Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Television, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find an online source? Plus, it's pretty much trivial, isn't it? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, no, it is not trivial to include a viable alternate spelling of "TV". See this entry...."A Master of Ceremonies or MC (sometimes spelled emcee)....." Why is "emcee " less trival than "teevy"? I think it is political. Couch potatoism is a sort of new religion, and the term "teevy" shows it to be less than holy. People who do not read books and rely on TV as their sole, or nearly sole, means of acquiring information and disinformation do not want to see a word that have not seen before. "Teevy" to them is a sort of "ten dollar word." The Los Angeles Times is a reliable source. I am not sure if they have back issues from the 1980-81 online, but if they do, the word "teevy" would be in them. If you google "teevy" there are many uses of the word. You have to go to the 21st hit to find one by me. Sowff (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)SowffSowff (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I replied here [1] a couple days ago. Please also see WP:SOAPBOX. Googling on "teevy" gets 1,860 hits, many of them having nothing to do with television. This is an extremely small amount of hits for a term referring to a massively common thing. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, I think most uses of the term "teevy" are as an abbreviation for television, maybe some people use it as a nickname, but I think the (MC = emcee) point I made is hard to dismiss. Yes, TV is the most popular way to abbreviate television, but I have seen teevy in a reliable source that has an entry on Wikipedia, i. e., The Los Angeles Times. Also, the peer pressure to use only TV is stifling and Wikipedia should encourage alternate nicknames for such an oppressive thing as the boob tube. Like I said the term "teevy" or even "teevee" as I have also seen tend to de-deify the boob tube, and that is a good thing, something Wikipedia should encourage. What are your thoughts on the term "emcee"? Do you think it should continue to be listed as an alternate form of MC, or do you support its deletion? If we are going by sheer numbers alone, then many words in the dictionary would be routinely purged every year....you could easily eliminate the 100 least-used words every year, sort of Orwellian, wouldn't you say? I read the rules on soapboxing and your other comment elsewhere. I am not sure that the LA Times is the only national entity that used it; I just know that it did. I think saying "emcee" is the correct way to say MC and that TV is the correct way to say "teevy" is highly subjective, even if a few dictionary say so. This debate is not trivial. It shows the politicalization of contemporary language. Wikipedia should try to rise above such and offer alternate abbreviations of such culturally significant entities like television. Sowff (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)SowffSowff (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia should note alternate terminology (e.g., telly) but only if the terms are or were in widespread usage. You haven't provided any reference to show this was the case and I haven't found any either. Again, edits to articles should not promote your pet theories and Wikipedia should not encourage anything, let alone a point of view. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SowffNeilN, my reference was the L. A. Times (circa 1980-1981). I will see if I can get a usage from that era from them, but I do remember they did use that alternate spelling for TV. It is a shame that no other way to spell TV is listed by Wikipedia, because the deification of television enables millions of people worldwide to think their reliance on teevy as their primary source of information is okay. TV is a tacit deification of television. It is more than a mere pet theory, too. Look at all the semi-literate proles who are so easily led by Big Brother. Still, I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia what it is. I will try to someday make "teevy" as acceptable in your mind as "emcee." Mark my works. Sowff (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)SowffSowff (talk)[reply]

Errr, did you not read this, "...the word "emcee" is actually the correct spelling - see [2]"? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SowffNeilN, I read it. You looked up and saw "emcee" in the dictionary. Duly noted. I still maintain there is more to the picture than meets the eye. Sowff (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)SowffSowff (talk)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Detroit Red Wings appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Ravenswing  13:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same problem here, I'm afraid. Your brief review of her performance in 88 Minutes reads like your own reaction, rather than a report of something in a published and authoritative source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Old Moonraker. We are all from the same source. No one is more or less authoritative than anyone else. Nonetheless, point taken. Sowff (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)SowffSowff (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sowff! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mike Wrathell - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for some references.

Here is a link to the 2004 Berkeley Film & Video Festival in which a documentary about Mike Wrathell won an Award of Excellence. It is titled "The King of Pluto."

http://berkeleyvideofilmfest.org/2004awards.shtml

Mr. Wrathell also had an artwork referenced in a January 2006 article in the Chicago Tribune. The artwork is called "Ashy." It is a lampoon of John Ashcroft for covering up a topless statute while he was U. S. Attorney General. I have been looking for an online link and will keep trying. It was in a group show about censored art in Highland Park, IL.

Thank you for trying to edit Eris. I hope we did not come across as too arrogant in trying to make it clear that the size debate between Eris and Pluto is still open. Eris is a Featured article. Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia and there are only 3,087 featured articles out of 3,472,309 articles on the English Wikipedia. In Featured articles (FA) editors are protective of major claims that are not backed up by peer-reviewed papers. Many blogs and personal websites are prone to simple oversights, misstatements, misinterpretations, and typos. Sorry if we came across as harsh. Let me know on your talk page, my talk page or the Eris talk page if you have any questions. -- Kheider (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mike Wrathell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable artist behind non-notable movement. Lack of sourcing is due to dearth of coverage. Also, appears to be an autobiography.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mike Wrathell 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/Mike Wrathell 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My art movement is not non-notable. Your disrespect for artists and art movements is nauseating. I hope you are proud of yourself for removing me and my art movement. I note that Alfred Eaker, who is a great director of alt films is probably not on Wikipedia, either. Wikipedia should be more supportive of outsider art. Your embrace of mainstream culture at the expense of cutting edge art and artists is wrong and should be rethought. The pedants who edit pages here have an inordinate love of deletion. Also, can you please investigate who libeled me by putting me on a list of those with Asperger's Syndrome. I have never been diagnosed with such. It was clearly meant to libel me. Thanks. Sowff (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Sowff23:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wiae. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to ITunes— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. /wiae /tlk 16:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to do all this the so-called right way. All I know is that actually a worldwide boycott of iTunes until they allow the unchopped-up version of Bowie's Blackstar single would be very constructive. Are you saying that all boycotts are unconstructive? You are in the minority if that is your opinion. So also think that no one should call out iTunes for cockblocking David Bowie? What if they told Igor Stravinsky to chop up "The Rite of Spring?" Why can one person on Wikipedia call off my call for a global boycott of iTunes? Are you the head of Wikipedia? Why do you align yourself with Apple Inc. over David Bowie? Sowff (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Sowff[reply]