User talk:DigbyDalton

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

Hello, DigbyDalton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png   Introduction
 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia
Crystal package utilities.png   How to edit a page
Crystal khelpcenter.png   Help
Crystal Clear app ktip.png   Tips
Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png   How to write a great article
Crystal Clear app kedit.svg   Manual of Style
Nuvola apps konquest.svg   Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Abductive (reasoning) 02:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:AVanLoonHouse.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:AVanLoonHouse.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:JanVanLoonHouse.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:JanVanLoonHouse.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnny & Dorsey Burnette[edit]

Hello DigbyDalton, I reverted your first edit in the Rockabilly article because you gave information that was wrong:

1. Hillbilly boogie is not the same as Rockabilly. Hillbilly Boogie, or COuntry Boogie, was country music borrowing elements from the pre-war boogie woogie music, for example the simple chord pattern, the up-tempo style and so on. The part of the piano, which played fast solos during the songs, was often replaced by fiddle, steel guitar, guitar or even bass solos.

2. The name "Rockabilly" does not derive from the Burnettes' sons. Billboard used the term "rock-a-billy" as early as 1956 to describe this type of music (first in the review of Ruckus Tyler's Fabor record). Bill Flagg also used the word "rockbillie" to describe his music from the early 1950s on. The Johnny Burnette Trio's single "Rock-Billy Boogie" was released in 1957, when the term was already used in the music industry.

I'm happy when somebody edits the Rockabilly article and adds information (because much of the text there isn't relevant or wrong), but please only give accurate info and reference it. Regards, The yodeling cowboy (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Rock Billy Boogie" was released in the late 50s but was written in 1953 when the two kids were born. This is according to quotes make by Rocky and Billy Burnette in the 1986 PBS show which is being shown on PBS in frequent rotation this week, please try to catch it. The Burnettes were playing in Memphis during that time period and 1953 was back when Sun Records was still doing black artists and no actual rockabilly. They go into detail on the 1953 coining of the term Rockabilly after the Burnette song. Try to watch it or buy the video. It goes into extreme detail and interviews all the rockabilly artists who were still alive in 1986, and some Brits. DigbyDalton (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be self-promotion but Billy Burnette is making the same claim on his web site now. http://www.billyburnette.net/index2.html Thank you. DigbyDalton (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "rockabilly" was rarely used after 1958 and later mainly used by the Rockabilly Revival in the late 1970s and 1980s. The Burnettes were playing country music at the time they wrote "Rock Billy Boogie", listen to their Von recordings as the "Burnett Rhythm Rangers". An unpublished song cannot be the source of a genre's name - it has to catch the attention of the public, the press ect. And when "Rock Billy Boogie" was published in 1957, the term "rockabilly" was already invented and used in various forms and by various people. So as you said, I think it's self-promotion by Billy Burnette and the Rockabilly revivalists. Regards, The yodeling cowboy (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont see a huge difference between hillbilly boogie and rockabilly. It was a gradual shift, there was no sudden event or revolution. It started after the war, country boogies were extremely common, starting around 1946. By the late 40's almost all country singers had a boogie or two in their arsenals. The bit about Elvis in 1954 Sun is crap, Bill Haley was playing rockabilly for years before then. Maybe that was Sun's first rockabilly record but they are tooting their own horns. Skeeter Davis recorded "Rock A Bye Boogie" as the Davis Sisters and it was a major best seller on RCA in 1953 and that is a major label with tons of radio air play. Of course that is rockabilly, and it was nothing new. Tennessee Ernie Ford did Shotgun Boogie way before then and it was also a huge chart success, tell me how that is not rockabilly, and it was nothing new. Of course it was not 1956 style rockabilly, it was more primitive, but not enough different to warrant a paradigm shift. So I don't see a huge paradigm shift. The Burnettes sang country music in 1953, and of course that included some boogies because everybody did boogies back then. Don't point to a non boogie and claim that it means they didn't do other songs that WERE boogies. If you did not hear them play RockBilly Boogie live in 1953, don't point to a slow country blues they recorded and claim they played their boogies the same way. Every band had slow-dance tunes and fast dance tunes. I'm sure their live 1953 act included some rockers. DigbyDalton (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tennessee Ernie, Bill Haley and others did not play rockabilly. You have to look at the definition of rockabilly that was invented by music jounalists and experts. Sparse instrumentation (slap bass, electric guitar, rhythm guitar), R&B or country cover, crazy vocals - that's rockabilly. Tennessee Ernie's "Shot Gun Boogie" is, as you said, a country boogie, but no rockabilly (his vocals are country-ish, no slap bass, boogie steel guitar solos). The border between both styles might be unclear, but there is one. If you say there is no border, it's your own opinion and you have to document this with books, expert's opinions ect. The yodeling cowboy (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of rockabilly is poor. Slap bass was used before rockabilly. Maddox brothers used it and they were hillbilly boogie. Bill Haley used it and you say he wasn't rockabilly. Slap bass applies to upright acoustic bass but rockabilly often uses electric bass. Sparse instrumentation? Hillbilly boogie almost never had drums but rockabilly usually did in the beginning and always did later. So drums is part of it. You need to define the rhythm. Rockabilly is a boogie woogie rhythm with 8 beats to the bar, but instead of all 8 beats with the same instrument like a piano solo, then a guitar solo, etc, as you found in hillbilly boogie, you had 8 beats to the bar played by rhythm guitar and bass playing 4 each, but alternating, which makes them 8. The rhythm guitar and bass are playing 4/4 time each, but taking turns a half-beat apart, making 8 beats and doubles the tempo. The drummer playing on the same beat as the rhythm guitar, only twice per bar, on the 2nd and 6th beat, which is the "backbeat," the bass being off the rhythm guitar by a half beat makes it a boogie rhythm. It has nothing to do with slapping the bass, what it means is the bass is a step off which doubles the tempo from 4 to the bar to 8, exactly the same thing boogie piano players do. The right hand on the piano goes 4 to the bar, the left hand is also 4 to the bar, but off by a half beat making 8 beats which doubles the tempo. I hope this explains it. Rockabilly is a style of boogie woogie. For that matter, rock and roll is boogie woogie. If you don't believe me ask any musician. DigbyDalton (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is your own opinion. Ask any musicologist - there is a difference between country boogie and rockabilly. Leading country music/rockabilly music journalists such as Charles K. Wolfe (who sadly passed away recently), Craig Morrison or Ivan M. Tribe describe country boogie as a "country response to the boogie-woogie fad in jazz and popular music" (Morrison, "Go Cat Go!", page 26) and explain that it is a style of country music and only a forerunner of rockabilly. Morrison adds that country boogie musicians unlike rockabillies showed their abilities in the songs, played well-arranged and good organized. There are much more musicians taking part in the arrangement than in rockabilly (fiddle, steel guitar, bass, piano, electric guitar, rhythm guitar, rarely drums who were brushed) and rockabilly is just the opposit. By the way: rockabilly mainly uses no electric bass, it is played with upright bass. Listen to Presley's early work, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Charlie Feathers, the Burnettes (!)... and so on. Still today, neo-rockabilly groups use an upright bass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The yodeling cowboy (talkcontribs) 18:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I described the difference in my last post. It depends on how the boogie is orchestrated. Left hand and right hand on a piano is boogie woogie. Bass playing left hand of piano, rhythm guitar playing right hand of the piano, that is rockabilly. It makes absolutely no difference whether you use an upright bass or an electric bass. I don't pay attention to musicologists or music writers unless they are also musicians. Not one single one of them knows what "slap bass" means, yet they always use the term because they are copying other writers. Rockabilly is defined by the beat which is as I described. DigbyDalton (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're right about the beat but it's not the only thing that qualifies music to be rockabilly (which would be very unprecise!). Apart from the musical attributes, a rockabilly record is also defined by the social and musical background of the musicians (I'm talking about 1950s rockabilly artists, who invented the genre): the band was previously a country band that mixed up C&W and R&B or followed in the wake of Elvis Presley, the song material is either an R&B/C&W cover or a song written by the singer/band, the record was made for a rather small southerhn label and so on. Musical, social and other attritubes can also be found in a table Terry Gordon made for his online database Rockin' Country Style, which aims to include Country & Western Rock & Roll and related records (not only rockabilly!) [1], so every rock & roll record that was influenced by C&W. Bill Haley's Holyday and Essex singles showed a strong country influence because Haley played country for years, but as you will see in the table, his sound isn't the best example for rockabilly. The yodeling cowboy (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

None of those things have anything to do with music. Social background of the musicians? That's a load of doo doo. Plenty of people with the same social background don't even play music. You can't define music by the way people dress or their social background, which differs little or at all from the social background of the people who played hillbilly boogie which you just said is totally not rockabilly. The best rockabilly artists are the British of the 1970's like Nick Lowe and Rockpile. Look at their social background. The record has to be made for a small country label? What the fuck does the size of the label have to do with the music? RCA Victor had tons of rockabilly. You are full of poop. I'll look at that table you mention because it sounds interesting. In the mean time listen to this record that was recorded in 1950 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKqLJHQS-Cw and tell me why it's not rockabilly. It has the slap bass and boogie alternating between bass and guitar that I DEFINE as rockabilly. Tell me from a MUSICAL point of view why it's not rockabilly. And I don't give a rat's arse how they dress or their social background.DigbyDalton (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep cool Digby. You're right - these things haven't to do with music directly but these circumstances influenced the music a lot. If you say Nick Lowe and Rockpile are the best rockabilly artists, then I can't live with that but it's your own opinion and is not relevant here for Wikipedia. You have to source your statements if you want them to be included in the article. The Arkie Shibley song comes close to very early rockabilly, but it's on the one hand too much boogie, on the other hand it has a distinctive "rural hillbilly" feel. The rockabilly music that is defined as rockabilly lost that. Besides, I can hear no slap bass - there's a "chop" (similar to bluegrass music) which is created by the rhythm guitar, but no slap bass. However, I wouldn't define this as rockabilly - you define it as rockabilly. It's ok, but we won't come forth. If you edit articles having to do with this subject, please don't write down your own opinion and musical tastes. Source your statements, be neutral and I will accept that, that's how Wikipedia goes. Best wishes, The yodeling cowboy (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Coyotes and Wolves[edit]

You say you "find it hard to believe that many estimates use a wolf-coyote divergence date of 1 million years since coyotes evolved from jackals, not wolves." All modern canines are descended from Cynodictus which over time dissolved into Tomarctus Foxes branched off from this line, becoming a distinct species around 10 million years ago. The other modern canids (wolves, jackals, coyotes, dingoes, dogs) developed as distinct species at varying times, and it is believed that what we now know as wolves and coyotes diverged around a million years ago. Marj (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's impossible. The coyote has existed in North America for 1.81 million years, the ancestors of the grey wolf were in Asia and Europe at that time, and there were no grey wolves in North America until 125,000 years ago. The divergence time must have been quite earlier because coyotes evolved from the golden jackal or other jackal, who migrated to N America 1.81 million years ago and evolved into the coyote. By this information the most recent common ancestor of both the coyote and the wolf must have been way before then. Definitely not 1 million years ago. More like 3 million. Check out this database http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=44854&is_real_user=1 DigbyDalton (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting! But..., is that the citation you wanted to give to support these statements? It seems to be simple a list of Canis species. Please if you would some clear citation in support of what you are saying in terms of the shape of the Canis branch on the Tree of Life. Chrisrus (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope this brings a smile to your face[edit]

