Talk:WGSR-LD

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Matt: There shouldn't be any problem with adding criticizm of the station to its Wikipedia page. The links I inserted are factual and accurate, as is all the copy in the "Lack of Credibility" section. What is it that you object to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.225.48 (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff (or whoever you are): The issue here is not truth, but BIAS. There is much more that I could say about the station that I manage, and it would all be truthful, but to display it in Wikipedia would take this article away from the facts of the station as it exists and serve only to sway public opinion about the station. Doing that would be contrary to the tenets upon which Wikipedia exists, and likely would subject my article to rewriting or worse...deletion.

The article as you see it here is not as I originally wrote it. To be sure, there is much I have learned about writing from others in Wikipedia who have read my articles and helped me to make them better. They have also helped me to spot subtle bias in my own writing, and to guard against it in my work here.

Please be aware that your biased corruption of the article on WGSR has invited other biased corruption (I think you know who I'm talking about) to be attempted on this article. It is because of the actions of BOTH of you that I have asked the Wikipedia administrators to restrict who may edit the WGSR-LP article. Historically, the freedoms and rights of individuals in this country have been restricted and lost primarily because of people who irresponsibly abuse them. It's the same with Wikipedia.

I humbly ask you to keep your biases to your own website, and OFF of Wikipedia. Please prove yourself better than your reputation has shown of you. BTW...if you feel so strongly about the wrongs Charles Roark has done, and that your information on him is unbiased, why don't you start an article here about him. You might learn something about how others view your conflicts with him, and with others.

Signing my name... PastorMatt 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt: Are you people so paranoid as to blame everything on Jeff Sykes? If you look at pages across the Wikipedia spectrum you will see that most pages accept criticism and alternate perspectives. You cannot seriously believe that no one in Reidsville objects to Star News' content or finds the station ignorant and divisive, can you? You have started an encyclopedia entry on WGSR and I am attempting to add perspective to that entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidsvillesown (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

Edits such as this and this are unacceptable, as they are poorly formed and are not relevant to this article. If you want to criticize Star News, add it to their article (which currently does not exist).
PastorMatt, I believe your edit summaries, such as here and here are troubling. You're clearly affiliated with the station, and the station is having issues/infighting that has made its way to Wikipedia. Please do not call people out in the comments like that. Stick to adding vandalism templates to the posters' talk pages. Having the page semi-protected seems to have quieted things down, though.
As to Reidsvillesown's comment: a criticism section about WGSR would certainly be acceptable if it conformed to Wikipedia standards: well-written, clear and coherent, well cited, and free of weasel words. If you can put something like that together, then I think it would be acceptable.

Hope this helps. Please let me know if there's any more I can do. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism accepted. Yes, I am passionate for my work here, and in the "heat of the moment" I forgot that others read these areas as well. PastorMatt 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News & Record reference

What is the significance of this link to WGSR? I don't understand how the station is involved in the exposing or reporting of a scandal. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Program lists

As per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is not...

Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.

I recommend that most of the program list be excised from the article and/or rewritten to note historical significance, lest the whole list be removed, as I have tried to do once already. Nicholasm79 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, some discussion should occur before a Third opinion is requested, but I agree that the list of programs are discouraged in Wikipedia and should be deleted. If some programs are notable, they should be included as prose. (EhJJ)^TALK 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]