User talk:Korny O'Near
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
- Be Bold!
- Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
- Meet other new users
- Learn from others
- Play nice with others
- Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
- Tell us about you
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.
We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 16:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] reality shows
Hello Korny. I'm not sure how to contact you or comment, so I hope this is the right place. I tried updating the REALITY TELEVISION page to include the fear genre. You want to know how I'm aware of the "tv biz" thinks..... Not only did I create FEAR, but I also hear about it from every tv development exec, agent and reality producer I run across. Fear created a genre and people in tv are still trying to create shows in a similar vein. In the meantime, I sold more reality shows and have four in the works today. So that's how I know. Please undo your changes.
best- Martin Kunert
- Hi Martin - just so you know, usually these kinds of discussions take place in the "discussion" page for the article in question, so more people can get involved, but this is fine. So: I applaud your pioneering work in reality TV, but I still disagree with you on this issue. I think your use of the word "genre" here is not an academic one, and that what you're really describing is a "theme". How much do, for instance, "Fear Factor" and "Scare Tactics" have in common? One is (basically) an athletic-challenge show, the other is a hidden-camera show. They both involve people being afraid, but they're not of the same genre. To illustrate with an example, if you go to a video store, you can find dramas about football, football comedies, football documentaries, etc. You won't find them all under "football", you'll find them under their respective genres, even though on the surface they resemble each other more than they do their neighbors on the shelf. The categories at the video store (and in the Wikipedia article) have to do with format more than subject matter. Korny O'Near 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
.... Hey, thanks for the compliment.
If you insist on using the metaphor of the video store, than you have to agree that nearly every video store has a "horror" genre category, hence your argument is false. But in either case, I fail to understand why your judgement of what is theme versus genre should dictate how reality shows are classified. If the wikipedia article is about reality shows, should how the reality show business classifies shows be the deciding factor.. and not your opinion? Also, your belief that "One is (basically) an athletic-challenge show, the other is a hidden-camera show." is not how the SCARE TACTICS and FEAR FACTOR were designed, sold, and marketed. They were reality shows that used the emotion of fear as the driving force on the participants and as entertainment for the audience. In fact, it is not a coincidence that they, and all shows in the Fear genre, have a horror related words in their titles.. like FEAR, FEAR FACTOR , SCREAM TEST, SCARE TACTICS, SCARIEST PLACES ON EARTH. Any of these reality show titles could be used as a horror film title.
I hope you will realize this, and amend the list appropriately.
best- Martin Kunert
- I still disagree. I think it's instructive to bring up the "horror" genre - it's a genre that has many unifying conventions, beyond simply showing people being afraid; otherwise How to Eat Fried Worms would get classified as horror. Something like MTV's Fear could be seen as the reality equivalent of a horror movie, but I don't think Fear Factor could - there's no element of implied supernatural phenomena, ominous music, etc. It could well be that at pitch meetings all these different shows are described in similar terms, but by more academic standards I just don't think it makes sense to do that.
- One other thing: given that this is Wikipedia, you have just as much right to change the article as I do. If you do decide to change it, though, please be careful with the editing. Last time you introduced a bunch of duplicate paragraphs and other strange formatting. Korny O'Near 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
--- Sorry about the formating errors. The reason I write here is because I don't want to get into conflict with you and switch wikipedia pages every time one of us checks the listing. As for Fear Factor not have supernatural elements.. that doesn't negate it being a fear based show. As you may recall, that show created situations which would scare most people, such as climbing on tall buildings, jumping through flaming hoops. Fear Factor events were not designed just to be simple action based, there were no javelin throws or the like. And again, imho, its hard to argue that a show called FEAR factor isn't selling itself as a fear based reality show. There's a reason it wasn't called ACTION factor. TV shows are traditionally titled to sell their high concept on title alone. Hence when you see a title like GHOST WHISPERER, you get the general idea what the show is about. I certainly don't know what academic standards are, but real world standards -- such as what the tv audience and tv biz use -- are pretty clear on this.
