Talk:WISN-TV

message: I've been adding WISconsiN as a call sign meaning for quite some time now only to have it deleted by another user who INSISTS that the only possible meaning for the calls is the defunct WISconsin News newspaper.  As far as I know, there is no official documentation or credible source that states that the calls are a reference to the newpaper and the newspaper ALONE.  So who's to say the calls weren't also chosen because it was an abbreviation of the state's name?  There's plenty of examples of a station using calls with multiple meanings (such as WBBM-TV out of Chicago).  But my main sticking point is that WISN has referenced the calls while advertising itself as "WISconsiN TV" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JFirQUXfc8)  My theory is that the station chose to keep the calls after the newspaper folded because they referenced the state's name as well (the station had only been using the calls for a few years when the paper folded, so the "name recognition" argument is moot).  But regardless of why they kept the calls, I think the fact that the station made a conscious decision to use them to brand itself as "Wisconsin TV" deserves mention. --Illwauk 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's tone down the personal attacks and stick with discussing the content. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Call Sign Meaning

message: Sorry about the mistaken revert. I accidentally clicked the button. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My mistake 

message: Should it be worth merit to list KOMO-TV to the article in terms of successful ABC affiliates, in addition to WISN? I vividly recall reading a book about the history of the ABC network that IIRC had a copyright date of 1990 and it mentioned KOMO as being one of their most successful affiliates as well. As soon as I can locate the book (and its title), I'll supply the page number where the mention occurs. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KOMO 

message: Hello, Please do not add unreferenced or improperly referenced names as entries to the list of former employees in the article. Not including this type of material in articles abides by current consensus and is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:
#WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information."  As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.  
#As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced. 
# WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article. 
#Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable.  Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on WISN-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/76-OCR/1976-09-27-BC-0028.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/76-OCR/1976-10-18-BC-0036.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.wisn.com/news/28816094/detail.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140404154135/http://www.kusi.com/story/12963605/john-coleman to http://www.kusi.com/story/12963605/john-coleman
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: DaneGeld has added information to this article on how the station's website is geoblocked outside the U.S. I deleted the edit as irrevelant.  Now DaneGeld wants me to restore his edit, saying its "absolutely pertinent."  Should I? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your choice. You chose to delete it without even speaking to me about it. Dane|Geld 23:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Explain why it's irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Most stations/networks geoblock their sites outside their home country. The reader may have known this already. Otherwise, the section should be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's more, it's not true. I'm in Canada and I see the front page. But even if it were true, it not relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. That the the editor wrote them and didn't respond is not relevant either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe DaneGeld meant that you couldn't watch the site's video content outside the U.S. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

text:  And deleting something without discussing it with the editor who added it is the normal course of action. See :WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Schlepping an editor to ANI over a content dispute, as Mvc did, is NOT the normal course of action, especially as that editor made ONE EDIT to the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

text: By the way, I can access the website, being American, but it popped up a complaint about my ad-blocker. That's not a site worth going to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just disable the ad blocker for that site, and it should work normally. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the ad blocker to block junk. It's the first time a website has actually chastised me for running an ad blocker. F*** that! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrevelant info