User talk:Moncrief
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive of earlier talk pages:
Please feel free to talk to me, even though there's nothing below! I archived the discussions on my too-long talk page most recently on June 1, 2006.
[edit] Dude, I know what marketing means
Interviews done to promote a movie are part of the studio's marketing strategy. Marketing is an entirely acceptable term, although "promotion" may fit better. Your edit made my contribution look stupid. "Interviews". Huh. What do you know about the industry?
[edit] Hey Dude, its not Plaigirism if you source it
Hey I was just trying to edit the little miss sunshine wikipedia article and add a huge ass quote with its source. Although it did look stupid, it was wsomething for other people to read and perhaps try to incorporate many of the facts that the quote contained into the wikipedia article. If you just delete it than how the heck will anyone be able to improve it. Sheesh
[edit] RE: BHHS
Hey, I reverted the entire page, to the pre-Karmak destruction-era style. I referred him to the Wikipedia Style Guide on encyclopedic+wikipedian integrity. Every edit I make, or you make, or ANYONE makes, he reverts it or adds some nonsense info, totally violating npov and factual accuracy.
BTW, I don't think the Joel Stein reference, or the "Alfuence of Student Body" sections have much pertinence to BHHS. It just portrays BHHS in a bad light, not the objective of the article, right? (correct me if I'm wrong though)
I'm glad you're helping, Moncrief. Be in touch.
-
- I do not think talking about how there are affluent students at Beverly Hills High School with parents connected to the entertainment industry puts Beverly in a bad light at all! It is a fact! Beverly Hills is a city that is world famous for its affluence! Besides, even if you think these facts portray Beverly in a bad light, that does not mean it is not NPOV! In fact, if the article only portrayed Beverly from the official Beverly Hills High School point of view, then it is POV!
-
- The article on Bill Clinton talks about how he was impeached. The article on Richard Nixon talks about watergate! Using your logic, Wikipedia should NOT mention the impeachment or the watergate scandal at all because these facts certainly do put the two presidents in a bad light! Using your logic, the entire Holocaust article should be deleted because it puts Hitler and Germany in a bad light! Using your logic the article on Slavery should be deleted because it puts the United States in a bad light! Karmak 22:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That's his opinion, which you obviously can't understand. There is a difference between writing :::FACTUAL information and OPINIONS SAID by SOMEONE, and thereby making any attempt at NPOV :::IRRELEVENT. Is it really that hard to figure things out?Collegian 19:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Numbers greater than 10
In an edit summary for United States, you ask why spell out "fifty" and not "five hundred and sixty-two". Aside from the numbers up to 10, which is currently in the The Manual of Style covering this issue, the traditional practice in formal English is for numbers up to 100 to be spelled out. This is reasonable because it is shorter and less complex verbiage, there is no "and", and the number written out will never be more than two words. (A novel suggestion on the Manual of Style was that all numbers that can be spelled out as one word, that is, 0 through 20 and intervals of 10 up to 100 (30,40,...,100), however the problem I think with this is that there would be smaller numbers written as numerals with larger numbers spelled out, e.g., 25 and thirty. Regardless, it is still the common practice in formal usage for numbers up to 100 to be spelled out. I forget why it wasn't added in the Manual of Style (may just have never been seriously proposed or argued for) for numbers up to 100, but I will propose that the formal usage be at least mentioned. —Centrx→Talk 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:CIVIL
My guess is you know about being civil, so this is just a friendly reminder to be careful with commentary you make in edit summaries and in discussion pages.--MONGO 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] That's My Mama reruns
Hey there, Moncrief! Just wanted to report that if you look at the show's message board on imdb, a couple of people say that reruns ran in their area. One guy says he saw reruns in Columbia, South Carolina in the 80's. Another guy says it currently airs in his area on the UPN station but didn't say where he lives. MrBlondNYC 08:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Geri Jewell
Is there a particular reason why you removed my edit to the Geri Jewell page? I found it an interesting anecdote about a comedic personality in an otherwise brief article? I realize that I am a new user to Wikipedia, but I would just like to understand your reasoning. Thank you for your time. --AtroposTheRandom 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elimination
I'd love to elimate every reference to "4 lakes" and "6 composers" on this site. Your elimination process has perhaps turned on itself. Conventionally, "eliminate", four syllables.
I agree with you about "Elvis" versus "Presley" and I've restarted the very boring process of de-"Elvis"ification of that article. I've finished the section on the Sun period; perhaps you'd like to take over from there till boredom overcomes you too. You are also welcome to work on non-stylistic aspects of the Presley article, which is pretty wretched (lots about "relationships", not so much about music).
Incidentally, while I too dislike "4 lakes", my own recent peeves include the gushy use of "legendary" (i.e. fairly well known), "incredible" (i.e. unusual or successful), and "amazing" (i.e. surprising or successful), as well of course as such golden cliches as "at the tender age of" (which I sporadically zap on the grounds of PoV). -- Hoary 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cabbagetown photo
A photo you uploaded has been flagged as having an obsolete copyright tag. You may wish to update the tag as suggested on the page. RayGates 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 
[edit] John Mark Karr
I respectfully disagree about the link - simply because the external link is to a blog is no reason to delete it. The author, Michael Brooks, is a national journalist, and he has provided a photocopy of the email. If you would like to provide an alternate transliteration from a "reputable" media source, feel free to do so. Thank you.
