User talk:Moncrief/archive3

Archive of earlier talk pages:

User talk:Moncrief/archive1

User talk:Moncrief/archive2

Please feel free to talk to me, even though there's nothing below! I archived the discussions on my too-long talk page most recently on June 1, 2006.

Interviews done to promote a movie are part of the studio's marketing strategy. Marketing is an entirely acceptable term, although "promotion" may fit better. Your edit made my contribution look stupid. "Interviews". Huh. What do you know about the industry?

Hey I was just trying to edit the little miss sunshine wikipedia article and add a huge ass quote with its source. Although it did look stupid, it was wsomething for other people to read and perhaps try to incorporate many of the facts that the quote contained into the wikipedia article. If you just delete it than how the heck will anyone be able to improve it. Sheesh

Hey, I reverted the entire page, to the pre-Karmak destruction-era style. I referred him to the Wikipedia Style Guide on encyclopedic+wikipedian integrity. Every edit I make, or you make, or ANYONE makes, he reverts it or adds some nonsense info, totally violating npov and factual accuracy.

BTW, I don't think the Joel Stein reference, or the "Alfuence of Student Body" sections have much pertinence to BHHS. It just portrays BHHS in a bad light, not the objective of the article, right? (correct me if I'm wrong though)

I'm glad you're helping, Moncrief. Be in touch.

Mrmanhattanproject

I do not think talking about how there are affluent students at Beverly Hills High School with parents connected to the entertainment industry puts Beverly in a bad light at all! It is a fact! Beverly Hills is a city that is world famous for its affluence! Besides, even if you think these facts portray Beverly in a bad light, that does not mean it is not NPOV! In fact, if the article only portrayed Beverly from the official Beverly Hills High School point of view, then it is POV!

The article on

Holocaust article should be deleted because it puts Hitler and Germany in a bad light! Using your logic the article on Slavery should be deleted because it puts the United States in a bad light! Karmak 22:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

That's his opinion, which you obviously can't understand. There is a difference between writing :::FACTUAL information and OPINIONS SAID by SOMEONE, and thereby making any attempt at NPOV :::IRRELEVENT. Is it really that hard to figure things out?Collegian 19:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit summary for

My guess is you know about being civil, so this is just a friendly reminder to be careful with commentary you make in edit summaries and in discussion pages.--MONGO 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Moncrief! Just wanted to report that if you look at the show's message board on imdb, a couple of people say that reruns ran in their area. One guy says he saw reruns in Columbia, South Carolina in the 80's. Another guy says it currently airs in his area on the UPN station but didn't say where he lives. MrBlondNYC 08:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why you removed my edit to the Geri Jewell page? I found it an interesting anecdote about a comedic personality in an otherwise brief article? I realize that I am a new user to Wikipedia, but I would just like to understand your reasoning. Thank you for your time. --AtroposTheRandom 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to elimate every reference to "4 lakes" and "6 composers" on this site. Your elimination process has perhaps turned on itself. Conventionally, "eliminate", four syllables.

I agree with you about "Elvis" versus "Presley" and I've restarted the very boring process of de-"Elvis"ification of that article. I've finished the section on the Sun period; perhaps you'd like to take over from there till boredom overcomes you too. You are also welcome to work on non-stylistic aspects of the Presley article, which is pretty wretched (lots about "relationships", not so much about music).

Incidentally, while I too dislike "4 lakes", my own recent peeves include the gushy use of "legendary" (i.e. fairly well known), "incredible" (i.e. unusual or successful), and "amazing" (i.e. surprising or successful), as well of course as such golden cliches as "at the tender age of" (which I sporadically zap on the grounds of PoV). -- Hoary 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A photo you uploaded has been flagged as having an obsolete copyright tag. You may wish to update the tag as suggested on the page. RayGates 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I respectfully disagree about the link - simply because the external link is to a blog is no reason to delete it. The author, Michael Brooks, is a national journalist, and he has provided a photocopy of the email. If you would like to provide an alternate transliteration from a "reputable" media source, feel free to do so. Thank you.

A correction should be made on your user page. Moncrief 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Done. Thanks.

