User talk:Mzilikazi1939/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome! Hello,, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Reconsider !  23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Network of buddhist organisations uk
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Network of buddhist organisations uk, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.nbo.org.uk. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Network of Buddhist Organisations (UK)
A tag has been placed on The Network of Buddhist Organisations (UK) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Network of Buddhist Organisations
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Network of Buddhist Organisations, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.nbo.org.uk. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied from the NBO talk page: The article with this name has a notice saying that an automated process indicates possible infringement of a website's copyright. An earlier version of this article - The Network of Buddhist Organisations UK - did quote its aims and it is true that these do appear on the NBO website. However, statement of aims may be taken as belonging to the public domain and in fact the same wording is quoted on another, completely independent (Christian) website - which was my source.

In order to avoid having to argue with brainless machines (and absent editors), I rewrote the article without quoting the aims but got the same notice, this time without any justification. Editors are said (not entirely truthfully) to check such tagged articles 'within 24 hours' but there has been no action now within a week. I feel pardonably aggrieved at this lack of response.

88.106.13.210 (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We currently have a 7 days backlog, on account of being volunteers and not numerous enough to tackle it faster. While the aggravation is understandable, there is little we can do to speed up the process.That being said, I have reviewed the article and cleared the bot notice. Happy editing. MLauba (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Robinson (publisher)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ian robinson (publisher), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://website.lineone.net/~johnmingay/ian.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to VernoWhitney for replacing the bibiliography after I deleted it in panic. Copyright permission has now been received and will be forwarded appropriately. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Dent
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Peter Dent, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.leafepress.com/litter/dentbiblio/dentbibliography01.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Help uploading images
Hi Mzilikazi1939,

I've replied to you on my talk page: User talk:Annielogue

--Annielogue (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, I've replied at User talk:Annielogue.


 * By the way, I see you searched for images with Google image search. Did you know you can also search for images in the wikipedia search box by typing file: before your search item? For instance, just type "file: aesop ant" and search and you get somethat way.


 * Any more questions, I'm happy to help.--Annielogue (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Faivre jardiniere.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Faivre jardiniere.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 created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, the page it was from mentioned that copyright rested with the creator of the work involved and use was allowed since the work dated from 1900 and the artist had died in 1937. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply from Stitchill re. Cock and Jewel
Hi. Apologies for any hassle re. yesterday's edits. It's nmot true they were undiscussed - I left my reasons for reverting on the discussions page. I thought the compression of the article made the article cogent. However, you feel strongly. This time have just made some fixes to stuff that was lost that I think tidies the page up in terms of layout and have restored one or two (hopefully) non-controversial things. However, I am about to do one more edit which you might want to discuss and will call it picture caption so you can see it. Hope okay Stitchill (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. done. Reason for citation tag is not because I disagree, but because I don't understand the reference to John Ogilby or how he is relevant (not knowing anything about him). I don't feel the art-interpretation opinion about the picture really works though, either as evidence or explanation. I moved it to the picture caption, so it's not lost. Stitchill (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Henny Penny versus Chicken Little/Licken
Hi Mzilikazi, just wanted to sort this article name out. You asked on the talk page about a place to get feedback form other editors. Can I suggest we ask the mediation cabal [] for comment. As i see it currently you see Henny Penny as the best option, and i despite my personal favourite being chicken Licken, think it should be Chicken little to be more relevant to the other media adaptations. I was going to put this quick summary into the request from. O.k. with you? Quoth 31 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you, Quoth31. The mediation cabal wasn't what I had in mind but a more general discussion forum, which I caught a glimpse of once but can't locate now. Mediation is for those at loggerheads, which we aren't really; what we want to gather is the opinions of a few others, who may even suggest something we haven't thought of. In addition, the last time I looked at the mediation process there was a 3-month backlog, so we might end up with a hasty rather than a well thought-out judgment.Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Found it I think; WP:3 request for third opinion. Is that what you were referring to? It would be nice to get someone else on this. Currently we have two editors and four options. Hopefully we'll raise the first one and lower the second. Quoth 31 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well found! Not quite what I remembered, but it will do. It looks as if a 3O is not something that's binding and does allow all of us to discuss. I notice that it's good practice for both parties to make the request. If you make it first, pointing the editor to the discussion page, please give me the URL for your request and I'll leave a signature saying I second it.Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's been a third opinion put in about it, you can see it at the talk page. I'll wait for you to get back. I think in the end I'm happiest with Chicken Little as the best compromise. Quoth 31 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's taken in a thing we said. We UK residents did not what the phrase Chicken Licken was referring to when we first encountered it. But Henny Penny is in use in the USA. I refuse to allow US chauvinists to assume that the whole world must bow to what Hollywood dictates.Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Aesop
Hi, would you mind undoing this edit? Besides the fact that File:Can't please everyone2.jpg used to live in that article, it's also going to appear on the Main Page as Picture of the Day on November 12, and we like to ensure that the POTD actually is in the article that it highlights. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 22:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I do object to the change you request. I chose the title page of this work because its nearness to the cover of "Bambous" a little higher invites comparison between the design and typography of two 19th century covers from different cultures. It would have been off-subject to discuss the matter overtly in the context of the presentation of the fables, but the subtle juxtaposition will alert those who interest themselves in such matters.


