User talk:Korny O'Near

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

1 Welcome
2 Yes, "Presently" IS a Synonym for "Currently"
3 Prayers for the Assassin
4 Mike Huckabee
5 Oops
6 Thanks
7 Conspiracy Theories
8 Thanks for fixing my mistakes
9 MyDD Astrology claim
10 Top Gun
11 Carson mediation
12 Your edit to Pajamas Media
13 Pesto
14 Flying Imams controversy

[edit] 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)

[edit] Yes, "Presently" IS a Synonym for "Currently"

Hello Korny O'Near. While I have no problem with your revisions to the article I wrote on Anthony Pellicano, I did want to point out your erroneous statement, "'presently' does not mean [sic] 'currently.'" While what you should've said was "'presently' is not a synonym for 'currently,'" that, in fact, is incorrect. "Presently" is, indeed, a synonym for "currently." I refer you to the Oxford English Dictionary, which validates the use of "presently" as a synonym for "currently." Warm regards, David Hoag 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, my first message, thanks! Well, I looked it up, and American Heritage says it's a controversial subject - [1]. I guess this is one of those issues that drives lexicographers crazy. Surely it's a word fraught with problems, though, if it can mean both "now" and "soon". On a sort-of-related note, are you saying "'a' does not mean 'b'" is an incorrect formulation? I've never heard that before. Why do you say that? Korny O'Near 17:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So I looked this up in the Oxford English Dictionary as per David. They list six different senses. But to cut a long story short, of the sense "soon" they say "Now the ordinary use". Both the senses that mean roughly "now" are marked as "Obs." (obscure, I think) or "arch." (archaic). By the way, thanks for teaching me something about the history of the Kyoto Protocol.Crust 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prayers for the Assassin

Thanks for the feedback, Korny. I wasn't trying to step on any toes. I incorporated the Mcleans article into the reviews section -- it seemed more appropriate there. For the links to Similar Novels, it didn't seem quite as relevant to list them as "See also" since the other books aren't discussions on the same topic, but rather other alternate history/future novels. "See also" implies that the other entries will be on the same theme, while listing them as "Similar Novels" makes the purpose of their inclusion clear. The list also seemed less informative without the authors' names included. Including the names adds additional context, whereas simply listing "Fatherland" (for example) is unspecific. Your other changes really helped improve the listing.

Alright. Just so you know, if you want to do any more editing in the future, it's always best to explain yourself. Korny O'Near 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Huckabee

I noticed you added an "NPOV" tag to the Dumond section of the Mike Huckabee article. Was that because of Afberry's comments on the Talk page? If so, I believe he fixed some of the problems himself after he posted that and I addressed his other concerns, so there really is no dispute anymore as far as I can tell. Maximusveritas 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was just replacing the article's main NPOV tag with a more localized one. Feel free to remove it. Korny O'Near 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll just move it back to the top. I'm not sure if it's needed anymore. It was added 6 months ago and I think the article has been improved since then. I might propose removing it on the Talk page. Maximusveritas 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

Sorry, had not seen nor intended those deletions. Sorry. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I figured. Korny O'Near 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Refrain from your vandalism of [Jerome Armstrong]'s page.

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for undoing the vandalism spree by 68.239.73.183. This person went around removing my changes and hacking my user page, but you seem to have caught all the vandalisms. Korny O'Near 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Michael Slone (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Korny O'Near , as you can see, I edited the Jerome Armstrong page including the allegations you insist are valid, but am asking that you provide links for the non-substatiated claims. I'm not talking a blogger that has a rightwing agenda either. Please provide the facts if you are going to type these accusations. 68.239.73.183.

[edit] Conspiracy Theories

I reverted your changes on this as they appear to have inserted a few power words;

Hezbollah conspiracy
large, professional-looking banner
suspiciously etc,

removed some of the timeline, you also inserted the words "alleged" indicating an "allegation" when in fact the bloggers for the most part had no proof of anything- reducing what they were saying to the status of theories/claims, removed the claimed political affiliation of the neocons and koret (seems sensible to warn the reader), also removed the richmond debunking of the JPEG compression? A timeline is important to indicate 1) who originated the theories 2) how the theories were debunked within 7 days. Without this focus for the article it would be a nominee for speedy deletion as, like you pointed out, it is just a series of bloggers cooking up a load of nonsense.

Can you discuss on the talk page first before making changes? Due to recent vandalism the page might need to get locked. Thanks. 82.29.227.171 13:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you know what "allegation" means. Also, you may not be aware of this, but given that you're anonymous, locking the page would let me edit it but not you. Korny O'Near 14:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Thanks for fixing my mistakes

Thanks for fixing my mistakes of fact and grammar in the Anglosphere article. (I made a further edit, because I don't think "refers to" is the right verb in "Mark Steyn, who refers to the term often, ...". Feel free to change it back if you disagree.) Again, thanks! Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyDD Astrology claim

I'm going to encourage you to give up on your MyDD edits about astrology and finances. For four reasons. 1. This is unsourced. 2. Unless you can source something other then the MyDD website, it will count as original research. 3. The community, by several different users, has continually corrected this mistake. 4. You've gone WAY past the 3 reverts rule!

If you really believe this needs to be in the article, start a discussion about it on the mydd talk page. Please do not just revert. IrnBru001 16:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

An article on a website can't use that website as a source? That's news to me. It's also news that "the community" has decided anything. There's nothing on the discussion page about it. But fine, I'll create a discussion for it. Korny O'Near 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks we can now discuss the issue over there IrnBru001 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top Gun

Please could you explain me why here you have removed the reference to ER? --Egr 20:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, sorry for the delay. The notes in the cast list refer to work the actors had appeared in before being cast, to help explain their casting. The "ER" reference is the only one to something one of the actors had appeared in afterwards, and isn't relevant to the article. Korny O'Near 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carson mediation

I'm signed up for mediation of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-19 Carson and proposed Cronos1 the following: "Wikipedia’s way to deal with cases like this, which worked elegantly in thousands of other articles, is: Put the facts next to each other and let the reader reach the conclusion. That Bailey is on CEI’s payroll seems to be verifiable, and that the CEI is pro-industry is verifiable, too. Why not simply put the two together?" He liked the idea and said he'd modify article accordingly. I pointed him to WP:V as a criterion. If you're unhappy with his changes please let me know (via e-mail, the cabale page or my talk page). I'll wait a day and will then close the case. — Sebastian 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Pajamas Media

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

[edit] Pesto

I've made an effort to document, clean up and heavily qualify that bit about over-eating pesto. Thanks for your edit, which alerted me that there might be a problem. Gwen Gale 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flying Imams controversy

Thanks for fixing the references on the Flying Imams controversy. I tried to find where it got screwed up, but I couldn't figure it out. Nathanm mn 07:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/o/r/User_talk%7EKorny_O%27Near_329c.html"