Talk:Mix FM (Ottawa)

Untitled

Clarification: Are we sure that "most of the songs" are ripped from other MIX FM stations? As far as I can see that is unverified.

Branding

Ok, do we or do we not put it. They have never refered to call letters on the air as far as we know, its only coming from their posting on their website which we know is invalid anyways. Especially when consindering call letters CTOM cant be used anyways... I refer to Star Ray TV for style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alebowgm (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where they even got the call signs for SRTV, but it doesn't really matter. If a station has a call sign, even if it's unofficial, it is used in the header of the infobox. See this discussion at Talk:CFRO-FM. There are tons of articles on Part 15 radio stations in the US like KBXZ or KONK, which don't have offical call signs as they're not licensed by the FCC. So with illegal stations like this which has a unofficial call sign, it should used over the branding.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 22:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Invalid Call signs: Being a Canadian station, if it were to be approved and have a valid call-sign, it would have to start with CF-CK, as CT call-signs are registered to Portugal." fails to mention that CBO-FM is also an invalid call sign. CB- belongs to Chile. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't realize most CBC stations have CB prefixes (eg CBLT, CBW, CBKFT, etc). The CBC has a deal with the Government of Chile that allows them to use CB call signs.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Any WP:RS for the claim that Chile has authorised its callsigns to be issued to Ottawa? I can't find a valid source for this. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Past Frequency

106.5 - http://www.1065mixfm.piczo.com/?cr=7 92.7 - http://www.927mixfm.piczo.com/?cr=7 91.9 - http://www.919mixfm.piczo.com/?cr=7

Their UsTream says 99.9 as the logo.

The other frequencies have been confirmed in Digital Home...

I think it is enough to leave the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alebowgm (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know what Jayhaed is thinking by removing the frequency changes, but it's obvious from the primary sources and from Digital Home that CTOM has been changing frequencies quite frequently.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the 99.9 page http://www.mixfm999.piczo.com/?cr=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alebowgm (talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Start date / founded 2002

It says on their about page that they launched in 2002 http://919mixfm.piczo.com/?g=50371713&cr=7

Was only noticed about its pirate status (probably due to dramatic increase in power) in 2009!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alebowgm (talk • contribs) 05:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A legal unlicensed FM station, (usually under 1 watt of power) won't attract the attention of IC. I doubt a station operating at 10 watts would get the attention of IC unless there's severe complaints about the content or interference, but Jayhaed is operating technically a Class A station here. 2600 watts? Outrageous. It has a higher ERP than 98.5.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The article as it presently stands contains a few claims that the station was founded in 2002. Any source for this? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

the source for this is Mix FM itself which had previously (1) listed it on their website, (2) posted so on a message board and (3) made mention to it on TV news... 2002 is when they began to broadcast a signal, may not had been with the same equipment or nearly as strong but 2002 was the first broadcast date Alebowgm (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide a reference for 2002 then the article can reflect that, but right now references state only that it was active in 2009 . Note that a Google search for "Mix-FM" Ottawa 2002 doesn't come up with anything. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

M. Nelson, the reference for it was on their website, where it said it had launched in 2002. It has since been changed. Further, Jayhead has said that he began with the station (although not nearly at this frequency) back in 2002 on the on-air reports. 2002 is the start date, we have had this discussion prior and on other forms of media and it has been pretty much decided. Alebowgm (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been "pretty much decided"; this must be a well sourced article if it survives the AFD. See WP:PROVEIT Rapido (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So lets cite it and get it there without problem. We still have the video footage which we can link to. We can no longer link to the site where it said it since that site has been pulled offline and posts on DH have been removed Alebowgm (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mix FM's own website is not a valid content source for this article; particularly given his sudden claim to have gotten a proper license without benefit of an actual CRTC decision to grant him one, I suspect he's got a real tendency to embellish and/or manufacture truth when it suits his purposes. The only thing we can validly source to Mix FM's own website are statements presented as Mix FM's claims, not statements presented as absolute fact.

One important thing to keep in mind, for example, is that Jayhaed Saadé is 14 years old now — meaning that if the station had really launched in 2002, he would have been seven at the time. And while I suppose it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility, it does strain the edges of credibility to suggest, in the absence of real sources, that a seven-year-old boy ran his own pirate radio station.

