User talk:DavidOaks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Oaks edits of political enterpretations of Oz ruined the page. This used to be an infromative site, with various enterpretations listed and nice pictures. Now the pictures are all gone and the page is an empty shell.


Limerick (poetry)=[edit]

Hi, NM -- could you explain this edit[1] I just don't understand the edit summary ("Removed ref which led to some unrelated publicity...") Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

David, have you followed the link? Not much about Maigue Poets there, with the possible exception of Wrinkle Cream, which they could doubtless do with after 300 years. But maybe you're questioning my edit note: I do try to make these comprehensible but maybe this one isn't, in which case I apologize (it can't be modified). Nick Michael (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

James Dean[edit]

David, I should have handled that postmortem correction better– you had the right idea. I spotted the missing preposition and realized the paragraph needed more, but you were on the right track.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Namespace vio[edit]

I have moved User talk sandbox:DavidOaks to User:DavidOaks/sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

oops -- thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Devil's Playground (film)[edit]

David, there's a rule somewhere around here that states that article talk pages are for discussing articles, not the editors. Secondly, the current use of your user page might not be the best way for you to gain recognition as a serious academic. Thirdly, the Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so editors will have to put up with other editors (who might not even be subject matter experts) barging in and giving their 2 cents. And finally, if you want to pick on academics, try me for size ;) Take it easy. --Kudpung (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung, you listened to someone who was engaged in bad conduct -- demonstrable untruths against an editor with a very good record -- and added your own bad conduct to it. Thoughtlessness rather than malice, but bad conduct nonetheless. Your own good record as an editor makes this especially distressing. Just figure this as one of your bad days; if you keep defending it, it becomes a pattern rather than an exception to one. Now, as to the academic thing -- I didn't say I was one (though you self-identify as such). I said there is an animus at WP against academics, and your remarks make it clear that when you think you sense one, you particpate in that ill-will. I would accept your offer to "take you on," but what I keep encountering is a distressing refusal to respond to the actual and specific issues raised. I rarely respond to disputes of this kind (I guess because I am rarely involved with them) but the crappiness of behavior combined with the smugness with which it's defended provide unusual motivation. When teachers cite this sort of thing as one of the chief reasons why classroom use of Wikipedia is destructive rather than educational, it gets hard to argue with. Once again, the behavior here is unusual. Were it otherwise, cumulative wikipolicy in discussions not going one's way would be to complain, lie, and get intervention, while dodging all reasonable requests for discussion. I take the opportunity to flag misbehavior so that we don't end up there. DavidOaks (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I really would appreciate it if you removed those comments from your user page. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I will happily comply with a specific and reasoned request. Which comments do you wish removed, and why? DavidOaks (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You've read my mind. :-) Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

alt med[edit]

Thanks David. Do you think it should read: "According to the White House...." Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dunno -- thge White House is a building, and doesn't say anything (at work, I have a policy of refusing to take calls from anything but human beings) -- I'd name the specific organization within the executive branch. DavidOaks (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Waiting on You.[edit]

Well? >>> Talk:The Cowboys > Best O Fortuna (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? WP:UNDUE has to do with Point-of-View versus Neutral POV. The mentions of the Ruby River, near where it meets the Beaverhead River, in the mid 1870s, and the rail-head at Belle Fourche, South Dakota are: 1) in the book by William Dale Jennings; 2) in the script written by Irving Ravetch, Harriet Frank, Jr., and Jennings; and 3) in the film directed by Mark Rydell and produced and released by Warner Bros. There is no POV/NPOV about it. It is just the fact of the way it is. I don't understand your application of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do people come to Wikipedia? To learn. This is an encyclopedia. The great advantage of Wikipedia over a paper/hard bound encyclopedia and most other sites on the Internet is that a user who wants to learn about something can use hyperlinks to easily dig deeper about something that they might want to know more about. If they, don't, they don't need to click on the link. If you go to a site like IMDb or TCM, you can read about The Cowboys, but what if you want to know more about the setting, or filming location, or something like that? At those sites, you can't find out about the Ruby River, or Belle Fourche. You have to go and find another site. The beauty and advantage of Wikipedia is being able to have articles about these other topics and subjects and linking them together. This enhances the learning process. Be removing that, you take away the advantage. As long as things are factual and cited, and pertains to the article, let it stand.
As for the "Plot" section length, you guys need to get together an establish a guideline of how long that section should be. To me, a good size chunk, say 1/4th to 1/3th of the article can be in the "Plot" section. That article is now only 7,450 bytes long. There are some film articles in Wikipedia that are much larger, up over 50,000 (Citizen Kane is 94,449 bytes). Now of course some of these films that are larger should be larger, they had a bigger impact on American culture and on other filmmakers. The Cowboys is just a little Western and is only liked mainly by John Wayne fans. I personally think that Roscoe Lee Browne and Bruce Dern are very good in this film, they almost upstage Wayne. The rest of the cast could be changed, but those two are good. These people who around putting in the "plot is too short" and the "plot is too long" tags need to find something else to do. Like just add to it or subtract, or add to another section. I would love to see the "Production" section expanded on films.
When I watch a film, I want to know where it was set, I want to know when it was set, I want to learn about the setting, what was going on at that time in that place. I want to know where it was filmed. Now of course this is just me, and what I like. But I am sure that there are other people out there like me. So, when a film (or book, etc.) mentions something like a gold strike on the Ruby River I want to find out where it is, when did this happen, etc. Not everybody is a like, but it is better to default to those who want to know about it, than those that don't to take advantage of Wikipedia's capabilities. Some of you guys don't seem to want anymore information that is in Halliwell's Film Guide, or similar work. But, then what is the point of having Wikipedia and the ability to use links and have larger-more filled out-articles?
I also added the fact about the Dillard Fant and the Santa Rosa over two years ago. It was fine. But, Monkeyzpop is a stubborn KIA and I don't feel like fighting him. The Dillard Fant/Santa Rosa is not in Jennings book, it was added in the film (probably to see if anybody was paying attention). I don't know why it was added, or who added it, and the film isn't big enough for somebody to go find out. I think directors personally put stuff in films to screw with the audience and see if they are watching. Why I think it is important, is in the scene between Wayne and Dern, the scene is about "lies" and principals. I think that Rydell used a factual lie to justify the lie of that guy not working there. It was a trick (ironic joke) by Rydell on the viewer. But, I am probably one of the few people to want to call him on it. It was done for a reason, a reason that will blow past most viewers.
If you look at my edits, I don't just put shit in for shit's sake. I have references, I put in facts. I don't add willy-nilly stuff, but have a reason. But, I am not going to fight you guys. You know what you want and have your agendas and I don't understand them. I just wish you guys would point out where in the MOS or Help section it says that information can't stay? I can't tell if you guys are making up your own rules or not? I strongly disagree with your use of WP:UNDUE, it says in the opening sentence: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"."
The facts of the Ruby River being mentioned in the book, the script, and the film, are just that FACTS, not any viewpoint what-so-ever. There is no POV in the facts, they are neutral. Anybody who watches the film or takes the time to read the book can not say that the Ruby River and Belle Fourche are NOT mentioned in them. I respectfully request that you go and re-read WP:UNDUE again, and then come up with some other reason why my contribution don't belong. That entire section is filled with the words "views", "viewpoint", "fringe theories", etc., The fact is that they are mentioned in the book and the film, there is no "weight" here, facts are facts. It was not Original Research, it was in the book and film, it is easily verifiable, just read the book or watch the film (or read the script). How can I be in the "minority" if I got it straight from the horses-mouth? Guess I will go bang my head against a brick wall now. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
How in the world does a discussion about your interpretation of WP:UNDUE belong on the Talk:The Cowboys page? While a discussion of your edit of the Ruby River, etc., et al., may belong there, I don't see how our discussing how you understand and remove content because of it from articles has anything to do with that article? It could be about any article, not just that one. This is about you and POV not about The Cowboys. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Compassion & Choices Edit[edit]

Hi, David. Sorry I didn't include a reason for my edit earlier. Today I was working on clarifying the Category:Assisted suicide so organizations and laws within the Death with Dignity movement were no longer lumped in with William Francis Melchert-Dinkel. I created two subcategories: Category:Death with Dignity movement and Category:Physician-assisted suicide. For Category:Death with Dignity movement I thought it made sense to only include organizations and people active within the movement; whereas, Category:Physician-assisted suicide would be for laws and rulings in favor of physician-assisted suicide. What are your thoughts? Thanks! Melissathebarber (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page. You're rational for keeping both categories makes sense to me. I'll work on the related articles to make sure they're consistent. Thanks again for your help. Melissathebarber (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Man[edit]

Hi. In the light of the current dispute regarding the inclusion of an image in the article Man, and the heated exchanges that have led to the need to temporarily protect the article, I have started an RFC at Talk:Man#RFC: image in article. Please do add your opinion, and hopefully we can achieve a policy-based consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

False etymology > Folk Etymology[edit]

You participated in a discussion on the page Folk etymology as to whether it should be moved to False etymology. Despite the consensus on that discussion, the move was effected. I have requested that the move be reversed. I am notifying you as a party to that prior discussion. If you are interested, the current discussion is located here.μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mondegreen[edit]

Once again I invite you to remove the non-referenced examples from the article. But there is no burden on me to let your edit stand simply because a part of it is valid. And I do agree that a part of it is valid.μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

(User Medeis)[edit]

For the record, here's what s/he deleted from her/his own talk-page; the user has been warned repeatedly about edit-warring and abrasive communication; there ought to be some sort of record... - - Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DavidOaks - - You were invited, numerous times, to use the talk page, and chose not to do so. You were advised of wikipolicy. 3RR does not apply to reverting those in violation of policy. Look above, and you will observe that you have received good and diplomatic counsel in the past about your style of communication. DavidOaks (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tuquoque[edit]

Just out of curiosity, I get no hits at dictionary.com for tuquoque. Can you assist? Were you referring to "tu quoque" (thou also)? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Yeah, you too!" So when editor X says I'm pushing a POV, I can say....Dang, I can be pedantic....DavidOaks (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

warning[edit]

You have reached WP:3RR at Folk etymology. If you continue edit warring, you will be blocked. If you do not think you can get justice on the talk page, please pursue WP:RFC or other avenues of dispute resolution. — kwami (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any point in repeating to you that dozens of reliable third party resources such as textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias refer to the technical term "folk etymology" with a very specific meaning while you refer to snopes and sources which do not even use the term. You have yet to provide an argument that any reliable source provides any alternative main sense for this well defined and referenced concept.
You are ignoring the consensus of three editors.
You have been invited to add your comments in any of several alternative venues.
You continue to cite Snopes as your best reference, and to add a highly inappropraite demand that I provide a reference for material which you yourself added to the article.
I have avoided requesting that you be sanctioned, given your actions seem well intentioned, if misguided, and that other paths are open to you. In payment for my attempts at tolerance you have filed misguided complaints. Be advised I will provide no more warnings.μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

