| Revision as of 08:23, 24 June 2005 editBoothy443 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,616 edits →Not vandalism← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:28, 24 June 2005 edit undoBoothy443 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,616 editsm →Not vandalismNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Neither of you are vandals. This is an edit war. Page is protected. Talk it out please. Thanks. ] 08:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | Neither of you are vandals. This is an edit war. Page is protected. Talk it out please. Thanks. ] 08:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *Their is nothing to discuss, their has been a newer extensive article on the subject, that article has not been given due considertion by either users or admins, "establishment", the subject now meets that creteria that mutt and his minons, who have shown threw their edits a massive anti-Philadelphia bias, would list as a creditable person, so their is no reason to de link or speedy the subject in question, and an perosn that does i will consider a vandal or an admin who is abusing their privildges, and re link and recreat the article. But being that i am dealing with the "establishment" , who only seem to work in their best intrests and not in the best intrest of the regular credible user, or in the protection of this site as a vaid source of information of the web, as it is becoming more of a soure wikipedia needs to evolve and reform. --] | ] 08:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | *Their is nothing to discuss, their has been a newer extensive article on the subject, that article has not been given due considertion by either users or admins, "establishment", the subject now meets that creteria that mutt and his minons, who have shown threw their edits a massive anti-Philadelphia bias, would list as a creditable person, so their is no reason to de link or speedy the subject in question, and an perosn that does i will consider a vandal or an admin who is abusing their privildges, and re link and recreat the article. But being that i am dealing with the "establishment" , who only seem to work in their best intrests and not in the best intrest of the regular credible user, or in the protection of this site as a vaid source of information of the web, as it is becoming more of a soure wikipedia needs to evolve and reform. As far as i am concerned this discussion is over. --] | ] 08:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:28, 24 June 2005
CBS did not merge with Westinghouse in 1994; that came later in 1995-6. See KYW-TV for the correct order of events.
Also, the title of this article is incorrect. The station's callsign is WCAU, not WCAU-TV. According to the FCC database, WCAU-TV became WCAU on 10/06/1995, so it happened under NBC ownership. 18.26.0.18 00:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To the anon: why did you remove the section I added on John Zacherle? -- Decumanus 22:55, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Not vandalism
Neither of you are vandals. This is an edit war. Page is protected. Talk it out please. Thanks. Rhobite 08:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Their is nothing to discuss, their has been a newer extensive article on the subject, that article has not been given due considertion by either users or admins, "establishment", the subject now meets that creteria that mutt and his minons, who have shown threw their edits a massive anti-Philadelphia bias, would list as a creditable person, so their is no reason to de link or speedy the subject in question, and an perosn that does i will consider a vandal or an admin who is abusing their privildges, and re link and recreat the article. But being that i am dealing with the "establishment" , who only seem to work in their best intrests and not in the best intrest of the regular credible user, or in the protection of this site as a vaid source of information of the web, as it is becoming more of a soure wikipedia needs to evolve and reform. As far as i am concerned this discussion is over. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)