In order to state that the station has been on air since 2002, we would require an independent media source in which somebody other than Saadé himself states a start date of 2002 as being a confirmed fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with it being the way it is, where it was claimed and first publicized, I think that allows for it to be the most specific based on the information we have Alebowgm (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't about what you personally have or don't have a problem with, it's about Wikipedia's basic content policies. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Planned Relocation

I am for keeping this as is, partially because it shows the stupidity of the matter and second because its actually posted. Reliable? Probably not, that place won't ever get built, but it adds to this entire story. Alebowgm (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the place won't ever get built, but the reference is too confusing to add. I'll try to reword it in a way that doesn't misuse the unreliable reference; note that this reliable source covers it (and questions whether it will be built), though doesn't mention the radio. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Run by Jayhaed Saadé and George Saadé

I added this in the intro because it is legit information. If it is removed from there, it should be kept elsewhere in the article. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the age of Jayhaed Saadé from 13 to 14, since it has been stated in many newspaper articles, and at Digital Home that he is 14. CanadaDry81 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know if it is run by George Saadé, no where do we have information about this Alebowgm (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This reference states that the station "is being operated by Mr. Saadé and his son." It could be argued that this reference is not reliable, but if it is not, it shouldn't be used anywhere in the article. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Call Letters

CKLI-FM is not an assigned set of call letters and should be removed from this article. Part of being an "unlicensed" broadcaster means this station does not HAVE call letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.8.150 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What other title would you propose for this article, then? Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree completely. There are tons of articles on part 15 US station without a license that have call signs. Another example would be CKON, which is an unlicensed (but not pirate) station in an Indian reserve in Quebec.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with US part 15 rules, but in any case these call letters still are not assigned to this broadcaster. This broadcaster has NO assigned calls, just ones he appears to have made up himself. Radio stations in Canada require both a CRTC licence AND a Broadcasting certificate from Industry Canada. This station has neither, and it is the broadcasting certificate which is associated with "call letters". Bearcat: does that fact that this broadcaster calls himself CKLI-FM make use of that as a title justified? If so, I withdraw my earlier comment :) in that case, it should still be noted in the article that the CKLI calls are "self assigned". 209.128.8.150 (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the part 15 stations in the US are licensed and they don't have registered call signs. But the articles still link to the call sign that they assign themselves.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When the station actually uses that call sign on the air, yes, but that has less to do with "any call sign, no matter where it comes from, always trumps any other name as an article title" and more to do with "this is actually a name by which this thing is actually known by its viewers/listeners, because the station actually uses this call sign in its on-air identification breaks". We're under no obligation to privilege a "call sign" that exists only on the station's web page, and magically changes from CTOM to CKLI within the lifespan of this article, if the station has never actually sent either of those call signs out over the airwaves. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it does or doesn't; it really depends on the individual situation. But there's not really much point in complaining about the existing title if there isn't actually a viable alternative title actually being proposed for discussion. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Many of the nonsense callsigns are leftovers from The WB/The CW and appeared with city name or network name in parenthesis, ie: WBU (The CW Plus). These are becoming less common as these affiliations are being moved off cable-only channels to legit digital subchannels of licensed OTA stations, but a few redirects still exist under these bogus names. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Adjacent channels?

The claim that "CKLI was causing adjacent-channel interference with the 91.5 FM frequency" should read "second-adjacent-channel interference". The adjacent channels to 91.9 FM are 91.7 and 92.1, not 92.3 or 91.5. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

B2 License

Says B2 but does this even exist? I had thought only B and B1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alebowgm (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Not only is there no such thing as a B2-class license, but there's (a) no way in hell that the CRTC would ever grant anybody a B-class license second-adjacent to a C1 in the same city, and (b) no way that anybody could get a broadcast license without the CRTC issuing a public notice that an application had been filed, then a call for comments, then a hearing, and then an actual document to announce the license decision. If no evidence of any of those things happening can be found on the CRTC's website, then there simply isn't a license.

No matter what Saadé claims, in other words, this article simply doesn't get to claim that he's a licensed broadcaster until such time as there's an actual CRTC decision, actually issuing him an actual license, for which we can actually link to the original document as a reference. Bearcat (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

External links

The following links may be cited as references for article content, where appropriate, but they don't belong as uncontextualized offsite links directly in the "External links" section of the article:

• Digital Home's forums discussing the station, including from Jayhaed Saadé as MIX FM
• MIX FM on MilkManUnlimited
• MIX FM on CBC.ca
• CJOH-TV, including video interview with Jayhaed
• Pirate Radio stays on air, despite second warning - Ottawa Sun
• Pirate radio station forced off the air

The links may be reinserted, nested within ref tags, as references for appropriate content — but are not to be readded directly to "External links". Bearcat (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

SAADE inn is at the NE corner of Bank St and Rideau Rd at 45.297253,-75.58027 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.27.7 (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