SwisterTwister (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:2ndBritannica.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:2ndBritannica.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

...for your contibutions to coyote and Hare Indian dog! Chrisrus (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Coyote (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to Native American

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation[edit]

Wikipedia uses logical punctuation instead of the traditional US version. Please see MOS:LQ, thanks. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Coyote[edit]

Do you have any modern, reliable, and preferably in-depth sources saying that Hare Indian Dogs were indeed coyotes? Otherwise, this is very, very dubious. Canadian Eskimo Dogs are now known not to have any substantial recent wolf origins from a genetic study, despite many naturalists having thought so in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Encyclopedia Brittanica of 1875 says that the Hare Indian Dog "seems to bear the same relation" to the coyote the Eskimo Dog, it says, certainly does to the wolf. The Brittanica said that it was generally agreed that dogs had many origins, a position held by many even a few decades ago, but now discredited by genetic studies. —innotata 22:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any modern, reliable sources to say this is dubious, or are you just saying that yourself? My source is reliable and in-depth, but is not modern. No modern research can possibly study an extinct breed, we are at the mercy of scholars who lived among them at the time. Sir Doctor Richardson was not only a doctor from Edinburgh University, one of the most prestigious colleges in the world, but he was knighted for his work in his study on nature. He lived among the Indians during a 20 year period in northern Canada, he saw many of these dogs, and he even owned one. This is plenty reliable enough information for me. What can a "modern" study do compared to this, besides make some hand-waving guesses and say things like "this is dubious." Why do you say this is dubious? Because white people have not domesticated the coyote? White people have been here only 400 years, the Indians have been here 15,000 years. Plenty long enough to domesticate an American canine species which is closely related to the wolf, which is the most highly domesticated animal on earth. Dogs were domesticated from wolves. If we can domesticate an animal as ferocious as a wolf, how much more easily can we do the same to coyotes? Why do you say it's dubious? We have domesticated cats, sheep, cows, horses, falcons, sea lions, dolphins, and we even domesticated a polecat into a ferret. I don't understand why you think it's dubious. Are you a coyote hunter? Because coyote hunters live by the principle that coyotes are evil and sent from satan, and for them to learn of a domesticated coyote that can befriend humans and be used as pets would burst their whole "I kill the evil coyote" bubble. I live in the Adirondacks and am surrounded by ignorant rednecks who think that way. It is very sad how they think. Most of them have very low IQ's.

Hare Indian dogs were brought to Europe in the 1820's, some used as pets and some put in zoos. Maybe if we find a mounted specimen we can do a DNA test on it. Apart from that, there is nothing a "modern" source can do that can improve on the work of Sir Doctor Richardson. Any "modern" study would be based on inferior knowledge, because a modern researcher would not be as informed as Sir Doctor Richardson, as he saw them when they actually existed.

