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:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

"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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Hello DigbyDalton, SwisterTwister has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

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) reply

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

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 November 2011‎ (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Thank you DigbyDalton ( talk) 21:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Okee yupper

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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) reply

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) reply

FYI, in light of a post in another thread on your talk page earlier today, I've requested enforcement under ARBCC.

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Are we going to add the fact that Sandy hit at high tide or not? DigbyDalton ( talk) 14:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Added reliable source Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Wrong. Again. Not from there, and have never lived there. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Happy holidays to you, too! Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

You too. thanks for editing Low's Encyclopedia. Nice job. DigbyDalton ( talk) 22:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

For any discussion and related to your recent edit, please see, /info/en/?search=Talk:Climate_change_denial#Lede prokaryotes ( talk) 01:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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 DigbyDalton ( talk) 23:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I have a question. Do you think putting "own work" to the source of this image (that obviously copied from mine) is fair???-- Ali Zifan ( talk) 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Who cares, Ali? I photoshopped a new building into a pic that you donated to Wikipedia. There will be two more building within 2 years that will be on that list, did you think your work would remain after they built new tall buildings? Your picture is not accurate anymore and should be deleted because 432 Park is finished and is the 3rd tallest building in NY by pinnacle height. DigbyDalton ( talk) 20:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You need to fix your description of File:SCAN0003a.jpg on commons. It is currently a copyright violation. You say you copied a file and modified it. The license on the file you created says that you must give attribution. You have said the image is your own work which based on your comments is incorrect. You just need to say where you got the original file from. --  GB  fan 22:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Fixed. See attribution at the touched-up file:

DigbyDalton ( talk) 00:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I edited the graphic again. After finding out the exact dimensions of 432 Park Avenue, I came to realize I made it too thin. The updated version I made a few days ago, I made the building a little thicker according to proportions, using a pixel count of the image. That image is now found in the article. I forgot the name of the file DigbyDalton ( talk) 22:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

OK here is the new file, correctly sized----->>:

DigbyDalton ( talk) 23:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Escape Orbit. I noticed that you made a comment on your edit summary on Buick that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scotch-Irish Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots. 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) 09:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I unlinked the disambiguation page. Thanx DigbyDalton ( talk) 18:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello there! I see the work you've done with the image you modified to include 432 Park Avenue. Could you possibly do something similar for 125 Greenwich Street? Let me know. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Sure, when it's finished. At what stage of construction is it now? DigbyDalton ( talk) 04:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Would you like to support the creation of and/join the proposed Wikiproject for Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes I would. I have more vintage encyclopedias than anybody. I have every edition of Britannica and most other English-language encyclopedias up to 1900. I'd be glad to help out. DigbyDalton ( talk) 03:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Then could you please added a statement to the support section on the Wikiproject for Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works so the project can be launched?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cohoes Falls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mohawk. 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) 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, DigbyDalton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Do you know that phonograph records are made from plasticized PVC? That is the portion of the lead sentence that you placed it. Records do not appear to be soft like plasticized PVC, they are fairly sturdy. You might want to move that up a sentence or two in the paragraph and perhaps have a citation. JSR ( talk) 21:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Plasticized PVC is not soft, it is flexible. Pure PVC is white, hard, and brittle. Think of drainpipes, and how easily they break, and how they are not flexible. It has little to do with softness. I will find a citation and place it in the appropriate place. Thanks. DigbyDalton ( talk) 10:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, this is just to notify you that I reverted a spelling change you made in the Vitaphone article about a month ago. I failed to notice that your edit immediately preceded mine, otherwise I would have simply used "undo", presumably resulting in an automatic notification. 66.81.104.134 ( talk) 01:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

That is some great information you're putting on the Rocco page. Of course, it isn't what the source says. Are you by chance getting this information from the original issues? 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I know we can't use primary sources for information on Wikipedia, so I am going to site this youtube video, which has both versions of St Louis Blues, and shows clearly the different matrix numbers on the records. https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=jpWoplQLeS8 DigbyDalton ( talk) 17:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Great. I'd leave well enough alone then. I'll keep an eye out for these when I'm record hunting, then reference to the discs themselves. Thanks again! 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 18:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Does referencing to the discs themselves count as primary sourcing? Because I am hyzercreek, the guy putting them on youtube. I just put this one on (Begin the Beguine) on youtube (give it a half hour to process, it will be video number youtu.be/m6xy9CzIuQI). I have about 10 copies of this record in its various iterations, maybe you'd like a few? DigbyDalton ( talk) 19:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I've used discs as sources, see reference #56 (as of this writing) on Rocco. They are published, therefore verifiable, even if it would be difficult for the average person to find a copy. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 21:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I see you created the article. Nice job. I hope you like how I changed the discography to be chronological. DigbyDalton ( talk) 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