CKLI-FM is the new tower name (was formerly CTOM-FM). Eefrune (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. BrainMarble (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CKLI or Mix FM for name of article

On 19 January 2010 user Azumanga1 moved CKLI-FM to Mix FM (Ottawa)with the reasoning "Moved to moniker, as the callsign was never official to begin with (and was also the second used), and article is now de-emphasising the calls.") Should this be based on stadning WIKI standards. I would have thought CKLI-FM was more appropriate. Alebowgm (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any news reports that call it CKLI, only Mix FM. A Google search also shows that Mix FM is used in reference to the station many, many more times. Even I can't find CKLI on the station's own website. So I think the current article name is far more appropriate than the old one. Rapido (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The rule around using a call sign as an article title applies to (a) call signs which, by virtue of being assigned to the station by Industry Canada, are the radio station's formal and official name, or (b) cases such as CKON-FM, where a station which doesn't actually have an IC-issued call sign is known by one anyway by virtue of actually branding itself with one. The "CKLI" call sign, on the other hand, meets neither criterion: it isn't a properly-assigned call sign and it wasn't ever part of the station's actual on-air branding; the only source that ever even existed for it was the station's own website (failing Wikipedia rules about primary sources), which also claimed a CRTC-issued license that never actually existed (failing Wikipedia rules about reliability). Which means that the standing wiki standard that actually applies here is "most common name", because (a) as a pirate station it doesn't actually fall under normal radio station naming standards, and (b) nothing's stopping Industry Canada from actually assigning CKLI-FM to another radio station as a real call sign. Bearcat (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Piratecruft

This CKLI-FM article is starting very much to look like fancruft, detailing every single thing that happened regarding the station. This is unnecessary, and many of the sources (if given) fail WP:SPS. If I compare the length of the CKLI article, and for example, CIHT-FM (supposedly the top rated radio station in Ottawa), you can see the difference in the amount of intricate information contained within. Unless someone can find reliable sources for much of the information contained, then it would be appropriate for this to be removed. Rapido (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Any article can be as long or as short as the amount of work that people are prepared to put into it; an article's permissible length is not determined by comparing it to the length of other articles. Part of the issue is there isn't always very much that's genuinely notable to write about a commercial radio station, particularly one that's only been around for about four or five years and doesn't have decades of being sold back and forth from one company to another — a normal radio station can go for years without receiving any coverage in other media outside of the "Hot 89.9 held its Show Your Naughty Bits for a Free Coffee! contest today" variety, which wouldn't actually belong in an encyclopedia article anyway. Whereas by virtue of existing on the outside edge of the law, this station garnered a flurry of actual news coverage, so it's much easier to properly source actual and encyclopedically relevant detail about it. Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just point out that in no way was I suggesting that the article should be this length or that length, merely comparing the two due to the amount of intricate material contained in this article - much of which is unsourced, or isn't encyclopaedically relevant... or both. E.g. the section about the transmitter being this power - or maybe that power... or even another power level... and detail of all the taped programmes transmitted... and some of the details that are sourced are almost the whole contents of one or more news articles reworded (like the day the station went off air the second time), and there is no need for that amount of detail to be contained within the article. Rapido (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Name of the owner/operator + Criminal trial section

It appears to me that the name of the offender indeed does not appear explicitly in any of the references (ref. 4 or 26). Unless anyone can find any other reference mentioning the name, I think the explicit mention of the name should be removed since there will be no citation to support it. Please discuss below. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The name of the owner/operator of the radio station is no more supported by references [2][3] or [4] (as the article presently mentions). Thus, the name should be removed I guess. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 03:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither does [9] support that. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 03:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless anybody can add new reliable references mentioning the name of the owner/operator of the radio station, I will suggest removal of all instances of the name. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, remove it, you can't just add the name with no source, it does not mention the name anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.29.253 (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are in fact many other reliable references that do mention the name. Examples: Mix_FM_(Ottawa)#cite_note-lfpress12374826-1, Mix_FM_(Ottawa)#cite_note-Video-2, Mix_FM_(Ottawa)#cite_note-cornwallfreenews-22.

