Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DPL bot (talk | contribs) at 11:14, 4 March 2012 (dablink notification message (see the FAQ)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive One, Archive Two

Folklore

Just to note, such indepth insights and explorations into folklore is best for the under-developed English folklore article. Also much of what you went into deep depth about seems to be explaining British concerns (some of which is even anacronisms). A succinct, neatly ordered summary is all that is needed on the main article. It is currently undergoing a GA review process and it doesn't really help to have such a messy, unordered exploration on what only needs two simple paragraphs. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'll revert it again, because its an unordered mess which meanders into extremely indepth insights and explorations, when its supposed to be simple, short summary of the topic. Why not try improving the almost bare English folklore article first? That is a better place for such indepth anylsis, but I have to say the information seems to have more to do with Britain as a whole than just England. Half of the stuff your claiming it says, it doesn't. It doesn't say "Morris dancing is Celtic". Could you ateast wait until the GA has passed? - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't need to revert it someone else has. I didn't say the article says that just the website (which is not a reliable source). Everything I wrote is backed up by a source. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I should wait until the GA is passed if it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for verifiability and impartiality. I think it will pass with the section after my edits. I shall work on the main English Folklore page as you suggested as well. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The layout of it and the length is the biggest part which is making it a mess (for instance we don't need a full and complete list of every Welsh manuscript Geoffrey of Monmouth has influenced by). Compare it to any other section in the article. It won't pass with GA set out like like that IMO. If there are errors, certainly the correct info should be incorporated into the short summary. In regards to impartiality, I don't have a particular bias one way or another. If you could explain the specific points which you feel gives the wrong idea, I'll try to put it into a neater and tighter prose. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing I'm getting at in regards to layout is folkloric writing and folkish activity (for instance Long Sword dance) should be in their own specific paragraph rather than all mixed together cronologically. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

English heroic legends and mythology

As you were the one who originally set things right in the English heroic legends category and the English mythology category, I think you would like to make a comment in the discussion page for the English heroic legends category as yoru revision were reverted by Cúchullain. I have checked Cúchullain's contribs history along with his discussion page, and it appears to me that he is one of the most biased wikipedians I have come across and highly unworthy of his Admin status (I have even counted numerous violations of wikipedia policies made after he gained Admin status) and is a blight to wikipedia. I am not sure if you are an Admin or not, but your input would be most valued. - Ed 81.129.52.17 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not an Admin. I am not sure that I wish to be, at least at the moment as I have far too much work in keeping Misplaced Pages from being the playground of the not so subtly biased. I have had talks with Cúchullain before as you probably know, and yes he does have a habit of letting his biases rule his edits. I myself can admit that I have biases however I try to show the other viewpoint where valid and only remove a viewpoint if it does not square with facts of the matter using logic and reasoning.

I shall look at it as soon as I can. Thanks. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The anon is mistaken. I didn't re-add those cats, though I did add the English folklore cat for the reasons outlined on the talk page. I have no interest in getting into any kind of wikidrama with you or with anyone.--Cúchullain /c 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no sweat. It looks like our anonymous friend was just a bit overzealous and didn't assume good faith. Cheers and happy editing, I know we'll cross paths again.--Cúchullain /c 14:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Wicca, as "minor" if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits. Per Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. The rule of thumb is that only vandalism/test reversions or edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modifying content should be flagged as "minor". It appears that almost all of your edits since 9 August 2009 are being marked as minor. This suggests you may have an automatic setting which is causing this, if so, please consider changing that, as a number of your "minor" edits, while not necessarily contentious, are also not minor. Vidkun (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct there does seem to be an automated setting... not sure why though as I didn't set it... Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't already figured it out, it's in your "my preferences" "editing" tab, advanced options, eighth checkbox down (I believe). Thanks!--Vidkun (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry! I worked out where to look and unchecked it. Not sure how it happened though. Thank you for notification anyway, I hadn't noticed it until you sent the message telling me. Thanks again. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Folk etymology: Your input requested

Hi SDS-- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input not in support of either view, but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Richard E. Grant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dutch and Hungarian (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) 11:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)