Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:46, 3 June 2006

This page should generally be as small as possible.

• If you are commenting on a specific page, use that page's talk page, unless you want the conversation to be private, you're essentially leaving an FYI that doesn't warrant a reply or viewing by other people, or the conversation otherwise does not concern anyone else. Some conversations should not be just between you and me.
• If you are commenting on something I left on your talk page, use your talk page. I check most of my contributions, no matter where they are. This is the opposite policy from what most other users have, but I believe in the value of actually being able to follow a conversation without switching between two talk pages or not knowing what's going on. (Conversely, if you add to this page, add it to your watchlist, as I will reply here, not on your talk page, unless I feel it's particularly urgent.)
• User subpages have talk pages too, ya know. If commenting on a user subpage, depending on the precise nature of your comment, it may be better to leave it on the subpage's talk page.

Otherwise, feel free to leave a message! Morgan Wick 01:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

On WCTX

Discussion moved to Talk:WCTX.

List of CW affiliates

Thanks! Should have thought of that (commenting in) before... I've summarized some of the info on the main network page because I think there may be some interest in how the process is working, but I agree that a list should be primarily that - a list.— stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 15:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The next page title

I remember looking at Misplaced Pages:BJAODN:The Next Page Title, which directed me to the numeric list at the time, before it suggested that there were titles with more support further down on the page. Days later, after it had become clear that there might have been, I was afraid to look. Which title has the most support at the moment? I'll make the next one out of it. --James S. 06:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to violate the spirit of my own rule here and respond on this page (the rules above stipulate that I expect any responses to notes left on other people's talk pages to be there and not here). I've integrated your changes into my section, and the title with strong support at the moment is These Bad Jokes need to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of Deleted Nonsense quality. My personal opinion is to move the page we already have to the new name, but I've also solicited opinions at Misplaced Pages talk:BJAODN:The Next Page Title. Morgan Wick 07:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry; I hope I've fixed everything. Sorry about replying here. My talk page says I'll reply on yours. I hope I only violated the letter, and not the spirit. --James S. 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, moving would be a gret idea. --James S. 07:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope. Thanks, sorry, etc. --James S. 10:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another Hope

Hey, thanks for taking a look at the article from my side of the road and following up on the AfD stuff. I appreciate it. MikeWazowski 05:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I was just about to ask someone, but thanks for sticking up for me on the Kids' WB article with the Pokémon airdate. That anonymous editor got on my nerves, I went to his talk page and told him to stop, but he continued. I even BLATANTLY put in the editing description that dates are limited to Kids' WB! and told him to note the dates for Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and Transformers Cybertron, both which originally aired on Cartoon Network but still have Kids' WB!'s dates. I didn't know how to report as vandalism, so I thank you. Matty-chan 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

TV Markets

I appreciate the mixture of fact and speculation on ]. It's possible the final lists of affiliates will be unveiled at the upfronts, but some stations may take even longer to decide. I look forward to the two new networks' respective launches to see if you were right! Thanks for the interesting comments. :) --Firsfron 10:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant I would replace it with a table tracking the new fall schedules, but I do suspect more announcements may come at upfront time. Given this sort of review, though, methinks I should move that page to a more specific title. Morgan Wick 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is now at User:Morgan Wick/2006 Network Shift. Morgan Wick 01:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there was a need for a page move, as the table seemed self-explanatory, but good luck with the continued additions. :) --Firsfron 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have broader plans for the original page once upfronts are over. I thought the CW and My Network-specific information was too specific for the title. And it's my subpage, so what I say goes :) Morgan Wick 03:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was just writing to say I liked it. Carry on. :)--Firsfron 05:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good analysis, keep up the good work. CoolKatt number 99999 03:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hangon/hang-on

I didn't realize redirects would work on a template. Learn something new every day. Fan1967 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there are lots of redirects in template space. Especially with maintenance templates; {{test1}} is just a redirect to {{test}}, for example. Morgan Wick 03:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as hang-on doesn't have what it had before, whatever works. Fan1967 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