More importantly: Build consensus through discussion in talk page before section blanking. Else your IP may be blocked. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 04:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It does not mention the criminal trial, how would that be a reliable reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.29.250 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the instances of the name in the section as the references do not mention name. But you should stop blanking the section. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 04:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, what happened here was that at the time that the situation was originally taking place, his name did appear in the reliable sources about it — however, once he was actually charged with a crime, Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act kicked in and the sources that named him had to be taken offline and republished without his name appearing in them. In accordance with our WP:BLP rules, what I've done is to delete the article and then restore only the revisions which don't contain his name. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes perfect sense. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the entire history should be deleted — why did you use the deprecated selective deletion as opposed to revision deletion? Can you point to where WP:BLP recommends it? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — edited 21:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME explicitly allows for the removal of names in situations where there's a potential privacy issue involved in publishing the name, such as legal matters. The reason the whole history had to be deleted, under these circumstances, is that there were no edits in the article's entire history in which the name wasn't accessible if you looked at the old version of the article — so revision deletion still would have involved deleting everything prior to today. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

BLPNAME doesn't say anything about removing the history, and although I am inclined to err on the side of caution in privacy issues, I don't see why we should delete every version with that particular field in the infobox. It's not explicitly connected to the criminal trial section, and there are copyright issues in removing the article's entire contribution history. Also, the very first version of the article didn't include the name at all. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The criminal trial should be removed because it doesnt metion the name anywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.29.253 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. In fact, as there are six references in the section and no mention of the operator's name, your blanking of it can be considered vandalism. If you persist, the article will be re-protected. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The possibility of the teenager's name being removed was already discussed during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mix FM (Ottawa) and the consensus was still to keep the article. Also, almost no radio station articles on Wikipedia have station managers and transmitter engineers listed, and most don't have any staff names sourced from WP:RS at all. Indeed, it appears that his particular radio station's history is even better documented than most other radio stations' in the last 20 years. --Closeapple (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on the article history purge? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the purge of the usernames in the edit history is troublesome, because it violates the attribution provisions of CC-BY-SA. If the history remains purged, an admin needs to post a list of contributors to the talk page for attribution, lest the current version of the article be tainted as a violating the copyright of the original editors. Beyond that, I don't have a strong opinion about it, though I'm mostly against suppressing edit histories unless it is the only way to conform to a mandatory Wikipedia policy. As for the teenager's name itself: I think this article retains notability whether or not the name appears; the article is about the station, and secondarily about its operator, but not about the operator's name. (If the teenager's father becomes involved in other public issues again, or his ability to control his strip club/hotel in Ottawa becomes a reputation issue, then maybe naming the teenager should be revisited.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To summarize

1. Canadian law does not apply to Wikipedia.
2. The name of the operator can be found in reliable sources, e.g., http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/01/15/12479971.html
3. Large scale history deletion presents its own problems.
4. The information removed did not connect the name of the operator to the criminal proceedings and so does not present a privacy issue. Therefore:
   1. The history should be restored.
   2. The only potential privacy issue is the mention of the operator's name in conjunction with the proceedings, and this is a more a matter of finding reliable sources that have not been taken down, or obtaining copies of them archived before that time. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow "The information removed did not connect the name of the operator to the criminal proceedings". If the teenager's name appears in the article at the same time as the criminal proceedings appear in the article, it is obvious who, by name, the proceedings are about. Maybe I'm confused about what that sentence means. --Closeapple (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear — his name appeared in the article long before the trial did. This is one of the reasons history deletion is should be avoided when possible; it makes situations like this needlessly complicated, and puts too much power in the hands of administrators. If Bearcat doesn't object within a day or so, I'm going to restore the history. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an obligation to follow Canadian law, you're right; however, we do have a policy which states that we should respect local laws, whether they're strictly binding on Wikipedia or not, if there isn't a truly compelling reason to disregard them (which there isn't here.) WP:BLPNAME also explicitly advises that even if regular media sources can be found which provide the name, we can still exclude it from our article on those exact privacy/legal grounds — if there were one or more full-length books or academic studies about this situation which named him, that might be different, but we can and do frequently redact names on privacy grounds whose availability in regular news sources is limited or problematic. And keeping it out of the article does mean that we have to remove any edit in which a casual user might be able to find out the name, in exactly the same way as we would have to lockbox any edit which contained inappropriate or potentially libellous allegations in any other BLP.

