Talk:WINT (AM)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Ohio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance). Radio Stations Low‑importance

WELW is to become WINT ("Integrity radio") on March 31. Unfortunately, a WINT page already exists, a redirect, so a simple article move won't be possible; there'll have to be content moved between pages. Mapsax (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For the history of the WELW talk page up to this point, go here. Mapsax (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Edit: Undone, as seen below. Mapsax (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(

cut-and-paste move, which was reverted. The link to the "history of the WELW talk page" is not only unnecessary, but also misleading, and should be disregarded. The edit history of this talk page is fully intact. Levdr1lp / talk 15:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It is now. It wasn't before. My comments above are obsolete now but were still written so I restored them. Mapsax (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mapsax: You aren't "restoring" anything. You're adding comments made during your attempted cur-and-paste move at the "WINT" talk page. That attempted cut-and-paste move was reverted, so in effect, you're making the above comments on this talk page for the first time. You might want to strikethrough your above comments to avoid creating additional confusion. Levdr1lp / talk 16:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, since the two topmost comments appeared together at one time. But strikethrough is fair enough. Mapsax (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mapsax: The point is you originally posted those comments to a different talk page with a different edit history; you added them to this page later, including a misleading edit history link. This isn't subjective. This isn't something with which you "agree" or "disagree". You attempted a cur-and-paste move. It was reverted (including the associated talk page). Posting those same comments here w/o providing clarification creates confusion over just what happened here. Levdr1lp / talk 17:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For whichever page they are relevant, they, and by extension this whole section, need to be preserved together just like this, strikethrough notwithstanding. The point is that a comment of mine got deleted without my permission, and that wasn't justifiable according to the points in the list at

WP:TPO. Mapsax (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@

attribution, and there was nothing even remotely justified in separating nine years of this article's edit history from its content (the small link you provided was not nearly sufficient). Levdr1lp / talk 15:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]