User talk:JMyrleFuller

Happy New Year!

JMyrleFuller,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red Eye Radio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Eye Radio until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MightyRanger (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tryptofish

Let me address a few points.

- The 20 million YouTube views can be found directly on the YouTube page's view count. That, of course, counts all the views that happened after the event concluded. There's no clean way to source it that way so I chose a news article off Google News that mentioned the figure.

- The fact of 11 million English language viewers lost: that is based on the numbers given in the press release cited. Overall viewership declined from 137.8 to 128.2 million from the second quarter to the halftime show overall, and that factored in the increase on Spanish Telemundo from 3.3 million to 4.8 million. That leaves the English viewership going from 133.5 to 123.4, an 11 million viewer difference. (I will note that this does not establish where those 11 million viewers went and I worded that as carefully as I could have to ensure not to imply causation.) I mentioned it only in the same context of the famous Super Bowl XXVI counterprogram, which likewise coincided with a (larger) negative impact on the Super Bowl halftime ratings. Admittedly it is treading close to original synthesis, but there is nothing there in that cannot be deduced from the numbers already given.

- Fox News Channel is deprecated. Fox Local (which is the local newsrooms of Fox Television Stations and operates separately from FNC) is not. At least as far as I know. The fact that most of the channels that carried the program are not Nielsen-monitored, as mentioned in that article, is not controversial.

- Likewise, although the part about TBN not responding for comment is probably not necessary and doesn't add much, the sourcing (a Gannett Company newspaper) meets standards of reliability.

- I purposely did not include claims TPUSA made about its internal estimates, specifically because of the inability to verify them—only that they considered it successful enough to do it again next year, which they're in the position to make that decision.

Unfortunately there is a lot of editorializing going on even in news articles about this event. As Wikipedia editors, we of course should strive for neutrality and make sure anything we say about it is neutral and honest. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss this is at the article talk page, where I have already started a discussion. You may perhaps want to move these comments of yours there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You can find the new logo here - I don't know how to get logos uploaded and approved so feel free to try. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the copy they have is a little too small to work with, compared to the 550 version of the logo that's up (and will eventually also need to be updated with the version that has 104.7 and 107.7). I'm going to wait to see if/when Audacy officially publishes a larger copy before I do anything further with it.

Failing that, I can always go into GIMP and edit out the "550" part so we have a universal logo to work with for all three stations. But I'd rather not do that except as a last resort. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this version is bigger. Wellington Bay (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warren Redlich, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Redlich (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I reverted most (but not all) of your additions to WUTV because the sources in the article did not justify most of the content. In articles like this that I've primed for Good Article status, I don't let new, unsourced additions or additions that fail source verification sit. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Understood. If I interpolated too much, I have no problem with being reverted, though some of it is attested in the sources (such as the channel 29 previously being allocated to Canada). The fact that channel 59 had previously been in use for WBES-TV should be mentioned. I'm not sure how to do that given the sources we're working with, which don't directly reference the channel 59 past. I'll see what I can do to keep the Good Article criteria you're seeking. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I kept what I could find in the articles I had. In this case, really, the first paragraph answers the question of "how 29 got here". WNYT-TV (of no relation to Albany 13, of course) doesn't connect to WBES-TV except by channel number. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

With that in mind, I've taken the liberty of splitting off the bidding process and the discussion of what came before sign-on into its own section to make that more explicitly clear. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)