[edit] Thanks
A correction should be made on your user page. Moncrief 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. Done. Thanks.
- (Hope my recent edits haven't tripped your "notable" alarm :-) )--Paul 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] karr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Mark_Karr#KUSA. dposse 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Irwin
I think it said Cairns because that may have been where he was officially pronounced dead. Ansell 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Can you tone down the shouting in the edit summaries please--Golden Wattle talk 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Minnesota changes
Hello. I reverted your change to the introduction. I think the intro should be a short summary of the article and it is not necessary to obtain mathematical precision where the point is expanded on in the text. I concur with your apparent belief that other sections of the article need work, but I don't see that a statement as to "stereotypical Minnesota traits" is comparative, or conveys the inference that such traits aren't shared by others. But the section is too anecdotal, as you mentioned, and needs citations. Thanks. Kablammo 03:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if 54% is "slightly" more, or not, especially when the metro area has increased in size since the last census while good portions of Outstate Minnesota are losing population. As to the list of ethnicities contained in the intro, it could easily be lost, but when I suggested cutting the intro another contributor said not to. (See my talk page). It's great to have another pair of eyes on this page, but let's discuss changes on the Minnesota talk page, and give others a chance to weigh in as well. So I won't post any more messages here but will move discussion of point in question to Talk: Minnesota. Thanks. Kablammo 03:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Irwin edit summary
Regarding this edit summary, I would kindly ask that you assume good faith and try to keep a civil tone when editing. The user who made that change likely hadn't read WP:DATE. --Chris (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My Date Mistakes
I apologise that that error I made on the Steve Irwin article. I had made that mistake and had not noticed it until a few moments too late, some other user already made another edit so I could not simply revert it before looking like a dunce, so I had to edit it while that error was out there on that popular article. I quickly attempted to correct it but before I could fix my error, the error had already been corrected, by you I presume.
Once again I apologize for my foolish error, I guess this is what I had coming for me to attempt to make corrections to such an important article on a site for "grown ups", when I am only thirteen years of age. (Edit: Forgot the signature. I'm so stupid today... :p) -PokeOnic EMAIL TALK PKN UNCY 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please remain civil
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! - Glen 01:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reader's Digest
I notice you put the userbox of "needed rescources and others" on the article called Reader's Digest but this article does have references below so I ask you to recheck to make sure for correct. I am not an author of this article but I am collector of Reader's Digest as a fan. I am an author of different articles. I just thought I advise you to recheck that article, that is all. Thanks. Cculber007 08:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Block of Homosexual Harry
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I unblocked and then reblocked this user indef, as a vandalism only account. Hope you don't mind. Cheers KOS | talk 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Foley
We need a semi-protection on Foley, restricting to established users. Know any admins around? Derex 03:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Cory Lidle:
You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Berkeley L. Bunker
Greetings. You listed Berkeley L. Bunker as a copyvio back on 9 October. It turns out that the site that the text was copied from, bioguide.congress.gov, is a public domain site. Therefore there is no copyvio. I just wanted to let you know, so that if you see other pages copied from the bioguide, you'll know that they're okay. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tom Skilling
You obviously know nothing about Mr. Skilling. The stock exchange in Chicago stops to watch him. According to Neilson Research his audience acorss the nation in in the millions. Neilson also rates the local market with over a million viewers for his evening show. Perhaps you should check your facts before you blurt out something you can't prove and don't know anything about. Idiot! - This comment added by 206.246.144.226
[edit] Re: Mark Foley scandal revert
Sorry 'bout that -- actually meant to rv a deletion in the lede. Didn't see your external link. I read that article earlier -- I agree, it's a good one.
Cheers, and my apologies. --GGreeneVa 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletionists
Could you please refrain from using the word "deletionist," especially in a way such as you did in the James Kim AfD? Making broad statements about a huge group of people- and a broad statement about the specific editor who nominated the article (who, I agree, was in error in nominating it, but whom you have little background on aside from this one AfD)- is in rather bad taste. I, personally, am a "deletionist," but being a "deletionist" doesn't mean you have to be an irrational lunatic, nor that you have to be lumped together with irrational lunatics (not that this nominator was, just in general). There was really no reason to say "deletionists can be really bizarre"- everyone can be really bizarre, and putting this one article up for deletion is not indicative of an entire group. -- Kicking222 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciated your use of the term "deletionist." It seemed appropriate and informative (especially in light of your observations on "notability"). The whole 'notability' issue raises some serious concerns, and it helps to have these concerns framed in easily-regonizable terms. Hats off! dr.ef.tymac 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Follow-up: Note that my comment was added in general reference to your "notability" remarks and the AfD, I did not intend to contribute to, augment, or contradict any points made by Kicking222 FWIW. dr.ef.tymac 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James Kim
Does anything strike you as odd over at the article? You've obviously been around the block a bit here on wikipedia, but I'm getting a really odd vibe on the talk page.--Crossmr 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly that is why I was asking you. I wanted to make sure my danger sense wasn't tingling for nothing. I'm looking at the various debates going on on the talk page and the editors on both sides, and I feel like there is some sort of hidden agenda I didn't get a memo on, or something of that nature. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith and all that, but I've experienced a variety of interesting editors in the past, and something just seems off.--Crossmr 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've replied to your questions put to me on the James Kim AfD page [2]. Pop Secret 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