Indian sled dogs, such as the Eskimo dog, Malamute and greenland dogs, as well as Siberian sled dogs like the Husky, and European sheep dogs like the Belgian Sheepdog and German Shepherds, and many other wolf-type breeds, are deliberately cross-bred with wolves to make them stronger. It is a practice which is carried on to this day by Eskimos. Indians brought dogs over from Asia when they came to America 15,000 years ago, and crossed their dogs with wolves. This is a widely known fact. Golden Jackals, which are almost identical to coyotes and are basically the Asian version of the coyote, have been domesticated in Asia and have been cross-bred with dogs to produce new breeds such as the Sulimov Dog. It seems inevitable that the Indians when they arrived from Asia crossed some of their dogs with coyotes and domesticated that breed over thousands of years. I actually have 3 friends that have Coydog hybrids and keep them as pets in their houses. I have one friend who has not one but two foxes in her house. One is a domesticated Russian silver fox, the other is a tame wild red fox raised from a kit. The red fox is named Steve, and is just as much a house pet as a kitty cat. I'm sure that would anger fox hunters and make them say "This is very very dubious" just like you did. I suspect you are a coyote hunter and it would burst your bubble to think coyotes are anything but evil and in need of destruction. DigbyDalton (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I know that it is not believed that dogs have or had major origins outside Eurasian wolves any more; this is discussed and cited at pages about dogs and wolves such the one I linked. I've heard about domesticated foxes; I'm not anything like a coyote hunter, though this should not be relevant. Given how many old ideas about dog descent are no longer held, something this extraordinary should at least have been discussed with reference to Richardson's observations as likely recently. —innotata 02:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We know the Sulimov Dog is a hybrid between a dog and a Golden Jackal. We also know from DNA studies that the latter is essentially the same as a coyote. From Sir Richardson's undisputed writings we learn that the Hare Indian dog was smaller than a coyote, had a voice which was "very much the same as" one, it did not bark, but howled like a coyote, that the sled dogs chased after them as food (as wolves do to coyotes), but could not catch them because they were too fast (like coyotes), that it rubbed its back against a man's hand in a cat-like fashion to show affection (like coyotes do), that the head was long and had a slender nose and high erect ears.....I read this and see nothing but coydog spelled out here in black and white. I don't understand what your dispute it. READ MY LIPS. The Hare Indians had coydogs. DigbyDalton (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the coyote article to read "domesticated coyote or dog-coyote hybrid" to remove all dispute. You MUST believe it was at least a hybrid. DigbyDalton (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You can see at pages like origin of the domestic dog, Canadian Eskimo Dog, and gray wolf some discussion of what I've been saying. I don't see anything in the sources of golden jackal that says the species is most closely related to the coyote, just that it may be closer to wolves and the coyote in general than to the other jackals. I've given the reason we need better sources: there are many breeds of dogs that were formerly thought to have origins in jackals or wolves (especially the sled dogs), that are now thought to not have any substantial origins other than the ancestral domestic dog population. (You haven't named any other than those said in the articles I linked to not have any substantial hybrid origin, and the modern creations.) Clearly our understanding of canine evolution, as with the Eskimo Dogs I mentioned, has changed over time. If this is still considered credible there should be more at least be recent sources that mention it.
As far as it being a hybrid: We can't just rely on original research, we need reliable sources. Now there isn't any source old or new that states anything quite like what is said in the article. It also is not perfectly clear this is the case: I wouldn't be surprised if it is now believed the situation was more likely to have been the same as with the Canadian Eskimo Dog. You added the lines, so can you find better sources? —innotata 03:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Please either get this idea about Hare Indian Dog published somewhere so we can cite it, find it in a citable place, or remove it from the article. We can't say that it was a coydog or domesticated coyote and then cite it to USER:DigbyDalton, no matter how strong your rhetoric. Chrisrus (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I ref'd a modern source and can put more on if you wish.DigbyDalton (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you use reliable sources that actually state that the dogs were (likely) descended from coyotes? The source doesn't state what you cite very strongly, and it any case isn't science but oral history and anecdote. —innotata 16:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You have crossed over the line into the realm of edit war, at this point. One source is too old, one is not scientific enough, nothing is good enough for you, and your only reason is, you think "it's very very dubious." It's not dubious at all, but is in fact extremely believable. Dubious that Indians crossed their dogs with coyotes? Why? At this point anything I do will be a waste of time because you will just dispute it again. The evidence I have presented is overwhelming and still not enough. I didn't write the article on Hare Indian Dogs anyway, it was written by dozens of Wikipedia editors going back several years. I merely linked it to the coyote article. I am asking you to PLEEEEASE stop. You are not improving Wikipedia at this point, just trying to win an edit war. The evidence I've presented is convincing, reliable, scientific, and undisputed. Please stop DigbyDalton (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been edit warring in the sense of changing things back and forth: I'd like to resolve this purely by discussing it. I disagree that what you have presented is anything like convincing, scientific, etc. so far; I don't think your addition should remain in the article as it stands, stating so strongly there was substantial coyote origins for the Hare Indian Dog, without adequate sourcing. Should I ask for other opinions at somewhere like WT:WikiProject Mammals, or would you like to? —innotata 02:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources I have cited are perfectly adequate. If you want to dispute this information, you must cite some reliable sources that demonstrate that the Indians dogs, especially the Hare Indian Dogs, DIDN'T have any coyote in them, since all the information about them, in all the reference works which mention them, from 1820 until now, say they did. You seem to be the first person on earth to ever dispute this information, so if you have evidence then please bring it forward. Otherwise, please remain silent. All sources, from 1820 to the present, that mention Indian dogs, say they derive from coyotes. The burden is on you to prove otherwise. Until now, the only evidence you have presented is your own opinion that "it's very very dubious." Says who? Who says it's dubious? You? Can we just state that traditional information is dubious and cite Innotata as the source? DigbyDalton (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think the sources are good enough—not reliable enough for an extraordinary claim or old in a field in which has changed—and we need to have good sources to keep, not remove content that is questionable. I'm guessing you can find sources that say this one way or another. —innotata 16:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hare Indian Dog[edit]

It's an intersting theory, Dalton. I think it's original to you, though. But it could be right. Let's look into it:

Desmond Morris's respected reference, Dogs, has thousands of breeds and is my best dog breed book. It doesn't say they were domesticated coyotes or coywolves, don't get me wrong. But what it does say about them isn't inconsistant with them being part C.latrans. It's still believable to me. Are there any specimins existant? It says they were used for fur. I wonder if any museum has one of those garments.

Who wrote this, Audobon? http://www.audubonimages.org/q81-155/132____________hare_indian_dog.htm. It starts out calling it "CANIS FAMILIARIS VAR. LAGOPUS"), basically saying it's a type, variety, or breed of the familiar dog. It says that the world leading expert at the time was John Richardson, who is credited for all the information in the Audobon book about it. And it says this:

From the size of this animal it might be supposed by those who are desirous of tracing all the Dogs to some neighbouring wolf, hyena, jackal, or fox, that it had its origin either from the prairie wolf or the red fox, or a mixture of both. The fact, however, that these wolves and foxes never associate with each other in the same vicinity, and never have produced an intermediate variety, or, that we are aware of, have ever produced a hybrid in their wild state, and more especially the fact that the prairie wolf, as stated by RICHARDSON, does not exist within hundreds of miles of the region where this Dog is bred, must lead us to look to some other source for its origin. Its habits, the manner in which it carries its tail, its colour, and its bark, all differ widely from those of the prairie wolf.

Well, so it's not a mix of fox and coyote, which as suspected at the time turns out to be impossible because of the chromosomes are too different. That doesn't mean it wasn't domesticated coyote or coywolf or coydog, all of which are known to evolve.

That there were no coyotes in the area at that time doesn't disprove the theory, because it also says they had been proven to move more than 900 miles running alongside a dogslead in the snow, following their people. So their being far from the place of origin is no surprise.

The tail, color and bark are also the differences between domestic dogs and wolves, so that doesn't disprove the theory either. You'd expect the tail, ears, color, to change when you domesitate a canid. Even domesticated silver foxes bark, but wild ones don't.