How do I get copyright variance for the Maurice Rocco album cover, the way you got the Decca label to pass. Wiki commons deleted it. DigbyDalton ( talk) 10:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I have read the book you cited and the information is incorrect. Read the recently updated book referenced by Gustin which has significant detail on OHV. At least 2 other manufacturers had OHV at the same time. Kirbitz who contributed the material is more reliable in this area than the writer of the Marr book. The design was adapted from steam engines so the configuration was known to many. "David Buick's Marvelous Motor Car" ( ISBN  978-1-943995-01-1) Looks like Amazon does not have the 2016 edition so I scanned a bit of it for you. Thank you for your time. http://imgur.com/ATvrRHC

I'm only going by what Dunham says: http://www.buickheritagealliance.org/content/pdf/article1.pdf DigbyDalton ( talk) 14:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Would you agree to change it to "the first successful implementation of" - that is certainly true. Toneron2 ( talk) 14:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Well the Davis patent of 1896 clearly shows 2 valves in the head: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US563140-0.png You win, Marr didn't invent the OHV internal combustion engine. DigbyDalton ( talk) 00:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your time. Kind regards Toneron2 ( talk) 01:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

1. Please do not refer to other editors as "vandals". (See Wikipedia:Vandalism for a clarification of what vandalism actually is.)
2. Please discuss contentious changes on the talk page rather than attempting to force them through.

Thank you — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 08:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The editor in question has a history of reverting constructive edits and hijacking articles, and not cooperating with other editors. Please investigate. DigbyDalton ( talk) 11:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I did investigate, which led me to make the suggestions above. Will you follow them? — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 17:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Why are you tell me this? You should be telling him. DigbyDalton ( talk) 02:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Two thing to be noted ;

• It is you, DigbyDalton, who added the material that was challenged. It is therefore your responsibility to justify it and you who is edit warring by repeatedly re-inserting it. Please read 'Bold/Revert/Discuss guidelines here.
• the contentious material is cited to IMDB, a user generated source that is not a reliable source. So it is entirely proper that it be challenged and removed.

Please discuss your edit and stop edit warring over it. -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

He deleted my entire edit saying it's the Allegheny Plateau not Allegheny Mountains. So I changed it to the names of the states and reinserted it. Then he deleted the entire thing again, saying I should not abbreviated the names of the states. So I spelled out the names and reinserted it, he came back and deleted the entire thing a third time, for spite, because this time he made up bogus reasons. Never once did he discuss with me the reasons or suggest corrections, he just kept deleting my work unilaterally, trying to bulldoze his way in. In the first edit, instead of changing it to Plateau, he deleted it. The second time, he could have written the names of the states. Instead, he deleted it. The verity of my edit was never in question so you are WRONG saying it was contentious. You are also wrong saying I was the one who was edit warring because I always corrected it before reinserting it. You are also wrong what you said about the IMDB, their policy is that nobody can edit that website until they prove themselves to be authorities in the film industry or Hollywood insiders. Random readers cannot just sign up and edit, like we do here. DigbyDalton ( talk) 16:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, DigbyDalton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hudson Yards ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—— SerialNumber 54129 11:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Please participate in the discussion at Talk:V8 engine#V8 harder to crank than less number of cylinders. Anything that is not self obvious or cannot be verified is allowed to be deleted from articles. Thanks.  Stepho   talk  02:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hudson Yards (development) ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hudson Yards

List of tallest buildings in New York City ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bank of America Tower

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, DigbyDalton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, DigbyDalton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at V8 engine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Discuss this, don't just keep blindly reverting Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

You must be out of your mind. DigbyDalton ( talk) 23:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at V8 engine.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 00:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply

It's 2019 and heads are cool. Let's do an accurate recount of my above mentioned edits to the V8 engine article, and see how many of these edits are constructive and good faith, and how many are just reverts. And let us also investigate the reverts made by the tag team of Andy Dingley and Chaheel Riens, who often edit together and have often worked together against my contributions to Wikipedia, and see how many of their reverts are good faith. This is from Archive 380 of the 3RR section of Administrators' noticeboard, showing my edits he is claiming are edit warring:

1. ""
2. "not popular in passenger cars. Race cars. And France had no airplanes until 1908."
3. " Who keeps changing this? The V8 was NOT popular in France in passenger cars, in fact it was extremely rare. It was only used in race cars."
4. "Stop editing this if you don't know anything about cars. It was not "popular" in France, there were no production V-8 automobiles anywhere in the world until 1914. Race cars and airplanes only. Get it? Stop editing."
5. "No, it says popular. It was not popular, which means cars. STOP EDITING, used in race cars in 1904, and it was never used in any aircraft in France in 1908. Never POPULAR!!! The first French airplane was 1908 and it didn't have a V8."