It's not a question of disregarding Canadian law and naming him just because we can; the question is whether there's a genuinely compelling reason why we need to disregard Canadian law in this matter. Does knowing his name actually provide added context to the reader which excluding it fails to do? No. Is a non-Canadian country in danger of experiencing a public safety risk if we exclude his name? No. Is there a useful or important reason why a Wikipedia reader needs to know the kid's name? No. So it's not a question of whether Wikipedia has an obligation to follow Canadian law or not — if there isn't a critically important reason why we need to disregard or overrule it, then we should respect it whether we have a strict obligation to do so or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a sufficient reason to remove the history — if you Google Mix FM Ottawa, the operator's name appears on the first page. This is not secret information. There may be reason not to give his name in the criminal trial section, and maybe even to remove the revisions that do — but not to remove the entire history. Consider the implications: any article that includes the name of a somewhat obscure minor would have to have its entire history following that inclusion removed if the minor was charged with a crime. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No matter how many people violate a publication ban by publicizing confidential information, it's still confidential information. Our WP:BLP policy, specifically the section on when it's appropriate to suppress or redact names of individual people, specifically states that just because a name can be found in some sources doesn't necessarily mean that we have to repeat it here too — we have to consider a much higher standard than "can this information be found somewhere else if somebody is really determined to find it", and we have to have a much better reason to include the kid's name than "because we can". Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not mention the criminal trial with the name in any of the papers so it needs to be removed and to you can't mention a youth in local law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.29.254 (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Canadian law prohibits publishing the name of an underage criminal; it does not prohibit publishing general information about the criminal charges and the trial as long as the accused isn't identified by name. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please put the kabosh on 216.218.29.248/29 (or at least semiprotect the article again) until that user finally understands that you don't blank stuff multiple times while a discussion is still in progress? (See 216.218.29.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.218.29.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.218.29.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),216.218.29.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.218.29.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); there might be other times from that range, but the history purge might have hidden them.) Warning the user on every IP, warning the user right here in this section, semiprotecting the article, and blocking one of the user's IPs for 24 hours don't seem to have gotten the point across. --Closeapple (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bearcat re-protected it — I'll rangeblock 216.218.29.248/29 if he gets up to any more disruption. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to restoring the history (at least the versions without the name in the trial section)? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Is there any way to restore contributor usernames (at least) and maybe summaries/times in history yet still suppress the edits? (I'm not familiar with what combinations are available.) The whole attribution thing worries me — any editor with a substantial contribution could theoretically pop up any time in the future and complain that they're being copyvioed. If the first edit has to be visible to do that, can some kind of blank page be merged onto the front? (These are probably general oversight questions rather than specific to this article, so if they're not relevant, don't worry about it.) --Closeapple (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the above is possible, and the first version doesn't have any names in it. But I don't see why the name should be suppressed from the infobox at all, even if there is a reason to redact it from the trial section. In any case, since Bearcat has not responded for two days, I'll take that as consent to restore the history. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was away from Wikipedia entirely during the days in question. Fundamentally, however, my issue remains that we simply cannot permit general users to have any access to any edit which actually includes the kid's name. Simply put, there are only two valid choices here: either we suppress any edit in the history in which his name can be seen, or we delete the entire article permanently. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither choice should be made by a single administrator, especially as consensus seems to be against it. If you want more input, feel free to contact uninvolved third parties, by email if necessary. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is my problem, a lot of work was put into building this article. As the person who started the article and given a good chunk of the edits/updates, it is clearly evident who the owner of the station is as it was in many articles. While suppressing the name from the criminal section may be viable, ALL articles on WP list who their owner is/was so suddenly this is no longer consistent. Further, we have previously talked about who the owner is earlier in the discussion page (6 December 2009), it survived a removal discussion, and everything was clear until the vandalism started. The same goes with suppressing past revisions. Alebowgm (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Conventional radio stations aren't subject to issues in which there are legal ramifications to identifying the owner. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there such ramifications here? We've already agreed that Canadian laws do not apply to Wikipedia, and Canadian authorities already know the identity of the person in question. If you believe that this issue is legal in nature, you should contact WP:OFFICE — otherwise, this is a strictly editorial decision. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again: strictly speaking, you're right that Wikipedia is not obligated to follow Canadian law. However, as I've pointed out before, Wikipedia does have a policy dictating that we do respect and follow local laws around matters such as this, regardless of their enforceability or unenforceability in Wikipedia's official home jurisdiction, if there isn't a compelling reason (i.e. not just "because we can, neener neener") why we need to flout them. And in this case, there be none. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mix FM (Ottawa). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090503123022/http://www.milkmanunlimited.com:80/tunedin.htm to http://www.milkmanunlimited.com/tunedin.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090503123022/http://www.milkmanunlimited.com:80/tunedin.htm to http://www.milkmanunlimited.com/tunedin.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110317001635/http://www.milkmanunlimited.com:80/tunedin.htm to http://www.milkmanunlimited.com/tunedin.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110317001635/http://www.milkmanunlimited.com:80/tunedin.htm to http://www.milkmanunlimited.com/tunedin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)