We will let this admin process run its course. Meanwhile, kinda busy -- giving an invited talk at a folklore congress on linguistic approaches to paremiological research on the internet. DavidOaks (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Please learn how to link. I tried to follow your link to an AN/I comment, but the link just goes to the page without linking to a specific section. I found no AN/I complaint at WP:AN/I relevant to Kwami and Medeis. --Taivo (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Those two found it just fine. Please learn some manners. DavidOaks (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Those two found it after another editor pointed them to it. It is not at WP:AN/I, but at WP:AN3. My manners are fine. I was blunt and if your links do not lead to where the complaint is, then you do, indeed, need to learn how to link properly. --Taivo (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
See, you found it. And you still need manners. I know that this is not a problem with all linguists, because I know a great many intimately. But it does seem to be an issue with the local group. DavidOaks (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Besides your RfC wording being an inaccurate description of the positions at Folk etymology, you inserted the your RfC in the middle of an existing thread. I am getting quite tired of your endless personal accusations, uncivil attitude, sloppy and unsigned edits, and inappropriate behavior. Edit warring does not only consist of multiple reverts. Keep your remarks civil and impersonal, and be careful with your edits, or I will file a formal complaint. You will receive no further warnings.μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing an established and documented pattern of abusive communication and harassment. Keep your communications to the article's talkpage. If you want to initiate an action, I strongly encourage you to do so. DavidOaks (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigbin edit, Chupacabra article[edit]

The parts I added are uncited because they have plenty of citations in their respective articles. Why add more to the already overflowing page? (Which, to be honest, is the messiest article I've seen so far) The keywords are linked and anyone can follow them to their own articles easily. It's a sub-entry of related cryptids after all. I only expanded the relationship with a few sentences.

Also BOTH the Sigbin and the Peuchen were linked to the article before I did my edits, yet you removed only the Sigbin from the See Also section. Was it an arbitrary decision on your part based on the fact that the Philippines is halfway around the world from Latin America? Here's the thing, the Philippines was also a Spanish colony and shared much of cryptozoological myths and legends with Latin America (and much of the same superstition).

I am from the Philippines, and yes we DO sometimes hear old people refer to the cryptid as Sigbin, Amamayong, OR Chupacabra. Which suggests it was simply a dialect variation. Though Sigbin is now the more commonly used word after Spanish was dropped in favor of English as the secondary national language. Do a google search of chupacabra+sigbin. Or ask a filipino, if you happen to know one.

In the future please do read the linked articles before deleting them outright. Also read the entire article and you will actually encounter an account of a chupacabra sighting in the Philippines (6th paragraph, Reported Sightings subsection), justifying the reason why the two were linked, along with the Peuchen.

If you really can't stand the sight of uncited entries though, you can migrate the links from the respective articles (Sigbin and Peuchen, I even linked it for you) if you want. At least that will actually be real work. Rather than screaming vandalism, not bothering to check if it has merit at all, then clicking backspace.

