User talk:Okiefromokla/Archive 2

It's a shame to see you go. You just left greetings for me a few hours ago, encouraging me to become involved in Taskforce Tulsa and WikiProject Oklahoma. You've done a lot of good work here. Best wishes!GreenGourd 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably be back. I just blanked my user page and put that stark message up on my talk page because I needed to convince myself that it was forever :P. I just need to focus on real life for the time being as Wikipedia becomes addicting, I'm sure you know. But there's a chance I'll be back someday. Thanks! (P.S: I'm logged on my alternate account but this is me, I promise) This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You can reach me at User talk:Rickyrab. I just keep the sockpuppet account I have for the lulz and whenever it seems appropriate to have an obvious sock puppet do the talking. -- Sockpuppet of Rickyrab (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oufield1.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know that your User page says you don't do Wikipedia alot anymore but I was wondering if you, or anyone you know, could help added some information to the Oklahoma State Capitol page. After seeing all of the really good stuff you have done to help other articles I thought I would come to you for help. I know that you have worked on alot of Oklahoma articles and this one has been passed over. As good as the Oklahoma and Tulsa articles are I know that the Oklahoma State Capitol article can be alot better. Thanks alot --Cal (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you are gone, but maybe you check this once in a while. Just wanted to tell you I loved your picture of the Ouachitas. It's lovely. I was raised in McAlester. I tell people I'm from OK and they assume I grew up on the plains. I tell them my hometown is in a mountain range and they think I am joking (there are FIVE mountain ranges in Oklahoma, as my Civics teacher drilled into my head). Even if they are just "big pretty hills", thanks for the reminder.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 05:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the Ozarks, Ouachitas, Arbuckles, the Glass_Mountains and the Wichitas (Mr. Campbell, my civics teacher, would and should be proud). Great photos. I thought the "Kiamichi Mountains" were a separate range, but perhaps they are an amalgam of the Ouachita and Ozarks? Then there's "Rattlesnake Mountain" which I am sure is a figment of my brother's and my collective childhood imagination. Anyway, kudos. You're a wonderful photographer. More, please! Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to get a grip on yourself and stop trying to ramrod speculation into every article remotely related to OKC and the Sonics.

Here is the deal. I am going to revert them all one last time and then we both leave this particular issue alone while you pitch your case via the talk Supersonics talk page. Whatever the results of that discusion we both allow someone else to post the agreed to edits but you need to stop your one man campaign to dominate these articles with your opinion. If you can't handle that as a resolution to this then we will have to have an admin block your account. --Coz 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than engage in a slow revert war over the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma article, please take it to the talk page instead. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

w00t, another self-proclaimed sockpuppet! how about that. -- Sockpuppet of Rickyrab (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My first instinct, honestly, was to cut the entire last part of the article, as it's a tangential advertisement for vegetarianism. As human beings are omnivorous by any definition of the word, I instead fact tagged the obvious sentence. Marskell (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence again. Clearly, taken as aggregate, the human species is omnivorous. I take that as a fact. We can process cellulose and meat protein equally. You're suggesting a cultural, not a scientific point (which doesn't make it uninteresting). My question: why is this included at all on our page? It's not needed and does read like a tangent. Marskell (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that you have made constructive edits to Wikipedia (and reviewing the account Okiefromokla), I have unblocked you. However, I strongly recommend you to select a different username. Regards, Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way of merging accounts. As for restoring access to an account you have lost a password to, it probably can be done; you should contact Jimbo Wales or another developer. Regards, Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see you back in action again as Okiefromokla. GreenGourd (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

...Because I started an edit war that woke people up. Boldness attracts attention? :) Wrad (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've been thinking about making a push for Human as well. Maybe I should suggest something that will make a lot of people mad. Dolphins are smarter than people? Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm. That's not that controversial. :) Wrad (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am just trying to get some other opinions on the term Okie. I am pretty sure you are wrong about wanting to portray it as "Negative" in the article, but I would like to get the opinion of others. I think my view and your view is fairly well covered, but if you would like to discuss our difference of opinion on it we can do it here. Thanks -- Xltel (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding... Glad I "fooled you" with my practical joke. Timneu22 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. --PTR (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do what I can. Thanks for the support. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

