Talk:Steve and DC

Objectivity
This page lacks objectivity. It reads like a promo ad for the show. Some steps have been made to correct this, but the article needs an overhaul by someone knowledgeable but neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.100.127 (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article
I have placed an NPOV tag on this article because it reads like a promo for the show, as someone who is involved with the show might write it (WP:COI may also apply here). I would strongly suggest that it be rewritten in accordance with NPOV guidelines, otherwise the risk of the article being stripped down to the bare essentials may be very high. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality pretty much achieved
Looks like the article is pretty much neutral, as it is nothing more than a history of the show, as well as recent events. I think it's safe to remove the NPOV tag.

Kaos 42 (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

From a source
The article on Wikipedia has been used to include multiple instances of my name, DC as well as Steve, to be used to damage my name and my credibility. I have been directly damaged, financially and personally by these articles full of inaccuracies and lies. The article was updated today by a prominent writer from all access music group that is not conjecture but fact. All Access has been an archive of radio information about the industry and its been a good source for information about the Steve and DC Show. The facts are facts and the article is now factual and I don't want it changed back to the previous version. I want an article that reflects the fact that the show was amazingly successful in the St Louis area and in syndication. I don't want it turned into a article about personal lives!!!! The article is supposed to be interesting information about the SHOW and I have seen many other articles about people in the public eye on Wikipedia that have WAY more information about the subject that read like a promotional piece. This stuff damages my family and ME, directly. I will NOT tolerate any other changes to attempt to revise my professional accomplishments. I am happy to talk to you directly at [redacted] and I am willing after that to discuss one on one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.215.194 (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What you will or will not 'tolerate' is of no concern here - this article will comply with Wikipedia policies, which include the requirement that published sources be use for content, and that such sources be cited. And please take note of the Conflict of interest guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And incidentally, if you are going to complain about 'lies', you will find that your claims will be taken more seriously if you actually tell us what these supposed 'lies' are. We aren't mind readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The links to a radio bloggers page is NOT a legitimate source for information. I did reference ALL OF THE CHANGES AND THE SOURCE What violates the policy???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.215.194 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 April 2015‎


 * Adding ' tags with no content isn't the way to add citations - we need to know which source is being cited for what material. And in any case, as you have already been told, as you have a clear conflict of interest, you shouldn't be editing the article directly. Please explain what the issues are with the existing content, and provide the necessary information for any proposed new material. And take note that if you carry on edit-warring, you will find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the contentious material "lies" may have been in the blog external link which I have removed. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That certainly shouldn't have been linked. And per WP:BLP/WP:COI it would have been legitimate for the IP (or anyone else) to have removed it. That doesn't however justify the addition of reams of unsourced promotional material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
Many of the sources cited in this article prior to the recent edit-warring nonsense were questionable, to say the least. I have accordingly removed them - which leaves the article lacking adequate sourcing. If uninvolved contributors can find proper sources complying with WP:RS (and not violating WP:BLP in the process), please add them. Contributors with a COI should instead list them here, so we can assess them and add them if appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

digging out some potential sources from past versions.
 * The local St Louis alternative weekly did a bit of coverage about the show (and one of the hosts) back in 2003
 * and what looks like something called the St Louis Journalism Review also did some coverage of the show. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * more about the nigger incident
 * the show was apparently good for Emmis Broadcasting -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Many problems
My name is Lia Nower. I am the head of the gambling addiction studies and research department at Rutgers University. I am also an attorney and former reporter for the St Louis Post Dispatch. The article is full of inaccuracies and short of the facts about the show. The show did not start at WMLL, look it up. WMLL did not exist until 2002. The show began on WKBQ 106.5 FM. My newspaper wrote multiple articles on the success of the show in the radio ratings system known as Arbitron. I have information from my previous articles and research that I can provide and I would imagine it's in the best interest of Wikipedia for that information to be included on a page about the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.73.117 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * None of your qualifications are relevant here. Please provide us with proper references, so we can do what we do with any other article - base content on published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. I posted sources, legit news agency articles and another editor said "we don't care about what is allowed on the other millions of Wikipedia articles, we are just going to target your edits and this article and the other Wikipedia articles don't matter. So what gives? Which is it? Fair or biased?66.87.75.125 (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the user said that we don't use what's in other articles as precedent for what's allowed here. Each article is considered on its own merit. Currently, we're looking at this article. We may need to look at other articles, but that's an entirely separate process. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Posting blatant untruths is going to do your cause no good whatsoever. Anyway, since it seems self-evident that you aren't actually interested in doing anything but throwing around wild accusations, I'm done here - I made an honest effort to sort this mess out, but right from the start rather anyone explaining what the issues are like a rational human being, we have had to put up with relentless bullshit (including an IP who seems to claim to be someone different with every post). Someone else can clean the article up - or delete it, which might be the best course of action given the failure of anyone to actually provide proper references, rather than vague assertions that this or that publication has them. Frankly, I have my doubts that this radio show meets our notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

STOP
Not every word on Wikipedia has a source next to it. Stop deleting and changing the information not every word on Wikipedia has a source next to it. Stop deleting and changing the information that is posted. It is factual and a very quick Google search would tell you where Steve in DC are now there is absolutely no problem with the information provided. Stop!22:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)66.87.73.117 (talk)
 * Please see the message I left in your talk page. The previous information was also "factual" by all accounts, yet here we are. Please cite your sources. That's all we need. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

WKBQ
I think that the advertisement at http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-RandR/1990s/1997/RR-1997-05-23.pdf page 7 would be a possible reference for the time on WKBQ.Naraht (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WMLL
According to http://streamingradioguide.com/streaming-schedule.php?stationid=16282 WQLL became WMLL on 3/17/2005