Let us now look at the text of those edits I made, using the same enumeration as above:

1. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France in 1904 is race cars and aircraft engines

2. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1904 onward in race cars, and later was used there in a number of aircraft engines

3. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1904 onward, in race cars and aircraft engines

4. The V8 engine configuration was used in France by 1904, in race car and aircraft engines

5. The V8 engine configuration was used in France by 1904, in race car and aircraft engines

Now let's revisit those edits, and intersperse between them those by Andy and Chaheel. We will keep using the same numbers from above for my edits, and the letters C for Chaheel's edits and A for Andy's, and the letter O for the original text, which went back to at least 2015 to an unknown author. Finally, we will add the current text as it appears on January 5, 2019, with the letter F designating it:

O. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1904 onward, and was used in a number of aircraft engines

1. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France in 1904 is race cars and aircraft engines

C. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1904 onward, and was used in a number of aircraft engines

2. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1904 onward in race cars, and later was used there in a number of aircraft engines

C. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1908 onward, and was used in a number of aircraft engines

3. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1904 onward, in race cars and aircraft engines

C. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1908 onward, and was used in a number of aircraft engines

4. The V8 engine configuration was used in France by 1904, in race car and aircraft engines

A. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1908 onward, and was used in a number of aircraft engines

5. The V8 engine configuration was used in France by 1904, in race car and aircraft engines

C. The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1908 onward, and was used in a number of aircraft engines

At this point I received a warning not to revert 3 times. But since I only had made 1 revert I made a second one:

6. The V8 engine configuration was used in France by 1904, in race car and aircraft engines

And was blocked, and this is how it appears today.

F. The V8 engine configuration was used in France by 1904, in race car and aircraft engines

We can see from the above that I only made one revert before a 3-revert warning, and one after, while Andy Dingley gamed the system by adding his revert to the 4 made by Chaheel Riens to make a total of 5 reverts, claiming that I was the one edit warring, when they were. This is the result of an ongoing edit war against me waged by Andy Dingley, starting several months ago, where he followed me around Wikipedia changing the additions I wrote to several unrelated articled in the Encyclopedia. He must have been hitting the contributions button on my page to find out my most recent writings, to harass me and change what I had written, such as in Hydraulic brakes and Overhead valve engine, deleting what I had written, challenging it, making false arguments against it, always resulting in me citing references to back up what I'd written, and the text being left as I originally had written it. In one edit war, he and Chaheel Riens teamed against me, so these two are working together and gaming the system (an earlier edit war on the V8 engine page).

As for the above edit war waged against me, the line in question originally read, going back to at least June of 2015:

“The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1904 onward, and was used in a number of aircraft engines”

I know this is wrong because I have many antique cars with hand cranks for starting them, and know that almost all hand-cranked cars had 4 cylinder or fewer, or extremely rarely 6 cylinders, which were unpopular because they were very difficult to crank start by hand. No manufacturer anywhere in the world made an 8 cylinder car for sale to the public because they would be impossible to start, until Cadillac introduced the electric starter in 1912, and the first production V-8 automobile in 1914.

This is wrong on a second count. There were no airplanes in France until 1908 when Wilbur Wright flew one there, and the V8 engines produced by Leon Levasseur, Panhard, Alexandre Darracq, and in England by Rolls Royce, were experimental engines in 1902 and used only in race cars and setting land speed records, starting in 1904, and were not popular, i.e. not available to the public. In fact, no V8 engines were used in popular cars anywhere in the world until the Cadillac type 51 came out in 1914, because it's impossible to crank start a V8 engine by hand, and electric starters were introduced by Cadillac in 1912. The V8 engines used in race cars in France in 1904 (Darracq) were started by a team of mechanics who push-started the cars. They obviously didn't use a hand crank on race cars, for obvious reasons. There were no “popular” V8's in France or elsewhere. So I changed the text to:

“The V8 engine configuration became popular in France in 1904 is race cars and aircraft....” (with a typo “is” instead of “in), in the following edit

cur | prev) 15:10, 11 December 2018‎ DigbyDalton (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,212 bytes) -21‎ . . (→‎History) (undo)