(Hope my recent edits haven't tripped your "notable" alarm :-) )--Paul 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Mark_Karr#KUSA. dposse 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it said Cairns because that may have been where he was officially pronounced dead. Ansell 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Can you tone down the shouting in the edit summaries please--
  talk 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hello. I reverted your change to the introduction. I think the intro should be a short summary of the article and it is not necessary to obtain mathematical precision where the point is expanded on in the text. I concur with your apparent belief that other sections of the article need work, but I don't see that a statement as to "stereotypical Minnesota traits" is comparative, or conveys the inference that such traits aren't shared by others. But the section is too anecdotal, as you mentioned, and needs citations. Thanks.

I don't know if 54% is "slightly" more, or not, especially when the metro area has increased in size since the last census while good portions of Outstate Minnesota are losing population. As to the list of ethnicities contained in the intro, it could easily be lost, but when I suggested cutting the intro another contributor said not to. (See my talk page). It's great to have another pair of eyes on this page, but let's discuss changes on the Minnesota talk page, and give others a chance to weigh in as well. So I won't post any more messages here but will move discussion of point in question to

Kablammo 03:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding this edit summary, I would kindly ask that you

I apologise that that error I made on the Steve Irwin article. I had made that mistake and had not noticed it until a few moments too late, some other user already made another edit so I could not simply revert it before looking like a dunce, so I had to edit it while that error was out there on that popular article. I quickly attempted to correct it but before I could fix my error, the error had already been corrected, by you I presume.

Once again I apologize for my foolish error, I guess this is what I had coming for me to attempt to make corrections to such an important article on a site for "grown ups", when I am only thirteen years of age. (Edit: Forgot the signature. I'm so stupid today... :p) -PokeOnic  EMAIL  TALK  PKN  UNCY  01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits.

I notice you put the userbox of "needed rescources and others" on the article called Reader's Digest but this article does have references below so I ask you to recheck to make sure for correct. I am not an author of this article but I am collector of Reader's Digest as a fan. I am an author of different articles. I just thought I advise you to recheck that article, that is all. Thanks. Cculber007 08:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I unblocked and then reblocked this user indef, as a vandalism only account. Hope you don't mind. Cheers KOS | talk 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a semi-protection on Foley, restricting to established users. Know any admins around?

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on

Greetings. You listed Berkeley L. Bunker as a copyvio back on 9 October. It turns out that the site that the text was copied from, bioguide.congress.gov, is a public domain site. Therefore there is no copyvio. I just wanted to let you know, so that if you see other pages copied from the bioguide, you'll know that they're okay. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know nothing about Mr. Skilling. The stock exchange in Chicago stops to watch him. According to Neilson Research his audience acorss the nation in in the millions. Neilson also rates the local market with over a million viewers for his evening show. Perhaps you should check your facts before you blurt out something you can't prove and don't know anything about. Idiot! - This comment added by 206.246.144.226

Sorry 'bout that -- actually meant to rv a deletion in the lede. Didn't see your external link. I read that article earlier -- I agree, it's a good one.

Cheers, and my apologies. --GGreeneVa 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please refrain from using the word "deletionist," especially in a way such as you did in the James Kim AfD? Making broad statements about a huge group of people- and a broad statement about the specific editor who nominated the article (who, I agree, was in error in nominating it, but whom you have little background on aside from this one AfD)- is in rather bad taste. I, personally, am a "deletionist," but being a "deletionist" doesn't mean you have to be an irrational lunatic, nor that you have to be lumped together with irrational lunatics (not that this nominator was, just in general). There was really no reason to say "deletionists can be really bizarre"- everyone can be really bizarre, and putting this one article up for deletion is not indicative of an entire group. -- Kicking222 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciated your use of the term "deletionist." It seemed appropriate and informative (especially in light of your observations on "notability"). The whole 'notability' issue raises some serious concerns, and it helps to have these concerns framed in easily-regonizable terms. Hats off! dr.ef.tymac 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow-up: Note that my comment was added in general reference to your "notability" remarks and the AfD, I did not intend to contribute to, augment, or contradict any points made by Kicking222 FWIW. dr.ef.tymac 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything strike you as odd over at the article? You've obviously been around the block a bit here on wikipedia, but I'm getting a really odd vibe on the talk page.--

I'm not sure exactly that is why I was asking you. I wanted to make sure my danger sense wasn't tingling for nothing. I'm looking at the various debates going on on the talk page and the editors on both sides, and I feel like there is some sort of hidden agenda I didn't get a memo on, or something of that nature. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith and all that, but I've experienced a variety of interesting editors in the past, and something just seems off.--

Crossmr 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I've replied to your questions put to me on the James Kim AfD page [2]. Pop Secret 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moncrief, I think your recent in-sentence-name-change from James to Kim is incorrect. I think it brings ambiguity into the sentence, because it could either mean James Kim or Kati Kim. I think the sentence was correctly saying James. Could you change it back ? Thanks. Roman 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi . I am having a doozy of a time entering theme music composer to the television infobox. I tried to add it on the syntax section of template:infobox television and my edit did not result in the addition of theme music composer. Any tips? Thanks. Dogru144 14:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have about the project. Appraiser 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you see 2 articles with the same name, consider moving one. On back to the future, you just deleted the one while rudely insulting another editor. The logical thing to do was move one of them, (the episode for instance) To Back to the future (Phil of the Future episode). An please reveiw

Thanks for your work in creating and expanding The Strawhatters, the DuMont Network series. I was surprised to see the link suddenly blue (not that I'm complaining!). Feel free to create articles for any of the redlinked entries on List of programs broadcast by the DuMont Television Network. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I wrote that article and I wanted you to look at it. Replying to me would be nice, thanks. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do please try not to be too silly. Demanding a source for the fact that there are no trees on the Regina plain is like wanting it to be proved that there is snow in Antarctica. There is such a thing as documenting facts that are not a matter of common knowledge. There is also such a thing as plain bone headedness. Masalai 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the winter picture of the river in the Twin Cities. I changed the caption because it seems I constantly have to explain to out-of-towners that the

I appreciate your help in patrolling the AI6 pages. Fun isn't it? :-D But yeah, battling fancruft is half the battle on those. Especially links and the name thing you've pointed out. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is with removing the external links? --desinole^desinole!

There is no way it could have been founded in 1797, considernig Lewis and Clark didn't even come west -- let alone any settlers -- until the early 19th century - Fur trading posts were established at Pembina several years before the Corps of Discovery set out on their journey. It is important to remember that northeastern North Dakota was not a part of the Louisiana Purchase and there were fur trading posts at both Pembina and Grand Forks before Lewis and Clark were in the vicinity. Both French and British fur traders were in the Pembina area before there was any American excursion into the present site of North Dakota.

Most towns in that area were founded in the 1880-1910 timeframe - Pembina is the oldest town in Dakota Territory. A post office was established and the town was incorporated long before most other towns in the region. Pembina celebrated its bicentennial in 1997. --MatthewUND^(talk) 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put a ^{citation needed} tag on his possible 2008 candidacy? It's pretty widely discussed, with two cites in the article and two or more websites in the external links! --Orange Mike 20:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (would never support FDT, not that that's relevant)[reply]

Thanks for catching where an editor called her "Heather," as if we were all chums. I thought I had edited all of those out (trust me, there were once many of 'em) but it looks like I missed one. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 05:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated

I have added a "{{

Stop adding unsourced information. --Golbez 14:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centerville isn't a DC suburb.

Centreville is.

You do notice that both locales do actually exist, don't you? --Golbez 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than that. According to Places Named,

1. Centerville, Virginia, United States [Place] is in Accomack County; location is 37°45'26"N 75°37'17"W
2. Centerville, Virginia, United States [Place] is in Augusta County; location is 38°20'18"N 79°0'21"W
3. Centerville, Virginia, United States [Place] is in Bedford County; location is 37°22'26"N 79°29'59"W; elevation is 925 feet
4. Centerville, Virginia, United States [Place] is in Goochland County; location is 37°40'15"N 77°41'16"W
5. Centerville, Virginia, United States [Place] is in Halifax County; location is 36°38'43"N 78°51'50"W
6. Centerville, Virginia, United States [Place] is in Halifax County; location is 36°44'8"N 78°55'7"W
7. Centerville, Virginia, United States [Place] is in James City County; location is 37°19'0"N 76°47'22"W; elevation is 103 feet
8. Centerville, Virginia, United States [Place] is in Montgomery County; location is 37°10'11"N 80°32'19"W [Source: US Geological Survey Place Names database]

Did the guy live in any of these, or in the D.C. suburb spelled Centreville? --Orange Mike 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your AI6 comments. Yeah it's difficult. I'm not sure if you have the Sanjaya Malakar article watchlisted but it's a never ending battle there. Have a user who wants to put in a whole list of message board neologisms for Malakar. I despise fancruft. But keep up the good fight. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Alan Sues fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Copy and paste from various sites: http://www.webpan.com/thelaughin/poppy08.htm and http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/a/al/alan_sues.html