best- Martin Kunert
[edit] Yes, "Presently" IS a Synonym for "Currently"
Hello Korny O'Near. While I have no problem with your revisions to the article I wrote on Anthony Pellicano, I did want to point out your erroneous statement, "'presently' does not mean [sic] 'currently.'" While what you should've said was "'presently' is not a synonym for 'currently,'" that, in fact, is incorrect. "Presently" is, indeed, a synonym for "currently." I refer you to the Oxford English Dictionary, which validates the use of "presently" as a synonym for "currently." Warm regards, David Hoag 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, my first message, thanks! Well, I looked it up, and American Heritage says it's a controversial subject - [1]. I guess this is one of those issues that drives lexicographers crazy. Surely it's a word fraught with problems, though, if it can mean both "now" and "soon". On a sort-of-related note, are you saying "'a' does not mean 'b'" is an incorrect formulation? I've never heard that before. Why do you say that? Korny O'Near 17:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- So I looked this up in the Oxford English Dictionary as per David. They list six different senses. But to cut a long story short, of the sense "soon" they say "Now the ordinary use". Both the senses that mean roughly "now" are marked as "Obs." (obscure, I think) or "arch." (archaic). By the way, thanks for teaching me something about the history of the Kyoto Protocol.Crust 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prayers for the Assassin
Thanks for the feedback, Korny. I wasn't trying to step on any toes. I incorporated the Mcleans article into the reviews section -- it seemed more appropriate there. For the links to Similar Novels, it didn't seem quite as relevant to list them as "See also" since the other books aren't discussions on the same topic, but rather other alternate history/future novels. "See also" implies that the other entries will be on the same theme, while listing them as "Similar Novels" makes the purpose of their inclusion clear. The list also seemed less informative without the authors' names included. Including the names adds additional context, whereas simply listing "Fatherland" (for example) is unspecific. Your other changes really helped improve the listing.
- Alright. Just so you know, if you want to do any more editing in the future, it's always best to explain yourself. Korny O'Near 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mike Huckabee
I noticed you added an "NPOV" tag to the Dumond section of the Mike Huckabee article. Was that because of Afberry's comments on the Talk page? If so, I believe he fixed some of the problems himself after he posted that and I addressed his other concerns, so there really is no dispute anymore as far as I can tell. Maximusveritas 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. I was just replacing the article's main NPOV tag with a more localized one. Feel free to remove it. Korny O'Near 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'll just move it back to the top. I'm not sure if it's needed anymore. It was added 6 months ago and I think the article has been improved since then. I might propose removing it on the Talk page. Maximusveritas 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oops
Sorry, had not seen nor intended those deletions. Sorry. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, that's what I figured. Korny O'Near 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Refrain from your vandalism of [Jerome Armstrong]'s page.
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for undoing the vandalism spree by 68.239.73.183. This person went around removing my changes and hacking my user page, but you seem to have caught all the vandalisms. Korny O'Near 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to be of help. Michael Slone (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Korny O'Near , as you can see, I edited the Jerome Armstrong page including the allegations you insist are valid, but am asking that you provide links for the non-substatiated claims. I'm not talking a blogger that has a rightwing agenda either. Please provide the facts if you are going to type these accusations. 68.239.73.183.
[edit] Conspiracy Theories
I reverted your changes on this as they appear to have inserted a few power words;
- Hezbollah conspiracy
- large, professional-looking banner
- suspiciously etc,
removed some of the timeline, you also inserted the words "alleged" indicating an "allegation" when in fact the bloggers for the most part had no proof of anything- reducing what they were saying to the status of theories/claims, removed the claimed political affiliation of the neocons and koret (seems sensible to warn the reader), also removed the richmond debunking of the JPEG compression? A timeline is important to indicate 1) who originated the theories 2) how the theories were debunked within 7 days. Without this focus for the article it would be a nominee for speedy deletion as, like you pointed out, it is just a series of bloggers cooking up a load of nonsense.
Can you discuss on the talk page first before making changes? Due to recent vandalism the page might need to get locked. Thanks. 82.29.227.171 13:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you know what "allegation" means. Also, you may not be aware of this, but given that you're anonymous, locking the page would let me edit it but not you. Korny O'Near 14:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for fixing my mistakes
Thanks for fixing my mistakes of fact and grammar in the Anglosphere article. (I made a further edit, because I don't think "refers to" is the right verb in "Mark Steyn, who refers to the term often, ...". Feel free to change it back if you disagree.) Again, thanks! Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MyDD Astrology claim
I'm going to encourage you to give up on your MyDD edits about astrology and finances. For four reasons. 1. This is unsourced. 2. Unless you can source something other then the MyDD website, it will count as original research. 3. The community, by several different users, has continually corrected this mistake. 4. You've gone WAY past the 3 reverts rule!