Chaheel Riens reverted to the original with this edit, because of the typo:

(cur | prev) 15:21, 11 December 2018‎ Chaheel Riens (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,233 bytes) +21‎ . . (Undid revision 873172278 by DigbyDalton (talk) makes no sense now. Better before.) (undo) Tag: Undo

So I edited out the typo, which is obviously not a revert, to correct a typo, and improved it more, to say:

“The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1904 onward in race cars, and later was used there in a number of aircraft...” Because the only aircraft in France in 1908 was not a V8 and it wasn't even French, it was the Wright Brothers' airplane flown by Wilbur to prove to the French that they had invented the airplane. Here is that edit:

(cur | prev) 06:45, 12 December 2018‎ DigbyDalton (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,258 bytes) +25‎ . . (→‎History: not popular in passenger cars. Race cars. And France had no airplanes until 1908.) (undo)

So Chaheel Riens reverted again to the original, but changed the date from 1904 to 1908, I guess claiming that the 1908 airplane made the engine "popular in France". This is Chaheel's second revert, as all he did was change a date and revert all the rest of the copy, compared to my zero reverts (mine were substantial edits which made substantial changes in the facts, so were not mere reverts).

(cur | prev) 07:36, 12 December 2018‎ Chaheel Riens (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,225 bytes) -33‎ . . (Undid revision 873284308 by DigbyDalton (talk) much simpler just to change "1904" to "1908" then. Also some CE on the tone, and claims) (undo) Tag: Undo

“The V8 engine configuration became popular in France in 1908 onward, and was used in a number of aircraft....:

This is even worse than the original! Now we have the text reading that an engine being first used in 1904 in race cars, suddenly became popular in 1908 because of the Wright Brothers who never used a V8 in 1908 and still wasn't “popular” in anything other than race cars, but now we are excluding the 1904 race cars. Everything is wrong about this sentence.

So I edited it again to say:

“The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1904 onward, in race cars and later in aircraft....” in the following edit:

(cur | prev) 09:18, 12 December 2018‎ DigbyDalton (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,234 bytes) -10‎ . . (→‎History: Who keeps changing this? The V8 was NOT popular in France in passenger cars, in fact it was extremely rare. It was only used in race cars.) (undo)

So Chaheel Riens reverted a third time to how it was before, with no editing or changing, just a pure revert. This is his third revert to my no reverts. This time he added a nasty remark to the comment section about how I should not be editing.

(cur | prev) 09:23, 12 December 2018‎ Chaheel Riens (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,244 bytes) +10‎ . . (Undid revision 873297101 by DigbyDalton (talk) if you're unable to check article history, you maybe shouldn't be editing. Discuss, rather than re-insert, thanks.) (undo) Tag: Undo

So I edited again, this time taking out how it was popular and merely “was used” in race cars. Popular from the Latin populi means of the people, and people cannot buy race cars and use them in the general public. Here is that edit, which by the way was an edit and not a revert, as I was trying to find some wording that he would not blindly revert:

(cur | prev) 13:54, 12 December 2018‎ DigbyDalton (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,217 bytes) -27‎ . . (→‎History: Stop editing this if you don't know anything about cars. It was not "popular" in France, there were no production V-8 automobiles anywhere in the world until 1914. Race cars and airplanes only. Get it? Stop editing.) (undo)

Now my nemesis Andy Dingley pops up and reverts, making the fourth revert on their side if you add them together, which you can because they are acting as a team, as they did before in the V8 article when we were discussing how it's very difficult to crank start a car with more than 4 cylinders, which you can see if you check the article's talk page.

Now the text once again says:

“The V8 engine configuration became popular in France from 1908 onward, and was used in a number of aircraft engines”

Which is wrong on 3 counts. It was not popular in automobiles until 1914, it started being used in race cars in 1904 not 1908, and it was not used in any French aircraft until 1909, the first year the French ever built an airplane. Happily for us they actually did use a V8 in an airplane in 1909......but that still doesn't make them "popular" as a lay person could not buy an airplane in 1909 any more than they could buy a race car.

Here is Andy's revert.