notification

Thanks for contacting me in private to avoid confusion. I've replied "at home" — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ User_talk:Xiutwel#Confused 19:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I thank you for partly endorsing my proposed text. However, I predict we will not reach consensus on even that; Haemo has protested already. I am hoping for a better, more permanent solution via the finding or not finding a RS to provide rationale for using the NFSM. Thanks also for your other advice, you're right, I should stop adding and will start wikibreaking now !! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• I just noticed you skipped answering my other question on my talk page. I am curious on what other wikipedians think, what drives them. Would you perhaps be willing to discuss with me the odds you estimate for correctness of narrative A? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a non-issue. It just doesn't matter. Sources are what matters on Wikipedia. But if you must know what I personally think, I'd say the chances of it being an inside job are about 3%, at best. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just looking through what some of the conspiracy theorists say. As far as what I believe, I'd say it's more like 0%. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

notification

I replied to your msg. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I dont know if you could do anything to help me but I was wondering if there was anyway Image:Oklahomastateseal.jpg could be in the public domain, mabye as a federal work. I uploaded it under Oklahomastateseal.png on Commons but all of the state seals might be deleted. It is an important image that adds to alot of the Oklahoma articles. Thanks alot --Cal (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that the seals were being considered for deletion. It seems like the person who nominated them did so because of a technicality (it's a work of a US embassy and not the federal government, as far as I understand the argument). So if that's the case, another state seal, like this one could be uploaded because it's from a work of the Oklahoma Department of Libraries. That particular example isn't the best, but it's better than nothing. On the other hand, I really don't think it will be a problem because I suspect the deletion attempt will fail. If it does pass, I'm sure we can upload that picture or someone else will find something better. State seals are an important part Wikipedia's coverage of the U.S., so there will be many people working on it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but please do not misrepresent what I said either. I said: "It's as valid as anything that reliable sources (especially the media) refer to these as "conspiracy theories". It's just another idicator that the most used and widely-known term is indeed "conspiracy theories." Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as saying that reliable sources should be the reason, this is not the case, and I'm sorry if it came across as such. I mean to say that the most common name (conspiracy theories) should be used and the fact that reliable sources like the media employ it only serves to support the argument. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. However the policy on naming conventions really doesn't make any reference to "reliable sources" and it is important to be very clear about this given the degree of confusion there has obviously been. However it is certainly true that mainstream media organisations will feature heavily in a "google test" and therefore what they call something certainly does have weight from that point of view. It will also be the case that examples of usage from such organisations will tend to predominate at the top of such a google search because they are so widely read, which is arguably an important consideration in itself. Would this be a fair way to put it? These are perfectly valid considerations. The real substance of the dispute is how these considerations weigh against competing ones within not only the letter, but also the spirit of the policies and guidelines on which our respective cases rest. ireneshusband (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it could go either way. Like I said before, I was merely refering to using reliable sources (mainly, the media) as one of many indicators of what the most common name might be, but it's certainly not an all-deciding factor in determining that for our articles. I think that's what you're saying too, correct? Thanks for clarifying, by the way. Okiefromokla ^questions? 07:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The main point is that, partly due to their size, the output of web content by major news outlets is prolific and that this will be reflected in a "google test". That such outlets are widely read might also be argued to be important, although I can't remember whether this is explicitly stated in the policy. It would only be important if it could reasonably be argued that the popularity of a particular news organisation more accurately reflected usage among the general population. "Reliability", however, has absolutely nothing to do with it. In other words an instance of usage has the same weight whether it comes from the Financial Times or from the National Enquirer. ireneshusband (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok. I think I see your point now. And I agree that for the reasons you say, news media or other sources aren't necessaily an indicator of usage, but when 99% of media uses "conspiracy theories" there is some merit to it. Again, I agree that reliable sources in themselves are not definitive indicators of common name per Wikipedia policy. But we should not discount the overwhelming usage of "conspiracy theories" by the media all together. Okiefromokla ^questions? 07:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Help me out if I'm still misunderstanding you here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 07:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We are almost in agreement here. The difficulty with this issue is that there are a number of competing demands to be reconciled. We are not just talking about the tension between the need for titles to be easy for lay people to use and the need for them not to be judgemental or offensive. We are also talking about the tension between the various attributes necessary for ease of use. A widely recognised term might, as is being argued in the present case, also be ambiguous. What I am saying is that because frequency of use, as measured by a google test, is generally a good basis for naming an article, we should not go against that custom unless there are strong reasons for doing so. My position is that there are indeed such strong reasons and that any merit that the present name has are far outweighed by its deficiencies. I also maintain that the suggested new name would pose no significant difficulties for a lay person. Therefore I do not feel able to say that the current name has much merit. I hope this has helped clear things up. If you want to discuss this any further, it would probably be best to do it within the discussion itself rather than on our talk pages. ireneshusband (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a source of scientific information regarding the debate on humans being naturally omnivores, herbivores, or carnivores. I object to your edit (removal of "carnivores") for these reasons:

