User talk:AMittelman

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! --A. B. 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BillPress.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BillPress.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Tenet edit

Hi there. Regarding your edit about Sen. John Heinz: it's not necessary to indicate whether he is alive or not since the article isn't about him and it's not critical to the article. Also, it's info that someone can get from Heinz's page. Alcarillo 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch McConnell

Thanks for adding useful content to the article. However, I have to point out a few things: 1) Quotations are never bolded; 2) We don't sign our names to content, ever. 3) We don't all-cap articles that are linked to. 4) We don't use <b> for bolding, but rather ''' (three single quote marks) 5) We don't use <br> to separate paragraphs - a line space between them works fine. It may help to spend some time looking at Wikipedia's Manual of Style or look at various articles to see how content is normally formatted. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the bold, and especially the one line spacing in because the quotes and were difficult to read, however, if the rules are against it, so be it. A line space between paragraphs works fine is a matter of opinion obviously, and the rule seems arbitrary, but as I said, if the rules are against more than just that small spacing between quote paragraphs, then so be it. However, the all CAPS in the CBS NEWS FACE THE NATION attribution are the requirement of CBS NEWS in order to quote from the transcript of their show. Please see http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_061707.pdf for confirmation of same. I have looked at Wikipedia's Manual of Style

There is no requirement to all-cap CBS News Face the Nation on that page. We will follow our normal styling methods here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who makes you the final arbiter of all things here?

I'm not (and there's no call for being insolent). But I've worked on the Wikipedia for over three years, and I know how content is formatted. Besides, my interpretation of the content at the link is accurate -- they say who to credit, and say nothing that it be all caps. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude comes off as if you are the final arbiter of all things here, so I responded in kind, and not as being insolent, and not as someone being defensive either (in case that will be your next comment). Your interpretation is just that, an interpretation, which is an opinion, and opinions are not infallible or above reproach. I looked at the source material, and since the transcript was purposefully written with PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS CBS TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION" I took that to be literal, and saw no reason to quote it in a format otherwise. Of course, this is a matter of interpretation, and as the author of this portion of the Mitch McConnell article, I used my judgment to follow the literal request of CBS and Burrell Transcripts as a necessary requirement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMittelman (talk • contribs)

Ernest Borgnine

This edit[1] is not constructive. The fact that Ernest Borgnine came up in passing in a political discussion on Meet the Press does not warrant inclusion as an entire section in the article on Ernest Borgnine. In fact, it does not warrant mentioning at all in the article. This has no significance whatsoever in the lengthy career of this actor. Please be mindful of WP:NOT#INFO. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Thanks, --Mantanmoreland 01:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes him topical and referenced and culturally significant in the context of a Presidential election while in his 90th year. That is significant. Most people under the age of 30, 35, or even 40, have not even heard of Borgnine, it reintroduces him to a new audience. Obviously, we disagree, and the interesting thing about Wikipedia is that it is an egomaniacal oligarchy, so you being around longer than I have will mean that I am overruled, right or wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMittelman (talk • contribs)

Ernest Borgnine is already culturally significant, and the fact that he was mentioned off-hand in an interview show, in a manner that makes fun of him, is of absolutely zero significance and not warranting a separate section. Instead of railing against nonexistent "oligarchies" you should bone up on Wiki policies. But apparently you care as little about basic stuff like "what belongs in an article" as you do about simple things like signing your talk page posts or indenting your replies.--Mantanmoreland 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not indenting or signing my talk page post, if you will notice, I have only had two or three talk page postings, and since they were on my own talk page, I was not aware that I needed to sign postings on my own talk page. As for the quote from "Meet the Press," I did not think that there was anything about it that was making fun of him. The reality is that Ernest Borgnine is older than Brad Pitt, and there is nothing wrong with that, and in the context of a political rally, Bill Clinton sucks all the air out of the room, but Bob Dole would not, and in a Hollywood context, just like Brad Pitt would, but Ernest Borgnine would not. Not making fun of him, just stating fact. Again, it is a matter of opinion whether what I quoted is significant, I believe that it is, and you believe that it is not. AMittelman 16:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Gravel's Webpage

We're Still in the Race! January 4th, 2008 by J. Skyler S. Mc...

Once again, the Mainstream Media has not gotten the facts straight.

MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann has incorrectly declared that Sen. Gravel has dropped out of the race following the January third caucus in Iowa. This is not true, and Sen. Gravel is still an active member in this race. We are requesting that MSNBC and Keith Olbermann retract their statement, and issue an apology to the campaign for promoting blatantly false misinformation.

Again, Sen. Gravel has not dissolved his campaign, and has no intentions of doing so

Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

You are about to violate the 3rr on the 2008 election page. Please stop reverting the edits of others. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking isn't done anymore

Please be advised that date linking is not done anymore. See MOS:UNLINKYEARS and MOS:UNLINKDATES. Thus it's July 18, 2010, not July 18, 2010, and next year will be 2011, not 2011. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Servius Tullius

Stop what you're doing to Servius Tullius right now. Your sentence editing is good, but you're adding frivolous links, and I'm going to revert the whole thing if you don't stop. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links that I have added clarify the paragraphs, which were badly written, and which use words which are not generally used in everyday speech or writing in some instances. I have used the links to clarify the meanings. As an example, I am a very intelligent person, with a very large vocabulary, however, I had never heard the word "overweening" before this article. Rather than changing the word, I provided a link, to explain the meaning to others. This was just one example. AMittelman (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those kinds of links should go to WIktionary. I agree with what you're saying in principle, but this kind of language is usually a holdover from the 1911 Britannica or other material used to start the article. You were also linking words like "treacherous" — again, a Wiktionary link would do it, if you thought that was too hard a word. To clarify (was in a rush because of the edit conflict): many of the words you linked were to disambiguation pages, and others were so general that they shed no light on Servius Tullius at all. "Franchise," for instance, leads to a disambiguation page; even if you linked to suffrage, it wouldn't tell the reader anything about what's meant here. You need links to concepts that apply to ancient Roman law, politics, religion, and society. If you aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to know what these articles are, perhaps you could leave suggestions on the talk page for improving the article. As I said, I didn't want to revert because your basic copyediting was fine. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]