Talk:Elliot in the Morning/Archives/2013

Elliot in the Morning

I'm deleting the label as I think any "name-calling" has been neutralized. Radio-x 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. The biographies of the show's cast and crew are funny enough if you listen to the show but ought to be cleaned up to encyclopedia standards (i.e. no "gaywad" calling")

I don't believe this should be merged with the station that airs the show. A reference to it if there is a line up listing.. but, this article specifically states that this show is aired on several stations. I also think that the show is aired on a local television station. The thing is.. this show is probably going to get moved to another station, or maybe go XM only like Howard Stern's show. So, why go through the trouble of linking-unlinking a topic that can potentially be large enough on it's own.

keep independent Denki 11:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• The WWDC (FM) article contains a sufficient reference to Elliot in the Morning. Merging the two would make as much sense as merging Desperate Housewives with ABC: both have enough signifigance to stand on their own.

keep separate ✮ Fredo (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

keep independent This topic deserves its own article. Giles22 15:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

keep independent This is brodcast on several radio stations and deserves it's own article. It's not brodcast on a local TV station as far as I know.

keep independent No question. First off, the show is broadcast on multiple stations, and it's a very popular morning talk show in the DC/Baltimore/Richmond area. There's more than enough material to write about if someone would dedicate some time to cleaning up the article. --Sideshowmel0329 (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Junk Posting

Alright, very funny people. Stop posting junk material and deleting sections! This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. No slurs, no insulting remarks. Wikipedia can and will block you from posting.

I cleaned up some of the name calling of cast members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toxicityj (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I would like to request that an administrator place a temporary protection on this article, barring anonymous edits and edits by newly created accounts. There seems to be a limitless supply of random persons making nonsensical and even profane edits to this article, so much that I have almost given up on trying to clean this article up and even give certain parts good sentence structure. Please help if you can.Legitimus 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Pax:Vobiscum! Legitimus 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I put in the request following the resignation of Craig, Elliot was talking of the wiki page a lot during the show the next day. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad redirect

Why does Elliot Segal redirect here? Certainly, the man is more than just his radio show.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shador5529 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

If he's likely to qualify as notable (see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the guidelines), especially regarding multiple, professional, third-party sources, to have a biography significantly larger in scope than this talk radio show, feel free to change that redirect into an article. TransUtopian 06:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

tape delay

The statement in the description of the show claims they are on a "tape delay". That is incorrect. There is a digital delay unit in the air chain. Tape delay has not been used at DC-101 for over 15 years.

Tape delay is just a term used to describe a delay of any sort. Kind of like how some people still call cd albums "records" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toxicityj (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Sound Effects

Is a list of every single sound effect used on the show really needed? I feel that only the key effects should be listed here. Ones that come to mind are things like "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" and "You've got mail..." Thoughts? DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 15:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Put the list of sound effects in a table so it at least looks cleaner and is easier to read. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 17:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is TOTALLY not needed. A paragraph describing how they frequently over-abuse the use of "sound effects" would be good. And maybe a statement that many of the "sound effects" are actually samples of dialog from past callers, interview comments, news reportings, etc (with an example or two and the origin of that sample) and how the use of that sample becomes a running gag. And if a sound effect is REALLY noteworthy and it has its own page, and IF EITM is known for over using it (and making it part of their "shtick"), then I can see mentioning it specifically and linking to the page about that sound effect/quote. But other than that, the list needs to go. The emphasis should not be on WHAT sound effects are used, but the EITM show's use (abuse) of those special effects. Same goes for the Notable Callers list. A paragraph mentioning that they have "regulars" that call in and, to some degree, become a "part" of the show, will suffice. And MAYBE give a few examples of the MOST noteworthy of them, especially if they have their own Wiki entry. But get rid of the list. It is not needed. 164.214.1.54 14:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to sandbox up a possible replacement then go for it. I wouldn't mind seeing a good replacement for the list. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have an account here yet, I don't know how to properly edit an article (but I have learned enough to properly post a comment on the talk pages) and I honestly don't have the kind of time necessary to responsibly edit articles (researching sources, etc). I don't know what you mean by "sandbox" but I am assuming it has something to do with supplying an example of what I was talking about doing. As mentioned, I just don't have the time to do this. I have in the past commented on articles as when I come here to get information, I always check the talk pages to see how much effort has been put into creating the page (more discussion generally means a better and more accurate/reliable the article rather than one that was written by one person and has little to no discussion). When I see an article that obviously is in need of work, I will usually comment and offer suggestions. Hopefully someone who DOES spend time editing Wikipedia entries will take my suggestion into consideration. 164.214.1.54 12:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but usually I just gnome around. I hope you get time to edit though. It doesn't take too long to make a 1000 character paragraph like you did on the talk page here. I recommend you try it out sometime. :) --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Most Notable Callers

Added a table for a cleaner look as well. Eitmluvr 20:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did someone tag it with a questionable relevance thing? Can the person who did it explain themselves, or else it probably should be removed. --Sideshowmel0329 (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone tag

Anyone know how long this page has been tagged with the tone tag? I'd like to use this section of the talk to discuss how to clean the article up to match the WP:TONE guidelines. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The tone tag has been around since February 2006, and judging by the version that this artcile was back then, i feel it's been cleaned up a lot. See the version here[1]. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Untitled.jpeg

Image:Untitled.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Craig Henderson Homosexual proposition

Someone reverted the documentation I added about the proposition, along with audio .mp3s as references. They said it was vandilism, but it is certainly not. I put it back up --Sideshowmel0329 (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

--It has been re-added, albeit without the .mp3's as they were temporary. Cited just as well as the other parts of the controversy section. The one who keep removing this relevant(to the show) information should check, it seems they have been posting images that don't actually comply with fair usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.9.2.233 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

--Looks like someone removed it again...Whoever is managing this page please work with others and not only yourself. --Sideshowmel0329 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is actually one of the better radio personality pages but the "Other Content" section doesn't belong here (sound effects and other minutia). It's not encyclopedic. Focus on describing what the show is and it's history and leave the fan stuff to fan pages.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Stillborn and Dead Babies

What's "irrelevant" about the Stillborn and Dead Babies Controversy? Tyler Molnar is a big part of the EITM show. When he was out for his grandfathers funeral Elliot cancelled the show until he got back to join them again. For Tyler to refuse to participate in almost a whole entire show due to Elliot's story was one of the biggest controversies since Craig quit on air. It was the most dramatic if awkward moment in recent EITM class history. To remove the Stillborn and Dead Babies story from Controversies and call it irrelevant doesn't make sense to this listener. Elliot always pushes this limit and April 21, 2011 he did it again. It was a real live controversy and one that is sure to affect future of their relationship. - E240301713 — Preceding unsigned comment added by E240301713 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tyler not participating was "one of the biggest controversies since Craig quit on air"? I beg to differ! Sure, it was noteworthy, but I can cite numerous other "controversies," most recently the Easter Egg Hunt being canceled, which hasn't been added here. Tyler and Elliot have obviously reconciled, so move on! The fact of the matter is, every single incident simply cannot be added to this article, especially information that you lifted "verbatim" from another source without properly citing the material. Eitmluvr (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)