Don1962

Regarding edits made to KFXK

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Don1962! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WIBW-TV

Before you made changes in this article, someone vandalised the article, adding false and extraneous information, so I reverted it back to the revision before his. Could you please re-add your changes again. My apologies for any inconvenience. -- azumanga 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Komando Show statistic

Thanks for providing a reference for the Komando Show statistic. However, the wording of the assertion is still rather vague. Please avoid weasel words (e.g. "is considered to be..."). The report is not meant to "consider" anything. It is simply reporting estimated statistics.The report does not clearly indicate that Komando's show has the largest weekend audience. And it says nothing about her being the "most listened to," which is not the same thing as the number of estimated audience numbers. Perhaps the assertion may be true by inference. However, I would challenge the assertion based the following: 1) Don Imus is out, 2) Bob Brinker's weekend show is quite close, 3) these statistics are very rough estimates, 4) it is not clear whether or not the statistics are including Komando's daily "Computer Minute." Finally, the more appropriate place for this assertion would be on Wikipedia's site for the Kim Komando Show (not Kim Komando personal bio page).

Okay, I've moved it there. The show, according to that list, is the only one aired on the weekends. While extensively carried, Art Bell's show doesn't show in that list. It may now with Imus gone. Also, Bell's show is during overnight hours, which makes for fewer listeners than daytime hours. Don1962 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Don1962

Countdown with Keith Olbermann

That is a much better and more NPOV way to say it. Thanks. FamicomJL 22:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources.

I've reverted your reinserting of the unsourced sentence at The Schnitt Show - please read the verifiability policy; and provide reliable, published, third party sources before putting it back again. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-19t21:42z

Sebring, Florida

I reverted your edits to the radio section, as WWTK is based in Lake Placid, not Sebring, and WJCM's format is Oldies. "Cruisin' Oldies" is a positioning slogan, not a format. Horologium (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Barron Knights

I do not have a problem with you quoting a chart position in the United States for this archetypical British band, but why is it necessary to added the enbolded script to this, as if it was a major trans-Atlantic achievement. It was clearly not.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Three Dog Night

Other Wikiepdia articles are generally used as sources. And even if they were, the one for Show can't be considered a good one as it's a stub without a single source to it. Any info that doesn't have a source can be taken out of the articles at anytime. I'm no expert on Three Dog Night and don't claim to be, but I'm merely putting in information I've taken from sources deemed to be reliable by the disography project style guide. They can be looked over and verified by anyone by clicking the links provided in the references section. If you have info that contradicts what's in the article or another source that backs up what's already in it or whatever, then a source is going to have to be provided for it. If I said Garth Brooks was the biggest selling solo artist in U.S. history in an article, I'd have to back that up with a reliable source. I couldn't just stick it in the article, leave it at that, and not expect it to remain. That's part of the verifiability and reliable sources policies.Odin's Beard (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Three Dog Night's discography lists them as hits, which many people remembered as being hits. All Music.com is often incomplete, and has missed big hits by other artists. I backed it up with a Billboard reference, and this online: http://www.threedognight.com/singles.html

Therefore, am reverting edits.

talk:Don1962|talk]]) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of best-charting U.S. music artists

I have nominated List of best-charting U.S. music artists, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-charting U.S. music artists. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Contact

I changed my preferences so that you can email me directly (left side column under "toolbox"). I actually forgot I removed it a few weeks ago because I was having issues with another editor and I didn't want him/her to email me. But its there now. - eo (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt discography

I understand your reasoning for reinstalling the cover versions section in the singles table, but it's not needed. Ronstadt was an interpretive artist for sure, but it does not belong on the singles chart and takes up too much space. Information such as this should technically be refrained, according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. Please look at that for other guidelines. Also, The Stoney Poneys' hits should not be included in the discography, as the it is only suppose to show her singles as a solo artist, not as part of a band. You also removed vital material about her peaking positions on the Canadian Singles Chart and the Canadian Adult Contemporary chart, which are necessary. I hope you understand my purposes for editing the discography and cleaning it up. If you have any questions or any other problems, feel free to discuss them with me or on her discography talk page. Thank you! Dottiewest1fan (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style, I don't see any prohibition of covers. I see discouragement of adding info on subsequent tributes or covers to the single entries, but not to information on original versions.

Still, you didn't have to remove the covers information. You could have easily added the Canadian info and separated the Stone Poney's singles. I didn't arrange the discography.

