Talk:96FM (Perth radio station)

message: As per either a recent request at section for assessment requests or because this article was listed as fully or partly unassessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment I have just now completed a rating of the article and posted my results to this page. Those results are detailed above in the template box. Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, I am unable to leave detailed comments other than to make the following brief observation: requires referencing - preferably through inline citations However if you have specific questions, please write to me on my talk page and as time permits I will try to provide you with my reasoning. Please put my talk page on your watchlist if you do ask such a question because in the case of these responses I will only post my answer underneath your question. ALSO if you do not agree with the rating you can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it.--VS talk 10:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment completed for [[{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]

message: :It has been proposed below that 96fm be renamed and moved to 6NOW.
*Disagree Whilst I can understand the reasoning behind the request to rename the article (in order to standardise all radio stations to using the official ACMA callsign) however the station identifier (used in the press) is what people are aware of not the ACMA callsign.  This identifier is used throughout wikipedia in a varierty of articles - in order to minimise confusion that will no doubtly arise through renaming the article I would suggest that there be a redirect from 96fm to 6NOW at the very least. Dan arndt (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has been moved to 6NOW as the result of a move proposal listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The redirect will remain in place unless a disambiguation page is set up. (See Talk:6RPH for more information.) Dekimasuよ! 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Move

message: We need some new logos for the Fairfax radio stations we should keep the old ones as historical reference, We need new logos for i.e. 3AW, 4BC etc
They need to be compliant with Wikipedia logo usage policies, and should be placed on the appropriate articles as Southern Cross broadcasting is no longerAdrian90 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New logos needed 

message: We need some new logos for the Fairfax radio stations we should keep the old ones as historical reference, We need new logos for i.e. 3AW, 4BC etc
They need to be compliant with Wikipedia logo usage policies, and should be placed on the appropriate articles as Southern Cross broadcasting is no longerAdrian90 (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New logos needed 

message: Another innovation pioneered on 96FM in 1988 was the 'Input Line' 2211296. Effectively just a humble answering machine taking listener comments, opinions and feedback. The best of these responses were then played back on-air as a segment. Put simply the input line gave the public the chance to speak freely about what they thought about 96fm.
Sadly, the '96fm input line' has long since been discontinued. 
Equally sad is not only the input line passing into fond memory, but now in 2009 vehicles like wikipedia are being censored by somebody who is obviously connected to the station.
Now the page has been protected from anonymous edits.
Whilst it is acknowleged that wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and thereby should be factual. When writing about historical events (some now more than 20 years ago) the obvious comparison will be made against todays outcomes.
Wikipedia is not a corporate website designed to promote the station and its current compliment of staff. Nor should it be used to defame individuals. However removing listed URLs from the ASX concerning a public announcement made to the market is sanitising the editorial content to suit the management's purpose.
96fm is a much loved part of the Perth culture. However if it wants to promote its own agenda it should use its own website to do so. If current station employees wish to make alterations to editorial content of wikipedia they should do so publicly by declaring their employment. They should also declare if they are acting autonomously or under instruction from the management of Fairfax Media.
Does Fairfax really think that getting users to log in to wikipedia as 'sexxyfatchick69' or any other username will prevent users & readers from having an opinion or expressing that opinion??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.150.237 (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (also posted to User talk:60.230.217.45): I assure you that I have absolutely no connection to 96fm. In my opinion, they play rubbish music and their announcers are boring. I am neither pushing an agenda, nor acting on behalf of Fairfax Media, when I remove uncited commentary and rumour from the station's article. The Wikipedia article is not a soapbox for people with an axe to grind against the station. Any controversial information (and I believe "run like a dictatorship by GM Declan Kelly" falls within that definition) needs to be verifiable, neutrally written and not original research/commentary. That is, the reason this material was removed was because it had no reliable references provided to back it up, to elevate it from random bitching (perhaps by disgruntled former staff members) to encyclopedic content. - Mark 08:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: With references the material to which you refer is probably acceptable and relevant (an error in judgement on my part). I'll unprotect the article so you can add it back. Please include inline citations to reliable sources, though, to support what you are saying. You can learn more about how to insert inline references here: WP:CITE. - Mark 10:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [POINT OF VIEW]