"Oh would you just SHUT THE FUCK UP already?!?!  The only one who has ""no value to Wikipedia as a whole"" is YOURSELF.  YOU constantly put YOUR own values and opinions into articles that would be best left unsubstantiated in that form or simply left as they are.  A good example of this would be the rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry where you put your opinion back into the entry after being told months before it should be left OUT of the entry.  You are always crying ""Mommy! The article has vandalism! I need to revert it, Waaaah, Waaah, Waah!"" and when you aren't screaming your head off in a restaurant annoying other patrons with your ludicrous justifications of ""vandalism"" you are yelling at the waiter about how much ""harrassment"" there is.  Frankly I think you would be best off banned not just for 24 hours, but permanently; however, that's not my decision to make, just as it's not YOUR decision to label other user accounts as so-called ""sockpuppets"" simply because your paranoid nature suspects them as so!   

 ::Anyhow...I believe the Mormon Church reference should not be within the article.  Who cares who owns the stations?  The behavior of the stations are not relevant; rather, their factual information, up to and including anchorpersons and other such trivia, should be included.  There are many ways to phrase the article without putting pro-Mormon propaganda into the mix; as has been stated before, the only reason that Chadbryant believes it to be ""vandalism"" or ""improvement"" or whatever damn thing he's harking about this week is because HE is Mormon; thus, his reasons for the information going into it cannot be placed into the article in a completely neutral manner or placement of thought.  As for ""Mormon"" to ""LDS,"" who really cares?  Both are correct, in this instance, and an outsider to the entry would be able to comprehend the point of the ""facts"" either way.   

 ::For those who would believe Mr. Chadbryant to be some good Wikipedia Samaritin, I suggest you do a little bit of research on the subject first. He has a long, drawn-out history on Wikipedia to place his own opinions and petty behaviors into their entries (see his recent 24 hour ban for violation of the 3RR rule as a good example) and this is no exception.  I am more than willing to discuss this ""problem"" (though I don't see how there is one other than Chad's biasedness and social phobias coming to light in a cybertext form) on this talk page, so long as Mr. Chadbryant does not come along and delete my comments or edit my entries, as he has been found to have a history of doing so!   

 ::"