User talk:DanOKeefe

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


Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, DanOKeefe! Thank you for your contributions. I am KNHaw and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! KNHaw (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you making modifications to Daniel O'Keefe (writer) and also asking user:Randy Kryn how to upload a photo there (your father, correct?). Take a peek at Help:Adding_image for how to do that. You can also drop me a line on my talk page if you want any more help.

Happy editing!

KNHaw (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Good advice at the 'adding image' link above. There are lots of interesting routes of information here. Things like the 'watch' 'unwatch' button at the top, you can add pages to it and then check to see what changes were made. The 'History' link on top brings up things like who wrote what, the number of readers on the page per day, month, or as much as 90 days (that's a fun stat for checking on how disseminated an article gets during active or lull times), and many more. An idea, maybe you can upload an image of your dad and mom for the Festivus page, as the original holiday was dedicated to her honor and remembrance. That'd be a nice addition. I nudged around and tweaked your additions to your dad's page, hope they seem okay. Enjoy editing, and don't let the bedbugs bite. Randy Kryn 11:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Alas, I believe I successfully uploaded a pic of my dad to "Wikipedia Commons," but remain unable to add it to his page. This shit is tricky, man.

Ha, you have run into the unsolvable barrier of the Wikipedia goddess, who, as I consult the runes, wants not just a picture of your dad for his article, but an image of your mom and dad together, both of whom are now, because of certain recently added information, even more documentarily important to the Festivus page. That aside, the image of your parents there would be a nice tribute. Randy Kryn 15:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randy, I actually was trying to add my dad's pic to the Daniel O'Keefe (writer) entry, not the Festivus one. My mom doesn't want her pic up. Dan O'Keefe


(This is a duplicate of my response from your post on User talk:KNHaw)

Hmph. An interesting dilemma. There's no way to block people who make edits in good faith (and, honestly, under Wikipedia's philosophy there shouldn't be). And, despite Salkin's error or motivation, the people who read his book *are* making their edits in good faith. Have you gone on record anywhere indicating that Salkin is incorrect? Even a blog would do. That would allow us to put up a sentence about "there is a claim that it originated as a Roman Festival<insert footnote to Salkin>, but the modern inventor of the holiday indicates otherwise <footnote to your source>." If I'd just read Salkin's book and went to Wikipedia wanting to improve the article, this would settle the issue completely for me.

Interestingly, a quick check on Google's NGram service *does* show usage of the phrase going back well into the 1800s. However, a quick dive shows it's a Latin adjective for "Jolly" and later used in various species' Latin names for insects and mollusks. Given the way [List of organisms named after famous people | biologists like to play with names], it wouldn't surprise me if some of those "hits" are from some scientists naming something "Jolly Insect" or "Jolly Clam."

There are other Latin sources I can't translate, but from context they seem to not be anything about a festival - just "Jolly." The complete absence of an English source saying "Festivus was a Roman festival" is telling. If push comes to shove, it would be pretty easy to leverage the folks over at the | Latin subreddit to do a quick translation of the Latin sources.

In fact, I'm wondering if the NGrams search might actually be the source of Salkin's claim. Perhaps he did a quick check and came up with all the hits and simply assumed they reinforced his own pet theory - that of an honest to goodness Roman festival. Approaching it from this angle also lets us leave out the notion of motivation from the conversation (which always makes this sort of thing go more smoothly).

I'd be willing to edit the article if you'd like to remove any conflicts of interest. If you have a source of you saying (preferably in a diplomatic manner) "Salkin has it wrong," I could link to it. Otherwise, I can just add it to the page with a link to the NGram search. In fact, even if you do have a "Salkin is wrong" quote, the NGRam search actually should be cited as well.

Talk soon!

KNHaw (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Festivus views[edit]

Thought you may enjoy watching the large growth of views of the page on Wikipedia each year as the 23rd nears. here is the 20 day count as of yesterday, the 19th (it can be expanded out to 90 days). Randy Kryn 22:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Festivus season[edit]

It comes by about once a year/A time of love and wrestling fear/When Festivus dawns bright on the 23rd/into society's consciousness it is seared. And so on. By the way, if you can please help keep watch on the page from maybe the 21st on, usually picks up quite a few vandal edits, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you, sir! I will do so. Best, Dan O'Keefe DanOKeefe (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The page views go up quickly on the page this time of year. A few questions if I may, from my historian's hat. I personally think that the clock-bag ceremony will become further used as a part of the holiday as time goes by. Could you maybe describe it a bit more so at least somewhere on Wikipedia further accuracy exists? For example, what type of clock and bag, was it the same clock and bag every time, and did your dad nail it into the same hole in the wall or nailed a different hole at each occasion? Was it done as a ceremony with others around, or did he nail it up when alone? If he used the same clock and bag did someone keep those? Any more information about its meaning (does your mom know the real meaning, and maybe it is best left as a family thing). Anyway, as a historian I tend to think of getting information like this on some kind of record, but as a Wikipedian editor it's really none of my business. So I went with middle ground and asked anyway. Thanks, appreciated. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have done so. No problem. DanO'Keefe ≈≈≈≈

Thanks, an interesting addition. That your dad never explained his reasoning of putting a clock in a bag and nailing it to a wall makes it all the more interesting, for this surreal action worthy of Dali can be interpreted, as you realize, in many ways. Entire essays will be written about it. The symbolism of putting a clock in a bag and nailing it to a wall existing as the central point of a recognized holiday, in that holiday's original version, is both high art and poetically and philosophically profound. If the original wall still exists, please consider saving it for its historic value. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Surprisingly little vandalism on the page in the last few days. In case you missed it, today's google-search page 'Festivus' has a tall pole running along its left-side. And then there's this if you haven't run across it. Will continue to keep watch today as the vandals come and go (actually it's good the page isn't protected because there have been a couple of good IP edits). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! DanOKeefe

You're quite welcome. Here's something I find very interesting, and possibly unique enough that some college prof can do a paper on it: the surprising lack of vandalism to the Festivus page, not only today, or the last few days, or this month (a side note, I literally just read the December 13 reverted section and the article it referenced. Yikes.), but the entire year of 2017. Compared to past Festivus', where I remember many vandal edits (unless my memory is wrong), the interesting thing to me is "why?". Why would vandal edits drop to such an extent, they're gone in 2017. Although it has a few hours to go, so far yesterday and today, when there have been many tens of thousands of views, no vandalism. That's an academic question with many variables, which probably include the use of Wikipedia itself as well or related to the acceptance of this holiday into the social culture of America. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
P.S. ...and not five minutes after I posted the above, a vandalism that a bot caught (and I learned a new acronym). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing the O'Keefe articles and the Festivus article[edit]

Hi Dan. In order to prevent conflict-of-interest editing and subsequent giant warnings on the tops of these articles, I am requesting that going forward you refrain from editing any of these articles directly:

If there is something that warrants changing or updating on any of those articles, please instead make an edit request on the talkpage of the article in question. You may add the template code {{request edit}} at the top of your request so that it is seem more widely. Your request will be investigated by neutral, experienced editors, and made if appropriate. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)