(cur | prev) 14:57, 12 December 2018‎ Andy Dingley (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,244 bytes) +27‎ . . (rv - Aircraft. That's what it says) (undo) Tag: Undo

Then I made a revert. This is my first actual revert:

(cur | prev) 15:05, 12 December 2018‎ DigbyDalton (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,217 bytes) -27‎ . . (Undid revision 873332024 by Andy DingleyNo, it says popular. It was not popular, which means cars. STOP EDITING, used in race cars in 1904, and it was never used in any aircraft in France in 1908. Never POPULAR!!! The first French airplane was 1908 and it didn't have a V8.) (undo) Tag: Undo

Again, Chaheel reverted. This revert was Chaheel's fourth revert, a fifth for the pair, compared to my one, and it caused Andy to report to the administrators that I was guilty of disobeying the 3 revert rule and edit warring, when it was quite the opposite. Andy posted an official warning on my talk page even though he's not an administrator, and I posted below it that he had lost his mind. I told him he lost his mind because he's accusing me of 3 reverts when he and his buddy had already made 5 reverts, and at that time I had only made one!!!!!!

Here's Chaheel's 4th revert:

(cur | prev) 15:34, 12 December 2018‎ Chaheel Riens (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,244 bytes) +27‎ . . (Undid revision 873332928 by DigbyDalton (talk) Discuss. The text does not support your claim that "popular" = "Road car") (undo) Tag: Undo

Yeah popular means road car, because even to this day the average person doesn't have an airplane or a race car. What kind of stupid argument is that?

Next an administrator told me not to make 3 reverts, and issued me a “warning”. I had only made one revert, so I thought I'd make my second one as my last word on the subject:

(cur| prev) 23:20, 12 December 2018‎ DigbyDalton (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,217 bytes) -27‎ . . (Undid revision 873336714 by Chaheel Riens (talk) Well "popular" sure doesn't mean limited to race cars.) (undo) Tag: Undo

This caused an administrator to block my account for making 3 reverts, which I never did. They made 5 reverts and were never warned.

The funny thing is, now 3 weeks later, the text reads exactly as I had left it in my second and final revert! My second revert is the final edit before being blocked, which Chaheel and Andy have allowed to remain for all this time. Why? Apparently they did not really find a problem with what I wrote, they just used it to game the system and try to make me break the 3 revert rule, which they themselves had broken and I never did.

I need to get my account unblocked so I can add the updated NYC skyline photo which I update twice a year, and which can be found on the articles New York City and List of tallest buildings in New York City. DigbyDalton

DigbyDalton ( talk) 09:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DigbyDalton ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Please scroll above on my talk page to where it says December 2018, for my concise and compact explanation of how I only made 2 reverts, while the tag team of Andy Dingley and Chaheel Riens made 5, and note that other than those 2, all my other edits were re-wordings and attempts to arrive at wordings that we would compromise with, but their edits were flat-out reverts to a text which contains wrong information. After my concise explanation and enumeration of the edits, I explain in more detail why V-8 engines could never be popular in automobiles anywhere in the world before the electric starter was invented by Cadillac in 1912. DigbyDalton ( talk) 1:13 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. You should know that even if you were correct on the content issue that doesn't excuse editwarring. Nothing in your appeal suggsts you wouldn't repeat the same behavior. But the reason you've been indefinitely blocked is not that you made too many reverts, it's your unacceptable behavior. I've read the BLPN discussion [3] where you falsely claimed an editor called himself a communist and said that his talk page showed him to be quite unbalanced. And then denied making any personal attacks. I've read the editwarring report and the link there where in response to a warning you say an editor must be out of their mind and I also note that you continued to editwar after you were warned. You didn't learn from your first block and I see no evidence that you will change. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've restored the declined unblock request. Please read the note on the notice about not removing it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note that Andy Dingley, who is not an administrator, is the editor who has been edit warring with me for 6 months, including falsely reporting me for 3RR when he and his tag team member reverted 5 times and I only did 2 times. See above. DigbyDalton ( talk) 14:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The following is one of the comments Andy Dingley made about me, talking to Chaheel about me on the V8 engine talk page, which is pretty insulting:

"Having seen a few of Digby Dalton's edits now (claiming the origin of the overhead valve engine and the rocker arm from steam engines being just one), I don't think any credence should be placed in them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)"

The edit war was entirely on his side, my only interest throughout all of it was the accuracy of Wikipedia. Every attack he made I merely deflected, and it is hypocritical for him to be accusing me of edit warring and for him to post a note on the administrators page about a 3RR that I never made and he did. Everything he has done so far has been bad faith.

I would investigate also whether he and Chaheel are a pair of dirty socks. DigbyDalton ( talk) 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

For this personal attack, your talk page access is revoked. If you have read the guide to appealing blocks and would like to mount a new appeal, please contact WP:UTRS. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DigbyDalton, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bleeding heart liberal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Bleeding heart liberal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply