Talk:KFUO (AM)

Untitled
I have once again corrected the number of signatures collected on the petition to bring back Issues, Etc. The petition was launched in late March 2008. Since no dates are available we do not know exactly how many of the signatures were collected between late March and June 30th when the show returned to the airwaves. But as I watched the list grow my best estimate is that the number is approximately 6,500. The current number of signatures on the petition is 7691. The remaining 1000+ signatures were added AFTER the show was revived on June 30th, 2008 and therefore were not part of the total mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.24.206 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Message to Mary1Johnson: ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE STOP PUTTING FALSE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE about the number of signatures collected on the petition!! The article as it now stands is factually accurate and clear. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.96.193 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the new section about the replacement programs for Issues Etc. really does not add anything useful to the article. I suggest removing it. But I will leave that to an editor to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.96.193 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to 216.160.96.193: The information was not false. The petition collected over 7,600 signatures. However, you are correct in stating that 1,200 of those signatures were posted after Issues, Etc. returned on June 30, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary1johnson (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to Mary1Johnson: You have added opinion, original research and hearsay to the article and made it unbalanced. Please review the Wikipedia policies on original research. This is not a place to insert your own opinions and start arguments with other contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.96.193 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to 216.160.96.193: Please point out specifically, what in my latest contribution was "opinion" or "hearsay"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary1johnson (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to Mary1Johnson: If you have read the Wikipedia article about Original Research it should be clear to you that the myths you have posted are not legitimate additions to Wikipedia. I have been a regular listener to Issues Etc for over 10 years. I stopped donating to KFUO when they dropped the program. The fact that I actually agree with your opinions does not change the fact that your opinions do not belong here. The place to state your opinions is at the offices of KFUO, or maybe you should stage another protest at LCMS headquarters. I would like to join you but I am about 2000 miles away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.96.193 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A paragraph describing FACTS relating to this article would probably be an acceptable addition to this article. But a list of Myths is original research and does not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.96.193 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to Ajraddatz RE:Please stop vandalizing pages. Please start paying attention to the content of the material that was inappropriately added to this page by Mary1Johnson. This is not a place to argue a point by creating a list of myths. Inappropriate material and original research should be removed by an editor. Thank you.

Message to Mary1Johnson: can you explain why your list of myths qualifies as something other than Original Research? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.96.193 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to 216.160.96.193: You're correct. While the "Myths and Misconceptions" were not "opinion" or "hearsay," they were original research. I have removed them.

Message to Mary1Johnson: If you are not willing to have your work edited by others you can't be a Wikipedia contributor. Good articles require good editing. Wikipedia is a community work. If you want to do your own work without contribution and editing from others you need to start a blog. Thanks!--67.40.22.62 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Message to 67.40.22.62: The editing seems to be a one way street in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary1johnson (talk • contribs) 13:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Message to Mary1Johnson: That is not true. Looking back at the history I see you have made a lot of edits to this article and most of them are still in place.

The reason why I edited your comments is because the section about Issues Etc. is already MUCH TOO LONG for Wikipedia. The IE controversy is really a small part of KFUO AM history. There is no reason why IE should take up more than half of the entire article as it currently does. The overemphasis on the IE controversy really throws off the balance of the article. I saw that you actually DELETED some of the information that was not about the IE controversy, which helped to unbalance it even further.

I was also rather disappointed to find out that KFUO-AM is the only article you have ever contributed to. A good Wikipedian joins so that they can make a contribution to a VARIETY of different articles. The only way I can read your behavior here is that you have some sort of political axe to grind against KFUO-AM. I think that you have shown a real lack of understanding and disregard for Wikipedia etiquette also. --63.224.56.217 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Message to 63.224.56.217: Sorry, I didn't realize that my behavior and lack of other article contributions on Wikipedia was being monitored and evaluated to determine whether or not I am a "good" Wikipedian. I have removed the references to Issues, Etc. from the KFUO AM article. It's all yours again.

But, didn't I read something in the Wikipolicy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary1johnson (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Message to Mary1Johnson: You were unaware that every one of your posts is tracked in your edit history? I had no reason to investigate your history until it became blatantly obvious that you were here to cause trouble. Many people have been BANNED from Wikipedia for behavior such as yours. I won't propose a ban for you unless you continue to do cause more trouble. Removing 80% of an article written by the Wikipedia community is what Wikipedia calls VANDALISM!!

BTW, there is a BIG difference between commenting on the contributor inside the article and commenting on the contributor on the "discussion" page. --63.224.56.217 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Message to 63.224.56.217: But didn't you say, "The IE controversy is really a small part of KFUO AM history." Why include it? Vandalism? No, editing. As a "good" Wikipedian, surely you support editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary1johnson (talk • contribs) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sold?
I read in the St Louis Post dispatch this station was sold to some christian company and going to end it's long run of jazz music. Anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.152.61 (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Late response to this... KFUO (AM), this station, was, to my knowledge, unaffected by the sale. KFUO (FM), a classical music station, was sold; it is now a contemporary Christian music station rather than a classical music station. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on KFUO (AM). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100911201450/http://www.radio-info.com/news/st-louis-classic-99-ends-62-years-in-the-format-tonight-with-beethovens-9th to http://www.radio-info.com/news/st-louis-classic-99-ends-62-years-in-the-format-tonight-with-beethovens-9th
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526122539/http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=15079 to http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=15079
 * Added tag to http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Communications/issuesqanda.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429172750/http://ministrywatch.com/profile/jubilee-network.aspx to http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/jubilee-network.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124104748/http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=13570 to http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=13570
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418201651/http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/2AA6C162EE5AE3EA8625742C001087AA?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/2AA6C162EE5AE3EA8625742C001087AA?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I corrected two of the archive URLs. Indyguy (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)