Talk:9am with David & Kim

Protection

The other contributor is only adding POV like "flogger" next to the presenters name and adding over the top language. I suggest the contributor responsible be dealt with ASAP and the article unlocked. - Mike Beckham 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The term flogger was initially propagated by el meaestro, Mr Bert Newton himself, exactly in reference to Ms Moira MacLean. "Here is Moira" was indeed probably more frequent. Bert Newton however used the term flogger repeatedly and regularly, presumably with a lacing of irony. Therefore I used it also in the entry with inverted commas!

The programme is directed towards Australian housewifes, thus not the intellectual elite of Oz-Femininity. Part of the programme's aspiration to relative success is actually to use a relatively dull appearing male counterpart to the relatively smart appearing Watkins. It is eg., a common advertising pardigm, if it is directed to a chick to play her up relative to a dumb but feasible male.

That us David did not even survive at any serious length as a drummer with a band is something we smile about gently - it may seem stretching credibility, but then when KNOW it is fact. If you want me to annotate the entry as decribing the programme following quite deliberately a "smart chick, dull gheezer" stereotype in order to achieve commercial success then this can be done. Plenty enough footnotable literature in this regard has evolved in recent years.

The article should probably have a clear and discernible interface in this direction anyway, even more so as it follows a clear evolutionary pattern of tv in general.

I am happy to deal with any further issues you wish to make a point of. Nevertheless, please kindly abstain forthwith from issuing "warnings", when this is none of your prerogatives, and don't shriek out loud "vandalism" just because of new facts that are in the way of your opinion. Things can all be sorted out on a person to person, very human level.

Greetings Oalexander-En 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oalexander your position is an OPINION, please provide references from an authoritative source that holds the relevant credentials to postulate such and opinion and place them in context Rotovia (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Libel

I have excised from the test a section containing biased and libellous remarks about a living person. To make negative claims on the basis of personal opinion about a public personality without a reliable source is to expose the author of such claims, and Wikipedia itself, to a defamation suit. The user has been warned and I have removed the offending revisions from the page history.--cj | talk 11:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:9am David and Kim.jpg

Image:9am David and Kim.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 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:David Kim.jpg

Image:David Kim.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)