But the fact that Audobon/Richardson do address the coyote theory must mean that they'd heard it or thought of it themselves just to dismiss it, which they do when they call it "C.l.familiaris var." That's their conclusion.

Richardson had seen several, but not really all that many actually. But Audobon had just one specimin from which he painted this extraordinary picture: It's striped! Ok, not as striped as a zebra or a tiger, but when's the last time you saw a striped dog? Never, that's when. Ok, some brindle dogs approach stripedness, but not really.

Now audobon was a great taxonomist so if he saw the teeth and bones and pelt and said it was a dog, we would tend to believe him. But we know he was primarily a bird specialist and so might have missed it.

Where is the specimin audobon had? If there were just a piece of DNA existing, we could prove or disprove the "Canis latrans domesticus," if you will pardon my coinage, theory. What you should do is to contact the Audobon Society or some such and see if they know where if it still exists and where. Then somehow get the proper genetic tests done and bam, just write it up and you're famous and we'll have something to cite. Don't give up! Oh, but on the other hand, your debate with Inno? Give that up. That's not what I meant. I meant don't give up trying to prove your Hare Indian Coydog theory. It's a very good one. But you can't use Wikipedia to publish original research, he's right. But you may be right about something probably more interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talkcontribs) 00:25, 22 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Interesting, about Audubon's book. Let me say I'm not bent on having Wikipedia say Hare Indian Dogs are descended from coyotes. So if you can find more on this, or research and get this published as Chrisrus suggests!, that would be great. —innotata 16:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll work on finding more references. But I'm not publishing anything myself because this is NOT my own research. DigbyDalton (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind if I removed the text from coyote until you can find anything more? —innotata 15:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I inserted the word "possibly" and explained in the edit that modern DNA studies have not been done to confirm it. But the evidence we do have is believable enough to mention the possibility of this interesting breed of domestic coydog. Please leave it with the change I made, or add clarification of your own. It would be detrimental to delete it outright because future research can be done on the topic. DigbyDalton (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll edit it down, to clearly attribute the theory to Richardson and state that the breed being a hybrid is a possibility as well. But this still is way too speculative, as you haven't found any modern scientific sources, and eventually I'd like to remove it or shorten it further, if you can't provide anything more. —innotata 17:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please use the "Show preview" button[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to S, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. —Coroboy (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank youDigbyDalton (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your repeated entry to the Van Morrison article[edit]

Hi DigbyDalton, your entry to the Van Morrison article on the 2004 release of 17 of the "revenge songs" in 2004, is not a valid one for several reasons. There were previous releases of the songs but on European bootleg labels, they have not been officially released by Bang and certainly never officially santioned by Van Morrison. Do not continue to make that entry into the article. If nothing else, it is n/a, which usually stands for "not applicable", by the way. Please see the Van Morrison talk page. Agadant (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have documented evidence that the masters were not sold by Bang to a European concern? Please cite a third-party reference that shows it was bootlegged. By the way, bootlegged recordings are always stolen from existing recordings, and if no records were released by Bang, then where did the European record company get them? The masters must have been sold, therefore it's not a bootleg. The sound quality shows they were taken from the masters......since all that existed were masters, obviously. Your claim that Van Morrison never officially sanctioned them is wrong. By recording them for Bang, under the terms of his contract, he sanctioned them. He knew quite well he was playing them for a record company. Just a word to the wise....when musicians go into the recording studio of a record company and make recordings, under contract, they sort of know what the record company plans to do with them. The discography in the Wikipedia article is incomplete, thanks to you. DigbyDalton (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I put this on the VM talk page but you must have not read it. [2] Excerpt: "Never released by Bang, long available only on bootleg tapes".... If you want to write an article about this or any of the unofficial albums, that is up to you. It does not belong in the Van Morrison article which is being maintained as a WP:GA article. Agadant (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

History of the telescope[edit]

You may not have noticed but your addition to this article was actually redundant. William Herschel's giant telescope, AKA the 40-foot telescope, is covered down the article a ways with almost the same picture. I have integrated the material, although the picture needs work. BTW yes, Herschel did make multiple mirrors for these telescopes, they were metal, hard to make, tarnished easy, one had to be swapped out while the old one was polished, and sometimes got so screwed up they had to be chucked and replaced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the other illustration. I'm glad you replaced it because it was low resolution and actually was inaccurate. The 1797 Britannica illustration is a far better graphic. As for the claim that he used his 20 foot telescope for many years, and merely replaced the mirror, it can't be true. A telescope with an 18 inch mirror and 20 foot tube can't be turned into a 48 inch telescope with a 40 foot tube. You would have to replace the tube with one 40 feet long and much greater diameter, and with the great increase in weight of the tube, change all the pulleys, the building that houses it, the staircase...in short you would need a new telescope. You can't turn a Toyota into a Cadillac by changing the motor. DigbyDalton (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You are mis-reading it: William Herschel's 20 foot telescope and William Herschel's 40 foot telescope are two entirely different telescopes - see William Herschel#Herschel's telescopes. He replaced the 18 inch mirror in the 20 foot telescope many times with new 18 inch mirrors. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No kidding!DigbyDalton (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

40-foot telescope image[edit]

I have uploaded an updated version of your image to Commons (with credits given). It was adjust to fix exposure/lighting and is a separate file to make the description name search work better. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK cool I'll check it out. The original is just a scan I made at home from my personal copy of the 1797 Britannica. Glad you were able to fix the contrast, etc. Good work. DigbyDalton (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records[edit]

There is a discussion in the Talk:CBS Records page which I'm asking you to get involved in. As you may know, the former CBS Records label is now Columbia Records and the former CBS Records company is now Sony Music. Someone wants to add more material about the former CBS Records in the current CBS Records article which is not connected in any way with the old CBS Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Encyclopædia Britannica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Thomson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Down the Road a Piece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brownsville Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring in articles under ARB decision[edit]

Hi, This is an informal observation that you appear to have been edit warring.