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Alan Sues, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Alan Sues itself. 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. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Archie Bunker Wikipedia3 003.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr

14:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis

		The Original Barnstar
		To Moncrief, on the occasion of Susanlesch 06:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply ]

Minneapolis wind chills

I'm guessing you've never lived in Minneapolis. Here's [3] a random weather date of April 4, 2007, which translates to just a few degrees above 0 wind chill, according the Wind chill chart. I'll research this more fully if you're not convinced. Baseball Bugs 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you take the gusts into account, you're below 0 on the wind chill chart. Baseball Bugs 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Twins did indeed play on April 4th at the Dome, and the facts disprove your own opinion that it's "not possible". Baseball Bugs 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was not possible, and I've proven you wrong with just one fact. Now the burden of proof is on you. Baseball Bugs 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your specific assertion was your personal opinion, based on nothing, that "I don't buy that there are 'below zero wind chills' in mid-April or October." I simply gave you the first indication I found. Once I find a site that actually shows wind chill figures from those time periods (i.e. doing your work for you), I'll have better info for you. And if I'm wrong, I'll rescind it. Fair enough? Baseball Bugs 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't matter whether they actually did play at home or on the road during a day in April or October. The issue youo raised was whether the wind chill can drop to 0 on days when the Twins could be playing, such as early in the season, or if they get into the World Series. Whether they get "lucky" and are on the road in some given year when it drops to 0 doesn't really matter. Yes, you should have put a fact tag there instead of deleting it based on nothing but your personal opinion. Baseball Bugs 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorazepam article

Thanks for your recent (small) contribution to the Lorazepam article. I've put a lot of work into it but as I am not a native english speaker some things slip under the radar. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could check the english of the whole article, particularly instances where something could be put more simply. Petlif 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Questions

Hi,

I am an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Boston College, and I am researching the development of the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre. You were among the top 5% of contributors (either editing or on the talk pages) for that article, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to answer a few questions by email.

All of your responses and your participation will be strictly confidential. Please cut and paste the below questions and respond by email to [email protected] to ensure confidentiality.

I appreciate your help on this project, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Please also let me know if you are interested in receiving a copy of the paper when it is finished.

Thank You, Gerald C (Jerry) Kane, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Information Systems Carroll School of Management Boston College 140 Commonwealth Ave 326 Fulton Hall Chestnut Hill, MA 02478

Questions: 1) What is your Wikipedia screen name? Note: optional, if you reply by email I will not be able to connect your email to your screen name. 2) On average, how many hours per week do you spend editing articles on Wikipedia? 3) Why do you contribute your time and energy to developing Wikipedia articles? 4) What types of articles to which do you typically contribute? 5) Why did you choose to become involved in the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 6) What was your primary role in the process of creating the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre (e.g. copy editing, fighting vandalism, contributing news, managing a particular section, etc?) 7) How was your experience with this article similar to or different than other Wikipedia articles to which you have contributed? 8) What were some of the most challenging issues facing the successful development of this particular article on the Virginia Tech massacre? 9) What do you think were some of the primary reasons that this article was successful (i.e. cited in the press, rated as a “good article” by Wikipedia standards.) 10) Is there anything else I should know about the Wikipedia article on the VT massacre?

--geraldckane 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I noticed you updated History of Minneapolis today. I'd like to caution you against using the Star Tribune as a source though. The articles become unavailable online after about 2 weeks. I'm not sure about the Fox News sources (used to update the bridge article). I'm pretty sure the MPR links are durable over time, so I may change some of the references at some point.--Appraiser 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are, of course, acceptable sources; it's just that the online links, as Appraiser says, cannot be relied upon to remain. Not all sources that meet

our standards are available online; and that's... okay. --Orange Mike 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That's true, of course. But an assertion lacking a readily available online source can easily be challenged, unless the editor keeps a hard copy on his bookshelf and watches the article in perpetuity. I'm just suggesting citing current news items from durable sources when several possible sources exist.--Appraiser 15:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Change it then. It doesn't merit a comment on my Talk page. Also, you might look as objectively as possible at your tone, which I found rather condescending. Moncrief 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I didn't mean to offend.--Appraiser 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removal of British English

English dialects

All common forms are welcome on Wikipedia. An abridged version of the related policy could be stated as:

1. Do not edit a page simply to "correct" the spelling in either direction.

I have undone some of the edits you have made, that merely "corrected" the spelling. please dont edit anything just to change from British to US, or vice versa.

thank you very muchSennen goroshi 17:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see Sennen got here first. I'm not really interested in whether British or American English is better, but it is pretty silly to see an American radio drama described as a "programme." I've started a discussion at Talk:The War of the Worlds (radio), if you want to discuss these things. superluser_tc 2007 August 26, 20:15 (UTC)

I think if a word has a different meaning in USA, then it should have the US version on a US page/vice versa.. however I dont think Moncrief should be changing mere spellings from British English to American English (for example rumour to rumor) even if the page is a US related page.Sennen goroshi 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using British English for articles on UK topics and US English for articles on US topics is a longstanding Wikipedia policy. I've also changed the spellings in articles on UK topics from American English to British English for a long, long time. Don't tell people what to do because you think it "feels" wrong; I'm working with an established Wikipedia guideline. I also love that a user whose first edit was in late July of this year is telling an admin who has been editing since 2003 what to do (which would actually be okay if it were something incorrect I was doing). How galling that you said in one of your edit summaries the obvious fact that "Wikipedia is international." Really? Really???? Wow, what news that is to me. I have probably changed more spelling from American to British (in Commonwealth articles) than the other way around. As a new user here, I hope in the future you'll take time to understand policies and research guidelines before merely reacting. A good lesson for you. Moncrief 10:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you think or don't think isn't particularly relevant when there is already a Wikipedia guideline governing this issue.

Moncrief 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how the amount of time spent editing is relevant in the slightest.

It's possible that someone has been editing wikipedia since 2000BC and still hasn't managed to do it well.

But I guess you are right, guidelines are guidelines, and should be followed - however that confuses me a little, as the guidelines seem to state that even though British is for British pages and US is for US and that you should not edit a page merely to change from UK to US or US to UK, you, an admin, who has been editing since 2003 has been doing exactly what wikipedia guidelines tell you not to do.

I guess that: " 1. Do not edit a page simply to "correct" the spelling in either direction."

does not apply to you.

I do see your point, however if you wish to stick to guidelines, it seems a little strange that you choose to ignore that one.Sennen goroshi 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, where it states: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation

A person who is born, raised, and lives in one country has strong ties to that country, wouldn't you agree? Examples of articles without strong ties to a particular English-speaking county include articles like

Air, or even Brazil, and the like. Do you see the difference? Moncrief 15:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Dude, you are wound up way too tight. Someone reverted a spelling ONCE on Austin Nichols and your countering edit summary was ballistic. Really, take a break from Wikipedia and have some ice cream. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmmm ice cream....Sennen goroshi 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but at the end of the day, whatever.

I see no point in my acting childishly and editing your edits, I assume you will follow guidelines and not remove British English, unless its going to cause major confusion in Wikipedia.

have a nice one.Sennen goroshi 14:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to get it. I don't "remove British English" from articles about specifically British or Commonwealth topics (or, for that matter, articles about topics not specifically tied to any English-speaking country). In fact, if an article about a British/Commonwealth topic is written in American English, I add British English to ensure that it's no longer written in American English. This is a topic-specific guideline on Wikipedia; it has nothing to do with me or my own preferences or American linguistic imperialism or anything else. It's a Wikipedia guideline, applicable to articles written about specifically British topics (in which case, use British English!) or American topics (in which case, use American English!) It's pretty simple, really. Moncrief 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. So that people can follow the train of thought on a discussion page, it's a good idea to add a colon (:), or one more colon than the line above, at the beginning of a line following that to which you are responding.

For example

[one :] [your comments]

[two:] [my comments]

Otherwise, it's difficult to follow the sequence of comments on a page. Moncrief 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i now seem to understand the colon issue, i hope this is a little easier to read.

maybe you misunderstood what i was saying, or maybe i made things more confusing than they needed to be, I never thought you changed British to American on a British related page, i understood that you removed British from American pages, and vice versa. I just thought that unless other edits were required, editing a page merely to change from US to UK/UK to US was against guidelines - but I really don't care anymore, it is certainly not worth me wasting my time or yours, when there are better things for us both to be doing. have a nice day.Sennen goroshi 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please sign your posts? Thanks. Moncrief 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of course.sorrySennen goroshi 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]