1 - Your comment ("no. This is not a reliable source, and there are none.", emphasis provided by me) clearly indicates personal bias.

2 - By your logic, you would also have to eliminate "herbivore" from the argument and state that there is scientific consensus on humans being omnivores, because the argument for us being herbivores is pushed almost exclusively by animal rights and vegan extremists, who are also not "reliable sources".

3 - My sources are well sourced by scientific literature.

4 - The argument is not really about whether humans are actually herbivores, omnivores, or carnivore, but whether there is debate over the subject matter, which there most certainly is.

Thanks for your time. 70.145.15.83 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the source myself, and agree with Okie that it probably doesn't meet the WP:Reliable sources criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to the source you wish to include because nearly every point it discusses is a factual error, so it is not a reliable source by any means. Second, there is no true consensus that a meat diet is better or that humans are natural carnivores. It is the opposite, in fact. There is precedence for the first view: The American Dietetic Association is one important organization that says a plant-based diet is healthier. As for your website's factual errors, I don't have time right now to go through them all, so I'll go through the really obvious ones in one section: the Jaw.

It claims human jaw movement is identical to dog jaw movement in that it is vertical, unlike sheep jaws. In reality, Human jaws go vertical AND horizontal, unlike dogs. Most glaringly: It says mastication (chewing) is unimportant to humans (!!!) In reality, mastication is the ONLY way for humans to consume solid food, unlike carnivores, who don't chew extensively by any means. Next, it claims human jaws function for tearing food - not true. Canine teeth in humans are dull and not larger than the front teeth, making tearing flesh with only canines nearly impossible, or very difficult. Find another source for this, please. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. The main consensus, obviously, is that humans are omnivores, but there is a heap of valid scientific evidence that plant-based diets are healthier. Pure carnivorous diets are not considered plausible or healthy by any respected dietitian, or any mainstream organization, which is why it should not be included in the article. (Vegetarianism would not be the article for this anyway). Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Could you please edit the article to reflect this consensus? 70.145.15.83 (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although no person is welcome to make unconstructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits appears to be constructive and has been smiled about or lauded. Please use every article for any great edits you would like to make, and take a look at the page for cool editors to learn more about contributing awesomely to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Colleenthegreat (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks? Okiefromokla ^questions? 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for being a good editor here :) Colleenthegreat (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 06:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Okie, I am replying here because I do not want to go off-topic. You wrote:

Once again, you have failed to hear what others are telling you. This violates Wikipedia policy. We cannot consider a view unsupported by reliable sources to be equal to a view that is supported. There is, as you say, a significant minority who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, and that's covered here. We have a section in this article for that, which links to another article about that entirely. You have shown an obvious bias in this matter and have pushed relentlessly for inclusion of a slant based on your conspiracy theory, despite good faith efforts for God knows how long to help you understand Wikipedia policy. So, I will not agree with your list. It's another obvious, transparent, and rather bad attempt to pursuade people to bypass Wikipedia policy by misleading them, nothing more. I will not be participating in these discussions further, and I hope other editors on this page will follow my example. Please do not clutter this talk page with these proposals again. Okiefromokla questions? 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you feel this way. I was not at all implying that we should resort to non-RS sources. I am just saying they can be wrong. They are only human.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do you agree with my 11 points of consensus, or am I mistaken ? You weren't referring to that, were you?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't agree with your "points of consensus" because the root of them is your disagreement with fundamental policy to push a belief, and that's not what the 9/11 talk page is for. Your list is an obvious attempt to disguise the bypass of policy to make a case that your conspiracy theory should be treated equally in the article despite the lack of reliable sources. There isn't a point to discussing it any further. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