Good day.--Astepintooblivion (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the irony of being incredibly strict for a 'paper trail' on a mythical creature is not lost on me. I mean, sure, it's Wikipedia. But it is quite euro-centric when you think of it. A fair amount of information from folk mythology from non-western nations like ours do not have published documentation. Should we once again invite missionaries to write books with misspelled names of local legends for us so it gains credibility? That's another topic though. If you still wish to delete my additions to the article, do so. I will not contest it, because I know someone else will notice the missing relationship in the future. And hopefully, it will be a missionary. --Astepintooblivion (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I over-deleted; please understand that the article has been a bit of a junk-magnet, as fortean topics often are. If these creatures are related to the Chupacabra, just use the refs from the other article -- yes, they do need to be repeated independently here, because the claims are different, and because each article stands alone (otherwsie, bit by bit, Wikipedia creeps into being its own reference -- it already happens that we cite websites that origianlly cited wikipedia).
The claim that these other two creatures are versions of the chupacabra is quite a significant one; it suggests lines of diffusion. Or that the things are similar; that would suggest biological connection (if the cryptid turned out to be an actual animal). That would be different from establishing the fact that another formerly colonized and Spanish-inheriting area on the other side of the globe also has cryptids. The article on Sasquatch needs to mention the similar Yeti, but it's no place to talk about the jackalope, even though both are claimed for the United States.
Yes, we need to cite everything,and there's really no difficulty in citing the fact that something is believed-in, without regard to whether the belief is itself warranted by fact; no need to make a Po-Co grievance out of it; the conundrum's familiar in folklore of the dominant western industrialized societies as well; have a look at Urban Legend. I know two Filipinos; they are unfamiliar with any of these terms; tells us nothing much.DavidOaks (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Noted. Sorry, just tired I guess. Long day, heh. New to wikipedia editing and not a regular. No idea that was a vandal-magnet though. Just realized that now after realizing it's semi-protected.
As mentioned, Sigbin was already linked before I did my edits. It wasn't my decision. Nonetheless, we do call the Sigbin chupacabra, especially older folk who still speak Spanish (who are growing rarer every day). Note that chupacabra itself as a name is Spanish and merely means 'goat sucker', making it even more apparent that it is not exclusive and is probably hispanic derived. Hence why I didn't think twice about elaborating on it.
And yes I do think it's is similar to the relationship between the Sasquatch and the Yeti. Closer even. If you strip away all the other conflicting accounts it will boil down to this: Both the Sigbin and the Chupacabra are dog-sized vampire-like 'monsters' preying on the blood of livestock that hop as a primary source of locomotion. That is reason enough to link them. The Peuchen itself merited a mention when its only similarity is that it also sucks blood from livestock and is near geographically, even if physical descriptions are far more different than that of the Sigbin and the Chupacabra (The Peuchen is purportedly a winged snake).
In fact, using your analogy and playing a Sesame Street 'which does not belong' game haha, I'd break it down like this: If the Sasquatch is the Chupacabra, then the Sigbin is the Yeti, and the Peuchen the Jackalope. Based on habits and physical descriptions.
I grew up with these legends (I'm from the southernmost island group - Mindanao, more rural perhaps than the home provinces of the filipinos you know). We even have professional con-men here who go around practicing quack medicine with purported sigbin parts. They 'prove' they have sigbins by showing pictures of albino rabbits or kangaroos to gullible ignorant filipinos to wheedle money out of them for expeditions. Not to mention the gradual mating of Chinese beliefs with native/Hispanic ones bringing about the sub-myth that owning a Sigbin brings good luck, and an even more ridiculous myth that its blood can cure all kinds of illnesses, from cancer to AIDS. These con-men might actually have been a vehicle for further drifting the definitions of the original cryptid introduced perhaps by the Spanish into what they are today. I'm betting they have very similar con-men like that in Latin America as well.
The connection is probably not biological (extremely unlikely that it's a real animal really), but cultural and subsequently attached to local animals (as noted in the Sigbin article and its relation to the cat-fox) or similar folklore. Adopted lore in other words. The origin of the legend may be lost forever though, but it is quite likely that the Spaniards had something to do with disseminating it given that it exists only in regions colonized by imperial Spain. I know of no other cryptid with the same habits. A lot of very weird customs were carried over by the Spaniards to us. And Conquistadores as we all know, are VERY thorough when it comes to cultural brainwashing. We were one of the lucky ones, but you only have to look at our nearest neighbors (Malaysia and Indonesia) and notice the vast difference in our cultures despite being virtually part of one empire a mere few hundred years ago. Our culture is more Latin American than Asian.
Some examples of superstitions shared with Latin America (and Spain): The belief that whistling or sweeping the floors after sunset brings bad luck, dropping a fork means a female visitor will arrive soon, dropping a spoon means a male visitor, jumping over open fires after visiting the cemetery on All Saints' Day to get rid of 'bad spirits', etc. Then there is the demonization of local beliefs as well by the missionaries. Our 'fairy folk' (long sinced transformed to european ideals of the fae), the Diwata, were actually once native gods and goddesses. (Note etymological relationship with Proto-Indo European roots for God deiwo-, modern Dios, Dieu, Divine, Deity, Jupiter, Devi, etc.) The sigbin legend may have originated from something like that and then spread by conquistadores and Spanish colonists as a generic 'demon' to scare natives.
Anyway, hope that's a good enough reason? I will migrate citations when I have the time in the next few days if you have no objections. And yeah, I do try to cite things in my other contributions, except where it is simply impossible - like my own native dialect (not tagalog) which has virtually no written works associated to it). Maybe even add more sources to the Sigbin entry itself to fill in blanks (can't speak for the Peuchen as I know nothing about that personally). If you still object, I'll comply and not revert it again. In the meantime, it's 2 AM here, heh.-Astepintooblivion (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother Jed. Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

folk etymology[edit]

