Talk:Monroe, Michigan

message: I reverted a number of recent edits that had inserted a large amount of text taken pretty much word for word from the city web site. First, the city web site is copyrighted. Second, taking such large pieces of text verbatim from other web sites withou any proper attribution is just wrong. There's no problem with re-writing and summarizing facts taken from other sources. And there may be portions of the recent addition that are not plagiarized. But I thought it more prudent to remove the entire addition to be sorted out later. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ripping off text from other web sites 

message: http://historicmonroe.org/little-brown-bear/index.htm
This is the link to a website I found that just talks about all sorts of stuff about the author of the Little Brown Bear books. The author, Elizabeth Upham McWebb lived in Monroe for some time. I just began reading about her, but I do know that at the Monroe County Fairgrounds is the house she lived in. I live in Monroe, you see. Anyway, that house used to be on my dad's father's property (or close to), and my dad and his brother would spend time in the house playing with the toy chest and play stove that is still in there. He doesn't remember the fireplace, as that may be new. I think that this would be a great contribution to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.180.181 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Brown Bear 

message: This is a fairly good article but it could be bigger. What...no mention of the Monroe Monster? And yes, this is a small town, but somehow there seems to be things missing. (Things besides the monster!)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingermint (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good But Short 

message: I really don't think that a sub-regional fireworks company needs to be noted in intro. Especially when there is no mention of other, more known brands started in Monroe, such as Monroe Shocks and Struts. I'm going to remove it. 68.42.133.64 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Kaboom Enterprises.  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Monroe, Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812190327/http://www.monroeinfo.com/set1_source.html to http://www.monroeinfo.com/set1_source.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926023239/http://monroe.lib.mi.us/books_movies_music/special_collections/custer_statue_moved.htm to http://monroe.lib.mi.us/books_movies_music/special_collections/custer_statue_moved.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707144930/http://climate.geo.msu.edu/Stations/5558/NARRAT.txt to http://climate.geo.msu.edu/Stations/5558/NARRAT.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100128224700/http://www.ci.monroe.mi.us/Hofu_Mayor_Visit.cfm to http://www.ci.monroe.mi.us/Hofu_Mayor_Visit.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100220112935/http://www.ci.monroe.mi.us/ to http://www.ci.monroe.mi.us/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140513013318/http://monroe-michigan.com/ to http://www.monroe-michigan.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The mention of the "Only In Monroe" public access show says that it is co-hosted by a Michelle Bowman, but the link provided takes me to the page for a Michelle Bowman who is a Kansas banking commissioner. Surely this is a bad link-- could someone confirm?
Jack Vermicelli 2warped@gmail.com 24.127.238.196 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelle Bowman? 

message: Hello,
I changed the church photo on the right to a more aesthetically please church. I don’t understand why the church on it now needs to be in the collage. I understand that it’s “historic” but the fact of the matter is no one looking at this Wikipedia page would know it or care for it, so I thought it would be better to put a church that has great architectural features and has not been changed for 160 years. The current church now, however, was gutted out and renovated and the outside is not what it once looked like, which begs the questions is it still a historic structure? I say no since it was gutted out and looks nothing like how it did when it was put on the list for historic places. That doesn’t necessarily  matter and I believe what matters is putting pictures in the collage that are aesthetically pleasing, since Monroe is such a small town there is no point of saying a picture of a church needs to be kept because it’s more notable—in what capacity? It isn’t a world famous building and half of the people in Monroe barely know that church is historic unless they are historians. So to better market the city I believe a church of better architectural looks should be included in the photo collage.
Thanks Gregcar195467 (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to engage in an edit war over something as trivial as a single photo in a collage, but you're working a little too hard to promote and advertise St. Michael when it really is a dime-a-dozen church in the city.  For the reasons above, St. Mary's should be in the collage, or there can simply be no church building inserted and a different subject can be included instead.  —Notorious4life (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentle Editors:  It's not a zero sum game. Put them both in.  Somewhere. I am not concerned which gets 'top billing.'  We should err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

text: *I originally proposed the St. Michael article's deletion awhile ago, because the article was so poorly written; it didn't provide any content that warranted notability or verifiability guidelines for Wikipedia inclusion.  But, my deletion was overriden by the consensus, and I respect that.  There is no reason for this discussion anymore.  Both images are in the Monroe infobox collage.  Just focus on improving the church article and providing some useful and better written information for the casual Wikipedia reader.  —Notorious4life (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable church?