After being reverted, please get WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page, by following the talk page guidelines. In addition, any articles related to climate change are subject to discretionary sanctions by the admins. See the big arbitration case, including (A) the examples of problem behavior for a few years ago and (B) the arbitrators decision, at WP:ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is a second head's up about WP:ARBCC. I noticed you collapsed a perfectly reasonable comment by WMC, things which were critical of your remarks and that I might have said myself if he hadn't beaten me to it. You did this after you announced you would have no part in trying to improve the article (after several eds politely requested that your provide RSs for your opinions and state some specific article improvement suggestions.) Coming back to stick a finger in an eye after announcing you would not try to improve the article is battleground behavior. If you continue to disrupt the article talk page, I intend to request that an uninvolved administrator give you the formal warning and log your name in the "notifications" section of the decision, pursuant to the enforcement section of that case. If WMC's choice of words annoyed you, there are plenty of avenues to select from, without engaging in talk page battleground behavior yourself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, NewsAndEventsGuy. WMC collapsed the entire talking point with a finger in MY eye, posting that I am a child "throwing toys out of a pram," and his comments towards me before then were totally insulting, and yet you back that kind of commentary? For you to say I'm guilty of edit warring when I never even edited the article but was only DISCUSSING editing it on the article's TALK PAGE is just plain stupid. I read the global warming article, and it is beyond salvation. It's not a scientific article at all, but a left wing political rant disguised as science. Information in the article is either not supported by the references given or is actually contradicted by them, and most of the references are to political bodies such as the IPCC. It's obviously written by political activists. No wonder there is a history of arbitration and dirty politics on the editorial staff. The reason I didn't help edit that article is the same reason I don't go to Mecca and preach against Mohammed. Don't talk to me anymore and make your insulting threats about giving me a formal warning. Go away and never speak to me again. Your comments to me have been disrespectful from the start. In other words, just shut up. I expect not to hear from you again. DigbyDalton (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I thought the "pram" remark by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) was (A) factually accurate and (B) phrased to strike unnecessarily low. However, as your own edits show, WMC already has formal notice (due to his former ban) that battleground behavior in the climate pages is a no-no under ARBCC, so there was no point in my cautioning him. As for your justifications, two wrongs do not make a right and you should have instead engaged in constructive dispute resolution. As for my remarks on this page, please see assume good faith. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Two wrongs? Really? I deleted and hid his battleground comment. That is a wrong? Factually accurate? Really? Toys in a pram? I refuse to discuss science with people until I see their college transcripts. If I see that they have taken chemistry, physics, biology, geology, advanced physics, and many math courses, and got all A's in them, then we can talk. If the only science I see in the transcript is political science, and maybe an environmental "science" course that they got a C in, then I'll throw my toys out of the pram. That's why I'm not going to help correct that radical politics article disguised as science. In my day, science was for scientists. Now, anybody who can pronounce "carbon footprint" is a scientist. It's like talking about science to scifi fans. It's like talking about medicine to a clerk in a health food store who says freezing milk will destroy the enzymes. Like a musician explaining jazz to a deaf person. I'd like to correct the errors but I know anything I do will be reverted unless I increase the alarmism. Any alarmist with a computer will flock to Wikipedia and start shouting EARTH WILL TURN INTO VENUS UNLESS WE TAX THE POWER COMPANY, and the only thing I can do it take my baseball and go home. DigbyDalton (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please use proper templates[edit]

Hello.

To mark an unreferenced sentence in the article lead, please use {{citation needed (lead)}} instead of {{cn}} – and only when the tag applies.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Okee yupper

DigbyDalton (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice[edit]

Looks good (I knew your first edit was correct, thanks for looking up a source to go with it.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for making sure the facts are the facts. It's all good.

I'm sure that at Vostok when the temperature is -127℉ the H2O percent is even less, but I couldn't find a source and can't speak Russian.DigbyDalton (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wonder how water vapor compares to grains of atmospheric vodka down there? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but it's below the triple point of CO2 so the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere down there freezes into dry ice. Vodka would be nice on the "rocks" DigbyDalton (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just double checked. At the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2, which is .4 millibars (400 ppm), the freezing point of CO2 at that pressure is -84℃. So, there is no dry ice in Antarctica. DigbyDalton (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Double checked again. -84℃ is -119℉ so there might be a little at -127 DigbyDalton (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

IPCC[edit]

Hi, regarding your recent edit please take a look at the IPCC's own site where it is stated:

  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC. The work of the IPCC is guided by a set of principles and procedures.

Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Add: this link is also relevant and confirms what's stated at the IPCC's site. Gaba (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oops, I just deleted undeserved comments I made about edit warring, which did not occur after all. Digby, thanks for working Gaba's RS into the text, and apologies I didn't grasp that third edit correctly at first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Apology not accepted. That was beyond absurd.DigbyDalton (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:AGFNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
My talk page is semi-protected so card carrying members of the communist party cannot contribute to it. This means you, William M. Connolley, etc. So buzz off and don't ever come back.DigbyDalton (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Deciduous[edit]

The term deciduous has a very general meaning, referring to any plant parts which are shed. Most plants have deciduous characteristics. Therefore the "deciduous" characteristics of Pinus strobus and Tsuga canadensis are not remarkable. Since the more specific meaning of deciduous refers to plants which lose all foliage each winter, defining Pinus strobus and Tsuga canadensis as deciduous is misleading. I have rewritten the captions.Famartin (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The term can be used as an adjective but we can go with abscission. What you say is not remarkable might be more remarkable to you if you went to your car one autumn morning and found 2 inches of pine needles on the windshield, as I did yesterday. They don't just turn yellow as they age, they stay green for two full seasons and suddenly turn yellow and fall, just like deciduous trees. The ground is covered with needles now. Only the current year's needles stay green on the tree.DigbyDalton (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please self revert, go to talk, and maybe consider joining me at WP:THIRD[edit]

Hi,

At Hurricane Sandy you

which I reverted since it was not in the RS, and so you

  • Added it again after the RS and with some tweaking and a couple proposed RSs of its own

which I reverted under WP:OR, WP:PEACOCK, WP:POV and generally "wrong section" for that info

What you have not done is start a talk page thread to discuss my reverts, as you are expected to do under WP:BRD. Please self-revert your most recent addition and start such a thread on the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


No. It's not original research, it's not posturing, and it's not point of view. It's an indisputable fact and does not need further discussion or a talk page. The tide was 5 feet, sea level rise was one foot. People can read these facts and get an accurate appraisal of the situation. I know you want to hide the tide, to make it look like global warming was more of a cause than it actually was. I know why too. But some people want to know the actual facts, the truth, and the science, and not the political spin. These are the facts and I will not edit them out. I do not spin. I am a scientist and only care about the truth. DigbyDalton (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The tide was five feet; question.... how much flooding would have been averted by a five foot tide coming in from an ocean that was one foot lower overall? Do you suppose this difference is irrevelant to the residents and business owners who would not have been flooded if the surge had come in on a sea that was still at pre-industrial sea level? Methinks this is not a trivial distinction to those people. But in any case, we really should get back to WP:AGF, being WP:CIVIL, working to WP:FOC and for the third time I direct your attention to WP:ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to read ARBCC because I already know that the communists have taken over the Global Warming article on Wikipedia, and all articles relating to it, and there is nothing I can do about it. That's why no actual scientists ever read it or use it for anything, and it's why I don't care about it, and why I didn't bother trying to fix it. I'm a scientist and I have other sources. But I do like Wikipedia and use it for general information, and believe that it's accurate in the vast majority of its articles. What bothers me is when I look up Hurricane Sandy and find the communists have infiltrated that article with more of their global warming bullshizzle, about how it was caused by global warming, when in reality it was a 13 foot storm surge that hit during a 5 foot high tide, which adds up to 18 feet, and some cretin mentions that sea levels have risen almost a foot in 100 years thereby making Sandy a superstorm. So the damage was not caused by the 18 feet rise in sea level, it was the 1 extra foot, and then he or she rants about how this hurricane was caused by carbon dioxide. I don't have to read this. Are you aware that sea levels began rising at the current rate in the mid-1800s when humans had not even started using petroleum, and there has been no acceleration in the rise in 150 years unless you read the fudged Church and White "broken cue stick" graph where they merge satellite altimeter data with tide gauge data to fabricate a sudden increase in sea level rise in 1992? Yes, that's what they go by. Sea levels rose at 2mm per year for 150 years until 1992 and then suddenly it's 3 mm? I do not kid you. It's a broken cue stick, worse than a hockey stick. Tide gauges all over the world show linear rise that has not changed in 150 years. So global warming (as evidenced by the ocean, the world's great thermometer), has been going on for 150 years. Glaciers have been melting for 150 years also, we have all the photos. Swiss Alp photos from the 1860's compared to 1910 show glacier retreat. The CO2 level was the same 150 years ago as it was before the industrial revolution. Therefore it was not caused by CO2. All the scientists I know are aware of it. It really bothers me that people use the environment to promote their political agenda and that the left wing crackpots (who got this way smoking crack and pot) are in charge of climate science. Look at the very first graph on the top of the global warming page. See the 0.5 degree rise in temperature between 1908 and 1942? What caused that, the Model T Ford? There was no anthropogenic CO2 yet. Anybody with an IQ of 40 can see it wasn't caused by CO2. So WHY do you communists keep harping on it? Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. Forget about CO2. It's totally harmless. The whole thing is a stupid hoax perpetuated by non-scientists who pay scientists to sell out. Al Gore is a nice boy who should have stuck with raising cattle in Tennessee. If he wanted to study the climate, he might have actually taken a few science courses. His movie is actually banned in the UK. Good for them. DigbyDalton (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

All the Vostok data going back 600,000 years shows that each ice age caused CO2 levels to change, not the other way around. The earth warms and the CO2 comes out of the ocean, every time. It's happening this time too, it started to warm and sea levels started to rise in the 1800's, we started making CO2 in the 1900's. That's what caused the warming in the 1800s? You can't just sugar coat this fact and say you still believe in AGW. Do you understand, if sea levels rose in the 1800's and CO2 rose in the 1900's, it totally DISPROVES the entire thing. It's a deal breaker and time to forget it. You don't understand this? DigbyDalton (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of your WP:POV, regardless of your credentials, and regardless of WP:THETRUTH, referring to "communists infilitrating an article" utterly destroys any and all credibility you might have. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Not really. I added that the storm was especially destructive because it hit land at high tide, which was 5 feet, and it's clear that every reversion to this text was done merely to "hide the tide" and make it look like Sandy's destructiveness was mainly due to global warming's 9 inchs of sea level rise, which happened over the course of a century. These reversions, as preposterous as they were, were done entirely for political reasons, because left wingers are still banging the global warming bell trying to tax the corporations to redistribute the wealth, and the IPCC is still fining the rich nations and giving to the poor ones, once again redistributing the wealth, and it's all so obviously a part of the communist manifesto a child can see. Call it socialism, Marxism, call it what you want but forced redistribution of wealth is communism. Global warmists don't care about the planet, they don't care about the warming or the sea level, they only care about redistributing the wealth. That's communism. Own it, don't deny it.DigbyDalton (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Hurricane Sandy. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Continuing to edit war, as you have been doing, may result in you being blocked as well. United States Man (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Formal ARBCC warning requested[edit]