If you really believe this needs to be in the article, start a discussion about it on the mydd talk page. Please do not just revert. IrnBru001 16:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- An article on a website can't use that website as a source? That's news to me. It's also news that "the community" has decided anything. There's nothing on the discussion page about it. But fine, I'll create a discussion for it. Korny O'Near 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks we can now discuss the issue over there IrnBru001 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Top Gun
Please could you explain me why here you have removed the reference to ER? --Egr 20:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, sorry for the delay. The notes in the cast list refer to work the actors had appeared in before being cast, to help explain their casting. The "ER" reference is the only one to something one of the actors had appeared in afterwards, and isn't relevant to the article. Korny O'Near 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Carson mediation
I'm signed up for mediation of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-19 Carson and proposed Cronos1 the following: "Wikipedia’s way to deal with cases like this, which worked elegantly in thousands of other articles, is: Put the facts next to each other and let the reader reach the conclusion. That Bailey is on CEI’s payroll seems to be verifiable, and that the CEI is pro-industry is verifiable, too. Why not simply put the two together?" He liked the idea and said he'd modify article accordingly. I pointed him to WP:V as a criterion. If you're unhappy with his changes please let me know (via e-mail, the cabale page or my talk page). I'll wait a day and will then close the case. — Sebastian 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edit to Pajamas Media
Your recent edit to Pajamas Media was excellent. Thank you, CWC(talk) 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pesto
I've made an effort to document, clean up and heavily qualify that bit about over-eating pesto. Thanks for your edit, which alerted me that there might be a problem. Gwen Gale 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flying Imams controversy
Thanks for fixing the references on the Flying Imams controversy. I tried to find where it got screwed up, but I couldn't figure it out. Nathanm mn 07:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: CCD
Good afternoon. I just reverted some inappropriate additions to the CCD article. Because of an odd edit conflict, I seem to have also reverted your most recent changes to that page. Please know that my comment in the edit summary was not aimed at your changes. I have not restored your specific changes because I'm still trying to figure out exactly how the overwrite happened. If you get to it before I do, please restore your edits. Sorry for the overlap. Rossami (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay; I'll just re-do mine. Korny O'Near 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Megan McArdle
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Megan McArdle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Spike Wilbury 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of songs in ... articles
I just left the cleanup tag in them when I split them off. Thanks for taking the time to look at them! Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Funkmaster Flex
My rollback was a mistake. I don't think we should be listing his real name or residence.--§hanel 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why not - every other pseudonymous person I can think of has their real name listed, and just about everyone has their city of residence listed here too. Korny O'Near 10:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spam in Kumon method
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Kumon method, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Kumon method is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Kumon method, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon and the United Nations
Hi Korny, thanks for spotting me on the repetition of issue of the Unification Church subsidizing $3 billion of operating losses at the Times in your revert of my recent edit at Washington Times.
However, you reverted the entire edit, including other (more important) information from the Unification Church in which Rev. Moon has outlined (a) his agenda for a World Government, (b) his statements about the UN as the future seat of World Government, (c) his view that "True Parents" (Moon and his offspring) will run the world by occupying the position of Secretary-General in "eternity", and (d) his explicit statements about how he has secretly "used the Washington Times".
I know that this kind of information has a certain "ring" to it, and perhaps that's why you didn't read the link I posted to discover that these are in fact Rev. Moon's own words.
My edit was:
-
- Critics assert that Moon has quietly used the paper as a Church-subsidized political propaganda tool, to covertly act in support of Moon's political agenda, including Rev. Moon's stated goal of establishing the United Nations as a theocratic one-world government, with "True Parents in the role of Secretary-General in eternity". [1].
You commented (your revert) that the above paragraph was unsupported by it's reference.
That's incorrect. Please refer to the sections titled "Future of America" and "Future of the United Nations" in the reference I used, where you will find Moon's explicitly worded statements exactly as in my edit. I will wait a bit for your comments or concerns before restoring my original edit.
Thanks riverguy42 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for writing. First of all, please avoid "ref" tags in talk pages - they're not clickable (unless someone explicitly makes a "References" section). But here's a clickable link. So, first of all, the beginning of your sentences was "Critics assert", but the link in question is Moon's own words - no critics have been quoted. As to whether Moon is advocating a world government headed by the UN, if you can deduce that from Moon's mystical language, you're a better reader than I am. It sounds to me like he's speaking poetically, but I have no idea. It certainly isn't the only obvious interpretation. But again, if you can find an actual critic saying that that's his goal, then you'd have an unimpeachable reference for the statement. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mack Ecko 756 Baseball Article
Sir, your edits regarding the Marc Ecko/Barry Bonds homerun ball on Marc Ecko's page have been reverted:
First, the information you erased isn't really superfluous, it's informative--and, it's all sourced, to boot. Secondly, to have an article say that "public opinion is mixed" and leave it at that is ridiculous. Like a sentence with a source behind it, you need to back up that statement with facts. In doing so, the article does not include but a few reactions from a couple journalists on each side of the issue as well as from Bonds, himself. Lastly, yes. All that DOES need to be there because this is a defining issue in sports history: a time when sports are in question due to rampant illegal substance abuse. TabascoMan77 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like the most egregious parts I deleted are still gone, so I'm fine with how it is now. I will say that just because information is noteworthy, doesn't mean it's noteworthy *for a specific article*. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invitation
Hello there
I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.
At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars
If you are interested by all means feel free to join
Regards
Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No thanks; I like the show, but I'm not interested. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)