*Station News: need to be de-listed and integrated into station history.
*What the station is notorious for...: moved to station history
*Miscellaneous information: information that should be placed into other station or removed, as well as sourced. 
--Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not WP:OWN this article, as stated below If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.. And dont remove the tage from the article, becuas every time you do i will just replace it. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 03:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You do not WP:OWN this article, as stated below If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.. And dont remove the tage from the article, becuas every time you do i will just replace it. Also removing the tag as you have, can be considered Vandalism. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You do not WP:OWN this article, as stated below If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.. And dont remove the tage from the article, becuas every time you do i will just replace it. Also removing the tag as you have, can be considered Vandalism. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 08:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewrite 

message: Just thought I'd give my two cents here:
*Just about every edit Boothy443 initially suggested should probably be made.  The article is not completely encyclopedic; it smacks of fancruft or even adcruft.
*Since Boothy443 spelled out what the edits should be, it is utterly perplexing that he hasn't just gone ahead and made them.
*Tagging the article "cleanup-rewrite" seems far too strong to me - it doesn't need a complete rewrite.  Tagging it "cleanup" seems more appropriate.  Actually cleaning it up seems more appropriate still.
*Boothy443 and Cableguytk are both roughly equally guilty of being uncivil to each other.  Guys, this is a truly lame edit war.  Instead of wrestling over a tag, why not try improving the article?
Now you have a disinterested third-party opinion.  Hope it helps.  --Hyperbole 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i did at first put a clean up tag on the article, but Cableguytk removed that tag. I put the tag up so that if their are any users that watch this page take not of thr tage they might want to chime in on the ideas that i proposed or maybe put up some alternative ideas as well. I dont see the differenc in putting such things as arewrite tag up and a merge tag, as the funbdemental idea behind both is that their a major change beeing requested for the page, so i guess beased upon this idea i should just merger the next article i see that could me merged, with out trying to put forth an opionion or try to see if other might have an opinion on the idea. If the idea is to just do it right away, then all of the cean up tags chould be just done away with then. Speaking of tags right after you posted your responce, the Owner of this article, decided that he would just remove that tag again. I say owner, as that any tag that has been placed as been so far removed as it has not met with the owner of this page wishes. Also insted of trying to discuss this isssue the owner of this page basically launches into a tirade, in which he insults me for not editing the page right away, i can only assum that is so he can revert it if it does not meet with the usesrs appaorval of cruftynes being that he owns the artile. I should just revert this article back to september to drop all of the cruft out and then it will be a completet rewrite. And if you dont have the time to do it cable crufty, then why do you care if the tag is their or not. So after i post this i will just retag theis article, as it is appaorpate to have the tag on the article, and as long as cable cruft contines to own this page and remove the tag, then i will just readd the taguntill either myself or someone else cleans it up, lame edit war or not. And crfut i have been editing this page loneer then you have been, and it;s only that i have other projects on her that other users and myslef deal with that your crunftness has been allowed to stand, some of use edit more then two articles for the most part.  --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 08:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And yet their was still no need for you to remove the tags, and start an edit war just so you can assert your ownership of this article. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh i am sorry, you must have not noticed the reson why i thought i should be redone above. If you think you page is so good why dot you put it up for Peer Review, you know what how about i do it for you. I amend being that you own this page, i would guess that you want it a featured page. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 09:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh i am sorry you just dont welcome opinions. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 09:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My opinion on this edit war

message: :Image:610 wip.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:610 wip.jpg