FYI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Climate change discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, in light of a post in another thread on your talk page earlier today, I've requested enforcement under ARBCC.
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course you have. Just as I expected. One of the best editors on Wikipedia and you want me banned so you can hide 5 feet of tide. DigbyDalton (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DigbyDalton it's just impossible to assume you don't realize that accusing the IPCC and every editor reverting you as taking part in some communist plot to redistribute wealth by making up the concept of Global warming wouldn't be considered a violation of WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. You simply needed to tone it down and agree to respect consensus and instead you went ahead and raised the bet by making that silly comment. I suggest taking it back would be a good way to show you are open to work with the rest of us in a respectful environment. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
More to the point, if we FOC, then the fact the storm hit some places at high tide is highly significant to the total storm surge and this fact should be in the article some place, and if Digby wasn't able to accomplish that to Digby's satisfaction, then the thing to do was to make use of the dispute resolution process in a WP:CIVIL manner. Fact of this timing and fact that the sea at both low tide and high is a foot higher are different aspects of sea level, which both contribute in their own ways to what happened. Neither of these facts cancel the other out, and both need to be in the article if we aspire to excellence. If we follow the RSs, that is. Sometimes it's hard to get consensus, and its impossible to get consensus when one begins the process, as Digby seems to admit, with a predetermination that the communists have taken over the freeworld. Hmmmm..... maybe Kennedy and Khrushchev should have gone to WP:THIRD? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see where you have added the 5 feet of tide to the article. I know you aspire to excellence. So, can you add it please? DigbyDalton (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Are we going to add the fact that Sandy hit at high tide or not?DigbyDalton (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Flatbush Dutch Reformed Church[edit]

Look, the current church is the THIRD ONE ON THE SITE. The congregation was founded in 1654 AT THE ORDER OF STUYVESANT, who was the head of the Dutch Reformed Church in the entire area. Please stop showing your ignorance by reverting my edits which corrected the editing error which showed Suyvesant ordering the building of the CURRENT CHURCH, not the ORIGINAL ONE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

New Amsterdam/New Netherlands was essentially a theocracy, which was quite usual for the period. Stuyvesant was both the civil and religious leader of the colony.Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Added reliable source Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw that you used the f word and thought to ask you to be civilized and not say "fucking" in your editorial notes, but then I realized you're from Brooklyn DigbyDalton (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. Again. Not from there, and have never lived there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Really. You're not from Brooklyn? Then how do you explain why you are so rude, vulgar, and stupid? All dis time I was dinking you was Vinnie Barbarino, you know what I'm toowlking abat? DigbyDalton (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll give the 2.5 million people of Brooklyn your best regards. They'll be thrilled to have heard from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Really? You'll tell all 2.5 million of them? I hope you speak 600 languages because that's how many you have to know to talk to everybody in Brooklyn.DigbyDalton (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy holidays to you, too! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
You too. thanks for editing Low's Encyclopedia. Nice job.DigbyDalton (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Low's Encyclopaedia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 25 May 1809 </ref><ref> Longworth’s New York Directory [1812], 190; [1813], 207; [1828], 380).</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Southwest Territory map[edit]

Did you photograph/scan this from a copy of Low's? Bms4880 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did. Would you like me to scan something else? I own one of the few copies of Low's left on the planet. DigbyDalton (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Uploads[edit]

You might want to try to remember to categorize your uploads on Commons, I just puts cats on all the maps from Low's Encyclopedia. BMK, Grumpy Realist (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Macca on "Celebration Song" and "My Dark Hour"[edit]

Hey, if you found this sourced in the Barry Miles bio, then what page? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's on page 548.DigbyDalton (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, but that only mentions "My Dark Hour". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said he played on "Celebration" I own a copy of the Steve Miller album Brave New World, and Paul Ramon is only credited for My Darkest Hour on the liner notes. I don't know who said he played drums in Celebration DigbyDalton (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Right on, it looks like someone else added that. Nice find, but in the future, please try to use the citation method already in use at the article, which uses templates like {{sfn|Miles|1998|p=458}}. If you want to practice formatting, your sandbox is a good place to do that. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but you are not my boss and I don't work for you. Do you own Wikipedia? DigbyDalton (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to get hostile, but no its not my personal opinion, its Wikipedia policy. Please see: WP:CITEVAR, which states: "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it". The citation method used in an article should be consistent, so when you add them and ignore the style in use it creates work for others. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I don't work for you. Next time you make me do extra work I'm going ask you to pay me a salary. Do you own the Paul McCartney article? DigbyDalton (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Coeymanshouse.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Optical phenomenon a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 00:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Minor Encyclopedia[edit]

Hi, I'm Bfpage. DigbyDalton, thanks for creating Minor Encyclopedia!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Good for you! You've started another potentially great article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. bpage (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earl Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imitation of Life. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edit[edit]

For any discussion and related to your recent edit, please see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change_denial#Lede prokaryotes (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

First rule is, the laws of Germany.. Second rule is, be nice to mommy.. Third rule is, don't talk to commies.. Fourth rule is, eat Kosher salami..

I abide by the third rule