User talk:ClarkKentWannabe

May 2024

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you recently removed content from WBBM-TV without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WWOR-TV, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Homer Glen, Illinois, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Why did you remove that source from the article in this edit? What website's URL were you referring to? Badbluebus (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Badbluebus: I came across this discussion on the talk page. In fact, you can see my response for that specific chat. And, in this older version, the websites & sentence in question are at the end of the 2nd paragraph under the "History" section. My apologies for not including in my edit summary a link to the talk page section I was citing in the action I took. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence you removed was indeed not supported by that citation, but the rest of the paragraph was, that's why I restored the source there. If you look at the paper, it says that "Virtuous Pedophiles has more than 1,000 members, and has recently averaged approximately 3,000 posts per month..." and "...Virtuous Pedophiles... includes the following on its website: 'We believe that sexual activity between adults and children is wrong'..." Badbluebus (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Badbluebus: Actually, after again looking at the older version of the article I referenced above, specifically the sentence & citation that was removed, I actually checked out the website cited (An Internet study of men sexually attracted to children: Correlates of sexual offending against children.), and the article at the link makes NO mention of Virtuous Pedophiles OR the claim on Virtuous Pedophiles's website stating that sexual activity between adults and children is wrong. So, your "rescuing" of the source URL is actually incorrect/unnecessary. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just the abstract of the source in question. The actual article is 12-pages long and mentions the website by name exactly 2 times, I just showed you the two sentences that talk about the website in my reply above. Badbluebus (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Badbluebus: Again, my apologies. I've gone through & restored the citation to the article. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of the term "defunct" broadcast network

To even qualify as a defunct broadcast network, it must shutdown completely and no longer exist, but you refuse to acknowledge MyNetworkTV still exists as an over-the-air broadcast network since its conversion to a syndication service in 2009. Despite its attempted prime time soap operas struggling to gain an audience in 2006 and 2007, they became available on the Tubi streaming service in 2020 and 2021. As for Ion Television, which launched as PAX TV in 1998, it still exists as a broadcast network since its rebranding to I: Independent Television in 2005, but it recently launched a FAST television channel feed in 2021, effectively eliminating the need for a local affiliate TV station as with its sister network Ion Plus, which launched as Ion Life in 2007 before rebranding to Ion Plus in 2019. In fact, Ion Television and Ion Plus might as well shut down their over-the-air feeds and convert to internet-only streaming channels instead. 76.80.52.166 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@76.80.52.166:

MyNetworkTV is no longer considered a broadcast network, so it belongs in the defunct broadcast network template.

As for Pax, it was replaced initially by i (considered a programming distribution platform), then by Ion (also a programming distribution platform).

Also, Smile was never considered a minor television network, so please do not keep adding it back in.

I will give you one last warning; you continue engaging in this disruptive behavior, I will report you for vandalism. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: Your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not conflate some issues here, even though the definition of this term is very prone to conflation.

We've had some long discussions about MyNetworkTV, even within the project. MyNetworkTV met the definition of a network when it started in 2006. When it stopped meeting the definition of a network is a fuzzy thing, but it might have done so in hindsight as early as 2009 or 2010.

Then there's Pax, i, and Ion. We treat them as one continuous service. Even if Ion has generally lacked first-run entertainment programming since the mid-2000s, its sports additions with the WNBA and NWSL have kept it unquestionably a network. Ion Television is the most prominent (maybe not the most-viewed), but many diginets act in this way. They are distributed through local stations and as FAST channels, but we don't have this question really with anyone but MyNetworkTV. Smile (of a Child) belongs in this category: a national service distributed through local stations.

The definition of "television network", in my view, has less to do with programming and more with topology. (Never mind that long ago we conflated the two, particularly here.) But to call MyNetworkTV defunct is blatantly wrong: it still exists in some guise. The same could be said of a diginet like Circle that opted to remove local stations entirely from its distribution strategy but still is a linear FAST service. But Twist (TV network) is dead: it is no longer distributed in any medium, including linear. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK. I will officially concede to Sammi's explanation, and I will cease contesting 76.80.52.166's change to the template for defunct American broadcast networks. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: even though you've said Ion *is* considered a TV network, would it at all be considered a *major* TV network? I ask because someone has taken to adding Ion to the "major" section of the "Current English-language broadcast television networks in the United States" template. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's tough @ClarkKentWannabe. Its national coverage is pretty good. But it's not a broadcast network in a key way that the Big Four and The CW are, since it operates a basically 24-hour national feed. I'd be a bit hesitant, but the case is mixed for them. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello, I'm NJZombie. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Golden Age of Radio, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NJZombie (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]