Hi, David. Although I have a lot of opinions and don't mind sharing them (as you've evidently noticed), I'm not sure I have anything useful to contribute — for a couple of reasons. First, my interest in forms of etymology that are conventionally called "false" or "folk" (which I don't regard as synonymous) is focused on what etymology meant in antiquity and the early medieval period, where it was an aspect of antiquarianism and often of "theology." In this sense, it was neither "folk," because it was etymology as practiced by the intellectual elite, nor "false," because it reflected and expressed theories of language or belief systems. (As in this book.) This kind of speculation of course must be distinguished from the aims of scientific linguistics, but can be revealing in its own way. Anyway, I'm not sure any of that is pertinent here.

Which brings me to the second point: it's a massive discussion, and I'm not sure what the issues are. I may watch a while to try to catch up. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

canvassing and edit warring at folk etymology[edit]

I am required to notify you of the following complaint against you. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have reopened this complaint in regards solely to your votestacking. See here.μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
And precisely which votes were stacked? And how was that done? And by whom? To whom? It is one thing to make an accusation. It is another to prove it. Apparently you are unencumbered by actually having read the rule you claim was violated.
You both would do well to rethink your resolute (I would say "stubborn", but I don't want to violate WP:Civility) and I always bear in mind the sage advice of WP:Don't be a dick. I have given up on your folk entymology brouhaha, as there seems to be an intent to go Tilting at windmills, like Don Quixote. A resolution cannot be achieved unilaterally, nor can I impose one. You can stew in your own juice. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

I am sure, DavidOaks, you will be just as glad to hear this complaint has been reopened, however briefly, as I have been to keep writing on the topic.μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Message that concerns you[edit]

I posted a message at User talk:Medeis that might be of interest. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Me too. Bruxism (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks -- I really appreciate the willingness to look over a long and complex disc ussion; I think what it needs most is input from people not heretofore involved. DavidOaks (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hi, I think you could be very helpful at the talk page of Man again. Things have been quiet and the editors that have returned have been polite and trying hard to find images for the collage. I think, gosh I hope, you are the same editor that was at this article before. I am trying hard to get editors to return to this article to finish fixing the collage that has a consensus to rework it. I hope I see you there. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey David, I'm the one mentioned above digging up possible images for the collage. I've been going by the lists of possible alternatives generated last month at the talkpage there. I dug up a few today and am waiting for input from other users before I go any further. My general plan has been to get consensus on a set of 10 to 12 images, and then get consensus on placement of those images into the collage format. Pop in any time and see what you think. Regards, Heiro 21:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


I am very interested in the following passage that appears in "Oral Tradition":

This approach, like McLuhan's, kept the field open not just to the study of aesthetic culture but to the way physical and behavioral artifacts of oral societies are used to store, manage and transmit knowledge, so that oral tradition provides methods for investigation of cultural differences, other than the purely verbal, between oral and literate societies.

Can I get a more precise citation for this statement? Are you paraphrasing Ong here? If so, would you be kind enough to direct me to the text (page numbers). If not, whom and where?

It's a very interesting and controversial idea - basically, that cultural objects have biographies - that appears in selected other pockets of Anthropology (e.g. Nick Thomas, Appadurai and Kopytoff, especially Alfred Gell), but I wasn't aware of it's occurrence in Ong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tartiss (talkcontribs) 13:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Resilient Barnstar Hires.png The Resilient Barnstar
For consistency and excellence of contribution over a very long time 7&6=thirteen () 18:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Albatross (Big Wreck album).jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Albatross (Big Wreck album).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cupstone7.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cupstone7.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Lawn jockey.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lawn jockey.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 05:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Vp 1883.gif missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)