CW Talk Page

Thanks for moving the comments. I think I was just quicker to get my reply in than you were to move it. Then I got an edit conflict when I tried to move it myself. --Maxamegalon2000 04:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I figured it out: you submitted your comments before I clicked "edit", then I didn't notice your response, and wound up copying it again, and then finally figured out that your responce was still there and finally removed it. Whew. All cleared up now, though. Morgan Wick 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome

I'm out of college for the summer... leaves valuable time to edit wikipedia! capsgm2002 00:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

CW coverage updates

95.043%? That's quite a difference from the 94.56% I got. I think I had better entrust you with the coverage updates from now on. Hehe. Gatorman 02:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to remove that figure, actually. You want to talk with User:David Levy, I think. He cited a percentage of the "US population", which I suspected, whatever it meant, did not refer to the Nielsen DMA's. Morgan Wick 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am, in fact, basing this figure upon the Nielsen DMAs. The phrase "the country" is ambiguous (and reads as though it refers to geography), and "U.S. population" was my sloppy attempt to clarify the wording. I've switched to the terminology used by Nielsen ("television homes").

I arrived at 95.043% by compiling a list of the 39 DMAs without CW affiliates, determining their combined coverage percentage (as reported by Nielsen) and subtracting this sum from 100%. Another poster to the rec.arts.tv newsgroup independently reached the same figure by adding the coverage percentages of the 171 DMAs with CW affiliates on a running basis.

Here's the list of DMAs without CW affiliates:

#72 (0.377%) Honolulu, HI

#90 (0.296%) Burlington, VT-Plattsburg, NY

#92 (0.289%) Harlingen-Weslaco-Brownsville-McAllen-Pharr, TX

#98 (0.267%) Johnstown-Altoona, PA

#104 (0.248%) Ft. Smith-Fayetteville-Rogers, AR

#108 (0.240%) Springfield, MA

#113 (0.225%) Traverse City-Cadillac, MI

#116 (0.222%) Montgomery-Selma, AL

#118 (0.212%) Fargo-Valley City, ND

#125 (0.198%) Monterey-Salinas, CA

#132 (0.169%) Columbus, MS

#135 (0.158%) Monroe-El Dorado, LA

#139 (0.152%) Wilmington, DE

#145 (0.139%) Joplin, MO-Pittsburg, KS

#147 (0.138%) Albany, GA

#150 (0.132%) Terre Haute, IN

#154 (0.129%) Wheeling, WV-Stuebenville, OH

#158 (0.123%) Biloxi-Gulfport, MS

#160 (0.122%) Bismarck, ND

#165 (0.099%) Clarksburg-Weston, WV

#167 (0.095%) Hattiesburg-Laurel, MS

#174 (0.086%) Jackson, TN

#175 (0.085%) Lake Charles, LA

#179 (0.081%) Jonesboro, AR

#180 (0.081%) Marquette, MI

#182 (0.070%) Greenwood-Greenville, MS

#188 (0.058%) Laredo, TX

#190 (0.058%) Parkersburg, WV

#191 (0.057%) Lafayette, IN

#192 (0.055%) Twin Falls, ID

#195 (0.049%) Cheyenne, WY-Scottsbluff, NE

#197 (0.048%) San Angelo, TX

#199 (0.047%) Ottumwa, IA-Kirksville, MO

#200 (0.046%) Mankato, MN

#202 (0.030%) Zanesville, OH

#204 (0.028%) Presque Isle, ME

#205 (0.027%) Victoria, TX

#208 (0.016%) Alpena, MI

#210 (0.005%) Glendive, MT

You're welcome to do the math yourself, but I've uploaded a screen capture of my result from a calculator program. 100% minus 4.957% equals 95.043%. —David Levy 03:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw your re-reversion of my edit (which is why I changed all the references to past-tense). I did not need a long mathematical treatise of how you arrived at your results. Take your complaints to User talk:Gatorman. I do not want any more of this debate infecting my talk page. Morgan Wick 03:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I wasn't complaining about or debating anything. I spent a great deal of time typing the above, and I did so not to argue with anyone, but because I felt that I owed you an explanation of my edit (rather than demanding that you accept my word without anything to back it up). It was my intention to convey this in a friendly manner, and I'm taken aback by your response. I apologize for the intrusion. —David Levy 03:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Rule 1 above applies, then, because Gatorman needs to see this more than me. You should also fix List of My Network TV affiliates. Morgan Wick 03:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you two, enough. Thank you for your info. Gatorman 03:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad you gave an explantion...my math was off by half-a-million viewers. As of right now, there are 104,747,570 households out of a possible 110,213,910. To be precise, 95.040%. Once again, thanks. 03:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had any interaction with Gatorman. I posted this here because I realized that I came across as a random stranger posting questionable information, and the fact that I initially used sloppy wording (which understandably led you to believe that I didn't grasp the nature of the statistic) didn't help matters. I wanted to reassure you that I wasn't reverting your edit out of ignorance or malice, so I compiled the above list of DMAs. (I previously had only made notations of the Nielsen rankings). Again, I'm sorry if I offended you. —David Levy 03:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked that you should start interacting with Gatorman, and if either one of you attempts to continue this discussion on this page I'm moving the whole discussion to Talk:List of CW affiliates. The rules above are there not only to slow the rate of growth but also to keep me from being disrupted by the "You have new messages" banner every five minutes. Morgan Wick 03:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

TV station project

Hey, Morgan... I'm looking at the talk page for the TV station project (specifically, the infoboxes section), and have no clue as to what's been agreed to (or hasn't). Is there a 30 second version, so that I know what I'm getting into before I get into the fray? Thanks! Amnewsboy 07:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rule 1 violation. I think you'd have gotten better responses if you'd asked on the page itself. I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to... Morgan Wick 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WWAC-DT

I think this guy is trying to pull our chain with a hoax here, he added the affilate to the CW list, but the second result in Google leads to WMCN, a home shopping-infomercial channel with no spare UPN/WB/Fox subchannels, at least looking at the TitanTV schedule page. Jersey Shore Communications also leads to a website with no navigation at all, and the article seems to make claims that are outrageous, a Google search with commas only leads to listings involving a burglar alarm company of the same name. The WWAC article copies the new Fox O&O logo and makes claims about WMGM that seem to be very unsubstanciated. I also suspect that WWACArtist would be one of his sockpuppets. Nate 04:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ETA: It looks like UncleFloyd isn't really heavily involved, he just adjusted articles for readability, but still looking at things, there are a couple of new users trying to create trouble by creating fake TV stations for fun and to delude people into thinking that WWAC is real. Nate 04:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's a hoax it's a mildly plausible one; WWAC does turn up on a TVQ, and in the right area of the country too (but not the right owner or channel), Jersey Shore Communications does exist (but the article on it is questionable) and the link to WWAC-TV's web site goes to a real (under-construction) web site owned by Jersey Shore. Listing it for deletion anyway, though. It just doesn't quite add up. Morgan Wick 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just thought it too odd to be believed, and all parts of the country (except the other NR's mentioned) are in a DMA as I recall, no matter if they're remote and far away from a major media market. The JSC and WWAC articles also popped up only tonight and were posted as I tried to post my objections, so I can't understand it at all. Thank you again. Nate 05:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that the other accounts may be socks of one another, and of UncleFloyd... Morgan Wick 05:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you guys need any further proof, these same screennames actually trying to justify the "James Goldman/Jim Gardner" photoshop job here Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_May_31. capsgm2002 08:41, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC)

James Goldman (actor)

Attention: You have not placed your readons for Not Neutral Point of view on Talk:James Goldman (actor) page. Given you are a mentally ill person I may forgive you for not placing information for the Not Neutral Point of view on the page. Please fix the problem you have created. Thank you from Tokyo! ShigeruNomi 06:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Morgan Wick 08:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not attacking! English is not my original language so I may not have the proper idomatic construction for Americans to understand properly, You admit that you are a mentally ill person on your page and perhaps the problem with your mental status is rhe cause of your poor edititng problems. I am sure in America they have psychological surgeries that can dispense the proper medications for your affliction so you can write in way of normal persons. Please pardon my lacking of full knowledge of American cultures and writings of mentally ill people. Gomen nasai. ShigeruNomi 16:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We will drive you off Misplaced Pages!

We will drive you off of Misplaced Pages. We have done it to others like User:Radiant! and we will do it to you, too. We are many you are one. You can not stop us. Nutjobs like you belong locked up with other nutjobs. We are not who you think we are! WVTF 19:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)