User talk:Dgndenver

Welcome!

Hello, Dgndenver, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

– Fayenatic London 21:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music biographies

After you review Phil Keaggy, would you mind taking a look at Michael Laucke? It's up fr GA, but the editing has been suspicious and there's a lot of fluff, even more than on the Keaggy article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can do that. Let's see how it goes with the Keaggy page first. I am not familiar with Laucke, as I am with Keaggy, but from an editing standpoint that doesn't really matter much, does it? I have done some little edits, as you can see, but never a whole page. I would welcome feedback. Can I work in the sandbox, save it, and have you or someone else review it? Or should I go ahead boldly but accept suggestions or reversions modestly? I would appreciate your thoughts. I do have opinions about grammar, but if you make suggestions I promise not to drag you into a long dispute about grammatical minutiae. Dgndenver (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the answer to part of my question: "Go boldly." Dgndenver (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: You've got messages!

Hello, Dgndenver. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dgndenver! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Google Books as source, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I did a foolish thing in adding Wikipedia:Teahouse to my watchlist. I forget, though, how to remove a page from the watchlist. How do I do that? Dgndenver (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Dgndenver (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bring up the Teahouse page. You should see a "star" icon in the tab bar, between "View history" and "More". That controls whether a page is on your watchlist. Clicking a solid star should change it to an outline star and remove the page from your watchlist. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can also directly go to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&action=unwatch, though jmcgnh's suggestion is of course the typical way. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 06:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Lesson learned--LOL. Dgndenver (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dgndenver! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is this a reliable source, or too biased?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Dgndenver. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by casualdejekyll 13:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Dgndenver. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by casualdejekyll 13:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Bold text== Arkansas River Pronuncations ==

Hi there, could you please explain why you decided to remove the paragraph that explains how the pronunciation of the river differs in Kansas to the other three states? 2A02:C7F:9E10:5400:A5A7:BB3F:7D92:BD8F (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I do make mistakes (on rare occasions ;-) ) and it's good that I be kept honest. I have temporarily undone my change while we discuss this.

The reference cited, to Dictionary.com, not Random House Dictionary, does not support the assertion. It merely says about pronunciation, "ahr-kuhn-saw; also, for 2 ar-kan-zuhs," with definition 2 being for the river. It does not say anything about the different pronunciations being associated with residents of different states. Those associations are interesting and may well be true, but at the moment they are unsupported. Since that seemed to be the main thrust of the paragraph, I took it out.

Maybe as a compromise we could just re-insert it as, "Ahr-kuhn-saw, or ar-kan-zuhs," or something like that, with no discussion of various states. What do you think?

@Pfly, could you insert a reference to the book you described on the Talk page way back in 2006? Dgndenver (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: One, the book I referenced for the pronunciation stuff was George R. Stewart's *Names on the Land*, pp. 335-340. When I added it the book wasn't previewable on Google Books, but it seems to be now, relevant chapter: Change the name of Arkansas—Never!. However, this book, or at least this part of the book, was written in the 1940s or 50s, so it quite out of date for current pronunciations. Anecdotally, I've heard that the river is generally called "Arkansaw" in Kansas these days, except by a decreasing number of mostly older people. I don't know if that is true but it only reinforces the idea that Stewart's book might be out of date on this topic. Two, and more to the point, looking at Stewart's chapter again I see that he doesn't explicitly say the river is pronounced R-Kansas in Kansas. He mentions that the river flows through Kansas but then focuses on the city on the banks of that river, Arkansas City, Kansas, and how that city calls itself R-Kansas City and has had to fight to keep it that way. I believe there is an Arkansas Street in Wichita that is generally pronounced R-Kansas as well, but I don't have a source offhand.

In short, the source I used long ago on this topic isn't actually appropriate in this case. It may be that the river is sometimes called R-Kansas in Kansas even today, but I don't know and only have anecdotal evidence, no RS. Pfly (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pfly. I guess I'll go back soon and remove the paragraph again, unless I jear back from 2A02... Dgndenver (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, oops, I thought I was commenting on the Arkansas River talk page rather than your own talk page, or I'd have been friendlier. So, PS, hi! :-) Pfly (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. I didn't notice any deficit of friendliness at all. So, hi! Dgndenver (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]