Jump to content

User talk:Korny O'Near/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

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)

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

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)

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)


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)

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.

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.

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)
I was wondering if you might have any ideas vis-a-vis my suggestion here. TewfikTalk 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your edit to Pajamas Media

Your recent edit to Pajamas Media was excellent. Thank you, CWC(talk) 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
  1. ^ {http://www.tparents.org/moon-talks/sunmyungmoon97/sm970501b.htm Foundation Day 1997], Moon - "I used the Washinton Times..."
Added reflist so that the citation information does not float to the bottom of the page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Kennedy

Quit taking out the sentence showing that USSC judges have cited foreign laws since the beginning of the nation.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant, unless someone is being quoted as saying that as a defense of Kennedy's rulings. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because you're consistently trying to slam him, so I'm putting it in context, just like the original article did.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not slamming him; I'm quoting people who are criticizing him - that's a big difference. Likewise, if you want to include this supposed defense of Kennedy in the article, you should do it as part of an attributed quote. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're slamming him. And that line isn't an opinion - it just points out a clear fact. It's not "According to X, this happened in 1829;" that it happened is well-established. Anyway, I'm watching you! RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that the New Yorker article you're citing itself notes that what Justice Kennedy is being criticized for is in fact something new: "citing foreign sources to help interpret the Constitution on basic questions of individual liberties", as opposed to just citing foreign law in cases where foreign law partly applies. In other words, the article isn't directly offering that fact as a defense of Kennedy - that part seems like original research to me. Er, and thanks for watching. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article points out the use of foreign law, in contrast to the opinions of Scalia and Co. that we should never do that. It's an important line. In any case, I don't think your conservative talking heads are relevant, but I don't take them out. We can always find a conservative in the Weekly Standard or some other mag blasting someone for not being conservative enough. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing being discussed in the Anthony Kennedy article is his use of foreign law to interpret the Constitution - any other use of foreign law is not even mentioned, except in the sentence that you want to include, which looks rather out of place for that reason. And yes, I think the opinions of notable conservatives always belong in Wikipedia - as do the opinions of notable liberals, notable centrists, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

O'Connor

Yes, Missouri v. Jenkins is mentioned as two different cases in the article. This happens often and can be confusing for a law student trying to look up cases, especially when it goes from court to court. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Hugo Black

Have you ever done a "good article" review? I know how much you like the Supreme Court, and I just nominated an article... RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never done one before, but I bet it would be an interesting experience; thanks for the opportunity. I'll look at it tomorrow, unless someone else gets to it first. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Awaiting improvements? What needs improving? Thanks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I added that tag before you started making the relevant improvements... did I do that incorrectly? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. I didn't notice the separate talk page til after I left a comment here. Sorry. Anyway, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks for taking the time. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I see that you added pg. 195 of Bernard Schwartz's "The Warren Court" as a reference for Black having influenced Warren. The page is online, here, thanks to Google Books, but I don't see the relevance. What part were you referring to? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That page says Black was the leader of the liberal wing, so I cited it. I added another citation showing the influence. Oyez.org also has an audio interview of Black from back in the early 60s, talking about how Black influenced Warren, and how the Court should've been called the Black Court, not the Warren Court. Woodward's The Brethren corroborates this. I can add more references if you really want. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just one reference that actually backs up the statement is all that's needed. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Does it look okay now? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Now I gotta find me one of those profile icons to give myself a pat on the back... RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Bush Doctrine dispute

Korny, I find your editing close to vandalism and will shortly call attention of Wikipedia:Mediation if you can not be constructive. Please contribute in an intelligent manner on Talk:Bush Doctrine#Central criticism before jumbling references and phrases around. If you have not looked through the references, then simply adjusting them is not something that is helpful. Let us discuss further on the article Talk page if you have legitimate concerns. Edit wars are not constructive. Scierguy (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... okay, do whatever you want. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also trying to form a consensus on the removal of the MacDonald phrase, as well as the reference. See Talk:Bush Doctrine. I appeal to you to remove the phrase and you can also remove the ref name="macdonald". You introduced the phrase and fully misrepresented the criticism I was quoting. The phrase is blatantly anti-Semitic, objectionable and extremely POV-centric, sabotaging the reputability of the article. Please be helpful and at least voice your opinion on the Talk page. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who added the reference in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Heya, can you please stop by Talk:Bush Doctrine and speak to the dispute tags you placed on the article? You might be doing this already. It would be helpful to zero-in on whether you dispute the entire section(s) or just paragraphs within them, and any thoughts on why you dispute them. regards, --guyzero | talk 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure - I just did it. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you --guyzero | talk 19:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Yes, but bear in mind that that format is used widely in America as well (by the military for example). And though I shall be more selective, it's easy enough to swap them form one style to another. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12 6 October 2008 (UTC).

You mean, by doing it manually? It's a good amount of work, if there are dozens or hundreds of dates in an article. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rap Lyrics

Your transcribed rap lyrics just cannot stay in. They are detrimental to the article. I understand you put work into analyzing them, but use them for a paper yourself, they do not belong in this encyclopedic article. Everyone in the talk page disagreed with you, nothing changed, and yet for some unknown reason you want me to look there? Maybe you should read the talk page more carefully yourself. Very simple explanations in the Vocal Techniques and Lyrics sections explain the evolution of rhyme scheme/what Rakim did/ etc. Lyrics are totally unnecessary and make the article look bad. Cosprings (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

By "everyone" you mean two people, including yourself? I wouldn't call a two-to-one breakdown some kind of overwhelming consensus. You reverted my changes before the discussion had ended, and without responding to my comments. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean by everyone. Even so you are not justified in putting them back in. I did respond to your comments, we both did and agreed that they made no sense. Cosprings (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We didn't finish the discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reality television

Thanks for your recent edits on reality television. I'm glad that someone is fighting the WP:COATRACK problem. It's much appreciated. Plastikspork (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia

Why the automatic bias against objective data in the Reality television article? Facts and objective data consistently supercede (To replace in power, authority, validity, or importance.) subjectivity. 66.190.243.162 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your addition of "commentary"

I fail to see the relevance of adding what you call "negative commentary" to Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, 2009. Why are these commentators important or relevant to the topic? Do you think Wikipedia is some kind of free-for-all, where anyone with an opinion gets included? So, please tell me, why are the opinions of Charles Krauthammer, Christopher Hitchens, and Martin Peretz important to this subject? Are they generally considered neutral, authoritative sources on Obama and the Arab world? Why were they chosen for this article and how is their opinion relevant? Can you point me to any other Wikipedia article about a presidential speech that contains this level of long, drawn-out, irrelevant, partisan, POV-driven criticism? No, you can't, because it doesn't exist. This isn't how we write articles on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bob Haymes

Updated DYK query On June 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bob Haymes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Civility Award
With you amazing display of civility and good humor in the face of blistering personal attacks and incivility, it is clear that Wikipedia needs more people like you. The Squicks (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yehuda Amichai

Hi Korny: I thought you might be interested in this.[2] --Gilabrand (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
While חכמביום might be worse, both you and Gilabrand are also edit warring. While the article is protected, please take time to work out on a consensus at the talk page--try getting other editors' outside opinions. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Megan McArdle

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Megan McArdle. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan McArdle (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yehuda Amichai RfC

Hi. There is an RfC currently in progress on the Yehuda Amichai Talk page, concerning an ongoing content dispute. As an editor who has previously been involved, you might wish to comment. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting - though I had hoped you might offer an opinion on the inclusion/removal of the material under discussion (the Gold biog, the religious imagery in his poetry), as that is the topic of the RfC -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Thought you might be interested in this -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Semantic Web + cultural heritage

Hi Korny, Thanks for your improvements to Semantic Web! I like the idea of having a cultural heritage example. Maybe there's a better library/museum/archives project to pick than Erfgoedplus.be? On the other hand, maybe the examples section is still too long and needs to be pared down even more? Thoughts? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My only thought is that there should be a distinction between tools and examples - like the difference between a paintbrush and the Mona Lisa. It looked like Erfgoedplus was an example, while the rest were tools. Maybe there should be two separate lists? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Girl (disambiguation)