Just go back in the history and copy the text you added, paste into a Word document, then paste the current version (which has the cover information included) and then paste your new information into the appropriate areas. Or vice versa. --Don1962 (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're removing the song peaks for the Canadian position it seems; removing sourced info is a no-no. I agree that adding the original artist is a violation of WP:IINFO. If you think that it should be added, I think you should talk it over at WT:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am not insulting your work; rather, I am citing Wikipedia rules that highlight why your edits are unacceptable. And to whom do you suggest that I look up? I've been a regular editor since December 2005, and at last count, I had the 38th-highest edit count on the whole project. There're large numbers of administrators who haven't been around that long or had as many edits. You are also in violation of the three-revert rule (as is Dottiewest1fan, for that matter), and if you keep reverting, you will end up temporarily blocked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you, TenPoundHammer, but to the inconsiderable deletions by Dottiewest1fan--Don1962 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, my bad. Still, both of you are in violation of the three-revert rule, and I would suggest that you and Dottie step away from the article for now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with TenPoundHammer. I never said that I was a well-experienced user, but I said to refer to someone who is. I asked TenPoundHammer for his opinion in the matter because he is a well-experienced user, and the administration board had originally not left a message (until recently). For background, I have been an editor since May 2007, so please keep that in mind. And yes, we are in violation of the three-revert rule, which I honestly had no idea about, so therefore I will stop reverting, if you promise to. Please keep this in mind for next time, as you will be the one who is blocked, not me. Now, can we please act a little more friendly, I never intended to cause a problem with my edits yesterday. If I was being rather rude on the edit summary, than I apologize for my wrongdoing. Thank you. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion would also help. Before you unilaterally remove others' contributions, kindly discuss it first. --Don1962 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

your user p

someone was playing games with your user page, employing it as a springboard for a chain message. I know it's not your fault. As reviewing administrator, I deleted the page, but this is no reflection on you in the slightest. However, why not do a simple user page, just to say what you;re interested it? DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not continue the edit war at Linda Ronstadt discography

Hello Don1962. Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Don1962 reported by User:Dottiewest1fan (Result: Both warned). You are edit warring on this discography. You're officially warned that you may be blocked if you continue to revert this article without getting a talk page consensus first. Please make your case on the talk page before you modify the article again. If you revert again without finding at least one other person who supports your edits, you may be blocked from editing. This notice is in effect until 03:19 UTC on 20 October. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Notices

Grassroots informatoin - November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) , as you have to the article The Grass Roots, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. hulmem (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to The Grass Roots, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. hulmem (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

_____________

Information presented was incorrect. The Grassroots only had 21 charted hits, and only one gold single, according to Billboard. The edits did not significantly change the meaning of the article.

"They are one of only nine bands that have charted twenty-nine or more Top 100 Billboard singles." According to List of best-charting U.S. music artists, 22 other bands have have charted more hits than the Grassroots.

The previous information wasn't cited with sources,either.

Joel Whitburn, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, p. 262. 7th edn, 2000 Grassroots in Billboard]

Grass Roots at Allmusic

I'm a GR fan as well, but let's make sure the information is factual. --Don1962 (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Don962, your efforts are appreciated. However, it seems you ignored or did not comprehend the content of my two notices. We both have the objective of the information in this article being factual. However, one cannot rely on your word or on improperly cited references (for example, stating "Grassroots only had one gold single, according to Joel Whitburn" in the edit summary). Changing from one uncited set of facts to another uncited set of facts does not improve the article. The observation that the existing facts are uncited is not an excuse for you to change them without adding citations. You must add citations for your sources to the article itself (not to this talk page) to support your changes, as prescribed in Wikipedia:Citing sources. I will leave the article as is for a few days to give you time to add the citations. Also, you improperly used the "minor edit" flag, because you modified content, as opposed to reformatting existing content. Changing any facts in an article is significant. Please read Help:Minor edit. Thanks, hulmem (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The information is sourced in the article. I did that this a.m. when called to my attention earlier. See the references.--Don1962 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, the article inflated the subject's hit singles. Okay. I shouldn't have put a MINOR tag on the editing, though it did not significantly change the meaning of the artle. --Don1962 (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's great thanks. When I read your edit summary "(Undid revision 325187448 by Hulmem...)" I just assumed all you did was undo my reversion of your previous edits and I didn't realize you had also added the citations. I hope you don't mind, I replaced your reference to the book with a citation template Template:Cite book. You did a great job noticing that the article contained exaggerations and fixing them with cited sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulmem (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)