February 20

I prefer to speak about this with you in private; you wrote:

:::::::::::::There is no hurdle. You are merely fundamentally ignorant of our policies. There is no "view B" to be discussed here. We have one view: The view that is supported by reliable sources. We simply do not make distinctions between viewpoints by any other standard. If anything, the term "view B" signifies any view unsupported by reliable sources, and asking us to give it creedence it would violate half of our policies, not the least of which: WP:NPOV. The passport information is not relevant to this article, and your Google test, which does not determine notability, is mistaken. If you simply type hijacker passport you will receive every page that has those two words in any combination. Adding quotation marks around a specific phrase will narrow it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• A small remark in advance: I am not claiming that we should include the passport info on the base of the google search. I am just pointing out it may be relevant to view B. About view B: it is not adhered to by reliable sources, but it's existence is noted and it has prominent adherents. I think we should treat it as a significant minority view. When you disagree with that, can you tell me why? You write it is "unsupported" by RS but this can be interpreted as "not adhered to" or "not noted" or maybe a third option. Would you please clarify?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree that “view B” is a significant minority view, which is why I strongly support having an article and brief section about it. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a notable movement. But the fact that they are believed by many people does not mean we mix "view A" with "view B". My earlier point was that the only view that can be called "view A" is that which is supported by reliable sources, and if reliable sources do not report something, we cannot include it. Therefore, any other view would have to be "view B", or, anything unsupported by sources, and therefore can't be mixed with "view A". If it is "not adhered to" by reliable sources then it has no factual importance to us other than the fact that many people believe it, and it cannot be treated as though it has factual importance.

I think you're confused about what "reliable sources" are. If we cannot cite something with a verifiable reference, it cannot be added. That is a reliable source. For example, there is a significant number of people who believe that the earth is flat, but there is no scientific evidence for that, so it is not supported by verifiable factual references. Therefore, "View A" (the earth is round) is covered in the article about Earth, but "view B" (the earth is flat) is not. Once again, I cannot stress enough that if it is not adhered to by reliable sources we cannot include it. That is our fundamental policy. It's non-negotiable. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

re: "please stop"

• I thank you for your message, Okiefromokla. I've replied at my page, in between. Please, if and when you reply, you are welcome to reply inbetween or underneath, as you see fit.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the revert on my userpage! :-) Not sure what I did to deserve that... CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I have no tolerance for that kind of vandalism; it just makes me mad :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured I'd bring my response to your question[1] here rather than have it on the Sonics talk page. I don't think anything that you said was uncivil, it just didn't further the task of finding a consensus wording. I think if you had left off the last two sentences of your initial comment it would have been fine. Coz does tend to focus his editing on areas that he has strong opinions on and this can make him difficult to work with, but if you focus on the content and not the editor, you can generally get him to work with you on finding wording that is at least palatable to both of you. The biggest thing is to try and avoid using the revert button more than once. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there are some good lessons to be learned here. I think Coz 11 and I disagree fundamentally on the particular question of adding Sterns comments, so I doubt he will accept your compromise as there is a mention of the comment. That's really the core problem here. I think consensus either way, hopefully with more editors involved, would probably be the only thing that could settle it. Thanks for the advice. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have been fixing up the Oklahoma Portal and have nominated it for FP status, if you agree please support it for me at this link [2]. Thanks--CPacker (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you get any free time we need Photos to be added to the Selected Photos section. I didnt include some of the previous photos from the portal because of there quality. If you know of any Oklahoma photos that would look good on the portal please add them, (P.S. I have the photo rotation set at one until the section is completed) and thanks alot for the help.--CPacker (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• (Just got your new message) Its up to you, you can tell me what needs work, or you can do it your self. Wichever way is fine with me.

• Hey I think that it would be better if you voted, frankly because it needs votes. If there is anyone else that you know who can review and vote please ask them, Thanks again--CPacker (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

	The Hidden Barnstar
	This user has found Basketball110's secret hidden sub page! Can you find it?

Good work. You can also have a ubx if you'd like. See User:Basketball110/Userboxes. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You could have a cookie! Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 20:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)