Hi, I've tagged Charlie Girl (disambiguation) for speedy deletion under G6, as it currently disambiguates only two pages of which one of these is the primary topic and the other (Charlie (fragrance) does not mention the term. Best, France3470 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scuba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Caterina Fake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Dixon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Reality television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page X Factor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Attia Bano Qamar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Attia Bano Qamar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attia Bano Qamar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Ilmar Reepalu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israel lobby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited We Bought a Zoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Jody Williams (Afrikaans singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page On the Wings of Love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Audie Bock, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Travel book and Berkeley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Van Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bucks Fizz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hipster
Boss Coffee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Super Mario

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landau Eugene Murphy, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Way (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

David Carson (graphic designer)

Hello, thanks for your thorough and sorely needed cleanup of this article. However, these days, names of major geographical features like the United States should not be linked on Wikipedia. Graham87 05:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Dean Koontz

"There are a number of letters, articles and novels ostensibly written by Koontz.." You should be clear that all the letters and articles were published under Koontz's name.

"..that he has stated he did not write." - No, Koontz has said that the authorship is "in doubt". This can range from work whose initial text was his own, but was edited to a point he no longer considers it his work.. to "work" that he was "unaware" of in any form until many years later. Koontz has never confirmed which of these categories the letters and articles fall under.

"..They also include contributions to the fanzines Energumen and BeABohema in the late 1960s and early 1970s, including articles that mention the erotic novels,[25][26] as well as a movie column called "Way Station"[27] in BeABohema..." - No. "Way Station" was the overall title of the BeABohema series of columns, one of which talks about writing the erotic novel. For Koontz to say that he did not write that BeABohema column is to say he wrote none of the columns, and did not conduct a feud with Piers Anthony, which took place in the pages of BeABohema during the same period. There were also other such mentions in other fanzines.

"..along with two other pieces of evidence.." _At least two_. For a third, Koontz _did_ publish books from Cameo Books - Bounce Girl under his and Gerda's own name, and Hung by "Leonard Chris"; though Koontz has disavowed the final text of Hung, the submission is confirmed in several places. For a fourth, several of the Cameo Books are registered to Gerda Koontz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.89.232 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Some booksellers insist that the erotica novels were in fact written by Koontz.." -- As a further note, it is not just booksellers who insist on this; fans of my acquaintance, who knew Koontz at the time, insist he wrote the letters and articles, and that there is no doubt of it. Koontz may insist on things being _that way_, but there are a high number who insist it is _this way_.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.89.232 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you know much more about this than I do. All I did was rewrite a section that was pretty incomprehensible; I don't really know any of the details behind it. So feel free to modify the text accordingly. But please remember that this is an encyclopedia, so ideally everything should be cited - and ideally everything should be evenhanded. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, I realize that I misunderstood some of the exact facts. I rewrote it further a little now, based on your feedback. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, everything _was_ cited from Dean Koontz's own website, and in his own words; I added links and references to the articles in BaABohema and Energumen, as well as to confirmatory articles about the columns he wrote, and to pseudonymous items offered for sale on the net. The section was convoluted because the situation is and remains convoluted, obscured by "maybes" and words such as "disavow" which mean whatever you want them to mean. I have been collecting Koontz for 40 years, and have various letters from him, as well as signed copies of books which he was kind enough to gift to me since I did not possess them at the time. I was also heavily involved in fandom from the early 1970s and read many of the letters written by Koontz to fanzines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.89.232 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tides (organization), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page V-Day (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on The Secret in Their Eyes

Changes requires consensus on Wikipedia. If you want to make changes and there is not agreement, you take your proposals to the talk page. We have discussed these matters before, so there is no basis for a change. Revert yourself or I will make a complaint about your disruptive editing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that there's any more consensus for your version of the text. I'd be happy to discuss any of it on the talk page, though I'd think you'd need three different sections or so, since you reverted so much at the same time. Barring that, do feel free to make a complaint; I'd be very curious to see what others have to say. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this is hard for you to understand, but it's not complicated. Change requires consensus. If there is no consensus for a change, there is no change. Revert yourself today or I will complain about your disruptive editing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
None of what you're saying makes sense. 99.9% of changes on Wikipedia have no consensus behind them - someone just makes the change. The same goes for your revert of my change, for that matter; there was no consensus behind that either. So yes, if it could lead to greater understanding, please do complain. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Karen Carpenter Story, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Carpenter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for a vigorous debate on the Talk:Media manipulation page. Although we are on somewhat opposite sides, it is good to meet an editor that is concerned with improving the page and Wikipedia. Also I have enjoyed the chance to exercise my intellectual muscles. Thanks again. Andrewaskew (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel the same way! Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks on Propaganda

A good edit. I agree it really didn't belong. Bytwerk (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Greenfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Kelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heartbreaker (Dionne Warwick album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benjamin Franklin in popular culture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Big Daddy (film) and Deficit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesse Money, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Take Me Home Tonight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electric Warrior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poison (band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yakov Smirnoff may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in [[Branson, Missouri]], featuring comedy acts and Russian dance performances.<ref name="bio">[http://www.yakov.com/bio/ Yakov Smirnoff official biography'</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"See also" sections

"See also" sections are simple bulleted lists of related articles, with a very brief description if necessary. What you turned it into is an "Influences" section - if you want one, then go ahead and write it with the necessary citations to support the contentions. Unsourced material will be deleted, opinions that are not sourced will be deleted, analysis and interpretation which is unsourced will be deleted - so you need to have sources for everything, just as in every other text section in a Wikipedia article. In the meantime, please leave the "See also" section as it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what "See also" sections are, but I think the section makes much more sense as an "Influences" section, since that's what all these links have in common. (If there are other "See also" links that can't be classified as influences, a new "See also" section could be created for those.) All I did was rearrange the content, essentially - I didn't really add in any information or analysis that wasn't there already. So if you're going to be that hard-line about it, you might as well do the same for the existing section. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
By changing from a simple referral to another article, which do not require citations, to declarative statements about the influence of the film, you made it necessary for every single one of those statements to be supported by a citation from a reliable source. Since you did not provide those citations, I have removed each of them, pursuant to Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability and reliable sources. I have replaced them with the original "see also" section, which, because it says nothing more than "this article may interest the person who reads this article", do not require citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
What if the section were titled "Influences and similar films"? Also, please try to stay civil. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to step in as a liaison in this matter as I see there's edit warring going on at It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. First of all, can I just say that I believe these edit summaries by user:Beyond My Ken to be entirely vitriolic and waaaaaaaaaay out of line (as shown here [3], here [4], here [5]) and I'm giving this user formal warning to reel it in before I make a report to incivility. I applaud Korny for keeping his cool despite the intense level of incivility. That being said, I have reverted the edit back to Korny's version after an in-depth look at this edit war. User:Beyond My Ken has argued above that user:Korny O'Neal's version would need sourcing and thus the revert is necessary. However, I would contend that Korny's edits are all entirely supported by the articles he's linked to. Plus, they're rather generic claims about the overall films. Nothing even controversial. So in this case, sourcing is not necessary. AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:CIRCULAR, linked articles cannot in and of themselves be used as (implied) sources. If the linked articles themselves have appropriate reliable sources, they can be copied to the original article, but the links themselves are insufficient. DonIago (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That's all true - and of course more citations are always better - but the strange thing about this particular dispute is/was that the same uncited information appeared before, just in a different layout. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
If the different layout was a "See also" section, then there are specific guidelines that apply to such, as noted above. If not then I'd like to see what the previous layout was before offering an opinion. DonIago (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slick Rick, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Black Star and Hypnotize (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The RZA Hits may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *"Wu-Tang Clan Ain't Nuthing Ta F' Wit" contains samples of "Impeach The President" by ]]The Honey Drippers (soul band)}]] and "Hihache" by [[Lafayette Afro Rock Band]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

Please note that, per WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is not considered a reliable source and should not be used in citations. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: 61st Academy Awards

Please keep in mind that this list is now designated as a featured list. I edited it with the advice of other Wikipedians who have worked on such similar lists.

For the "Proud Mary" reference, we do not need to go into intricate exact detail of what the lyrics mean. Simply, they "performed a reworked version pf 'Proud Mary'" will suffice. It is understood that the lyrics are altered with the mention of rework. Wikipedia is not a trivia or newspaper, and I believe delving into too much detail is do such.

As for the Eileen Bowman "gay bar mitzvah" tidbit, I strongly oppose include such gossip or "heard it through the grapevine" material. One source for this is not enough for this fact. I also believe just throwing it in seems quite awkward. This is probably better suited if Eileen Bowman had her own article.

I strongly suggest that you consult User:Crisco 1492, User:The Rambling Man, or User:Tbhotch before adding items.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how the fact that the article is featured is relevant - either some edit is good, or it's not. I also don't believe my edit, saying that the lyrics referred "to the film industry", counts as "intricate exact detail". If that's the case, I'd hate to see what "vague" looks like. :) I also don't understand what you mean by the "heard it through the grapevine" comment - that wasn't hearsay, it was an exact quote from an interview. How many sources are needed to verify that person A said B in an interview?
Also, what's the significance of those users - do they have ownership of the article? Korny O'Near (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The other users I mentioned are or have been Featured list directors or reviewers. They determine what content is acceptable for featured material. They also have the power to demote such lists or stuff. I am not letting this list which I worked hard to promote decay. I'll ask if what you put is acceptable.
I applaud your commitment, although I would urge you to read, or re-read, WP:OWN. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pot-Bouille (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page André Girard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Last of the Secret Agents? may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the 1950s and no doubt wished to recreate their success with the duo's screen debut in the film. (This proved not to be the case, and no sequels were produced for the film, although the duo did

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ed Martin (boxer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jon and Al Kaplan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages USC and Silence of the Lambs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making me and my son ROTFL

It's not often that a Wikipedia entry makes me ROTFL, but your rewording in the article on Marilyn Hagerty [due to the novelty of an unironic, positive review of a chain restaurant] is absolute genius. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.245.116 (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! They say truth is funnier than fiction. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whitey Bulger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internal Affairs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jerome Robbins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The King and I (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marshmallow sofa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sofa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam DeVine's House Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Heard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dale Talde
added a link pointing to Bravo (network)
Kevin Sbraga
added a link pointing to Bravo (TV network)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rebecca Schaeffer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thursday's Child. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to You've Got a Friend may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • (Donny Hathaway album)|Live]]'' album and the posthumously released ''These Songs for You, Live!''.{{Citation needed|date=March 2013}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of reality television

I stumbled across that page, and noticed it's not a bad article. Looks like you've created the page and have worked on it the most.

It needs a talk page header, along with whatever portals it would belong to. Also, have any good ideas on how to improve the article, maybe we can get it to GA status? — Confession0791 talk 01:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I created the article, although the text was spun off from the Reality television article, and was written by many people. I don't know what it would take to get it to GA status, but if I can help in any way, let me know. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
First, we'd have to fix all the dead external links and references. A couple of pictures couldn't hurt, either. Then continue to add sourced content and replace the dead citations. Correct categories and portals should be added to the article and its talk page, so it's under the scope of a wider range of editors. I don't have time to work on it today, but early this week I will. — Confession0791 talk 14:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Game Is Over, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jean Cau. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Kate Millett

Thanks for your interest in the Kate Millett article!

Regarding the reintroduction of Mallory Millett's viewpoint of her sister:

  • I moved that information to Talk:Kate Millett
  • With a point-by-point discussion regarding that content.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to comment there or one of our talk pages. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Menino may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the Cambridge mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers are known to have visited"], ''[[USA Today]]'' )April 24, 2013)</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Menino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roxbury. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oh, God! Book II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melissa Miller. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stuart Little (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pasadena. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ian Karmel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conan (TV series). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Eyes (disambiguation)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Eyes (disambiguation), Korny O'Near!

Wikipedia editor SparrowHK just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great work!

To reply, leave a comment on SparrowHK's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Drake feuds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diddy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jamie Kilstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conan (TV series). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kyle Kinane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Adam Carolla Show. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
For improving The Jester Λυδαcιτγ 16:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Short question....

I don't want to be impolite, but I don't associate a particular gender with your user name. I'd rather not continue to "(s)he" you - do you prefer one or the other pronoun? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Korny_O%27Near/Archive_1&oldid=1145736254"