Talk:WMDT

NPOV, unverified

I just removed several unsourced statements which appear to be unascribed opinions. I flagged the article as unverified, and request others find citations and sources, or verify using the external links, for the rest of the content. - Amgine 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

WMAR cable matter

WMDT has written to complain about our inclusion of this matter and I agree with them that this article shouldn't include it. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is that the cable TV rules are complex and are written and enforced by the FCC, not by competing stations.

If we wish to cover this matter, it would belong at WMAR, not at WMDT, and we would want it to be properly sourced and NPOV; the edit I removed is only partially sourced and is certainly not NPOV, reading as it did as a David and Goliath story.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, then i want to see a copy of this letter, as i fail to see at all how the mention in the artile does anything to the station. Also i have to praticlay disagree with you on evey single point. From what you have writtn above you, it seems apparent that you never read the txt of the source let even checked the source, which would be a primay source. Your interpertation of the txt is alo incorect, as it clearly states that the action of the removal of WMAR was based upon the FCC runling which has jursiditction in these matters, also tehse matter work in ways similar to court cases in which one station needs to file a complaint, WMDT, and the other party involved is asked to respond to these complaints. Also to say that it does not belog in this article but it does in another is nothing but POV, it clearly does warrent a mention in this article as it was this station that iniated the fcc review. Your points are a joke, at least when you are trying to make an argument for remove, try to make it based on the source and the tx and not on the call of an outside person. I am going to put it back into the arcile and reword it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WMDT2006Logo.gif

Image:WMDT2006Logo.gif 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 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) 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tami Payne

The news team section lists Tami Payne as a Meteorologist. An edit war has been happening between if she is a "fill-in" or "weekend" Meterologist. I am removing her since the fact that she is working there is not verifiable based on http://www.wmdt.com/bios/ as the reference for that section. David (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your change after seeing the top of the WMDT weather page. Her picture is on the page, so it stands to reason she works at the station. - NeutralHomer • Talk 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)