 * I am sure it has not escaped you that the picture you wish to highlight appears at the end of the WP article on Walter Crane, and you could point readers there in your note. It also appears, usually at greater magnification and in association with the rest of the illustrations, on the following websites -
 * http://mythfolklore.net/aesopica/crane/22.htm
 * http://www.childrenslibrary.org/icdl/BookPage?bookid=crababy_00150086&pnum1=24&twoPage=false&route=text&size=0&fullscreen=false&lang=English&ilang=English
 * http://www.archive.org/stream/babysownaesopbei00aeso#page/22/mode/2up
 * http://salmun.cwahi.net/chldrn/story/ftfc/cft/boa/boa.htm#22
 * and these are far from the only examples. (You might care to point readers to these sources in your article.)


 * In view of the illustration's availability elsewhere on WP, not to mention the fact that the fable which it illustrates does not have a WP article dedicated to it, and the disruption of the overall design of this article, I would be extremely unwilling to agree to the change you suggest. The ideal compromise solution would be to create an article on that fable, or at least a stub page, on which that illustration by Crane would most naturally appear. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Aesops fables
Hi, there are other sources on the wiki article for "Aesop" that are referenced, perhaps a link to the Aesop article?.--67.246.114.239 (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.114.239 (talk)


 * I thought of that and had a look. The subject there is the person Aesop and pictures are of representations of him, so using the illustration under discussion there would be unsuitable. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What legitamite photo?
Dear Ma'am/sir, the painting in the article did not match the description of a naked girl biting her fingers. It, instead, looked like a naked girl biting one of her nails, and thus was deleted as unencyclopædic vandalism. Bonelayer12864 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You could have modified the description as I have just done. I notice from your talk page that you have had notice of several inappropriate interventions that have been reversed. The warning about a complaint concerning your conduct remains if you persist. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice that you only have this talk page, and not a actual user page. This concerns me. Bonelayer12864 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-UK sentiment
I didn't want to fill the Henny Penny talk page with more off-topic discussion, but I was really surprised by what you said about hearing "redcoat" comments. I've lived in the midwestern US my whole life and I would find it really strange to hear a comment like that. I've never even heard mention of people in the states disliking the British in modern times. I mean, there are certainly some conservatives that are ignorant enough to think that all of Europe is gripped by socialism and on that basis have decided to dislike anything that seems European to them, but even in that case it's not specifically anti-UK. It's possible that the west coast is worlds different in this regard than the midwest...but I'd have a hard time believing it. I'm not really positive what my point is here, except that the sentiment you observed is most probably not as widespread as you think. -- Fyrefly (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing, Fyrefly. I don't think I was implying that reference to redcoats was evidence of actual hostility. Historical memory is a recent technical phrase and indicates ingrained bias between communities. Sikhs, for instance, aggressively commemorate the anniversaries of some of their gurus 'martyred' by a Moghul emperor and this colours how they feel in the company of Muslims but may not influence their actual behaviour. But you're right, Englishness or English ancestry can also be favoured. A very proper friend of mine, now a city councillor, was brought up in Kentucky and told me he was saved from a beating up ('You're not from round here, are you, boy?') by revealing his nationality. And you're right again about anti-European bias. I came across blatant examples of that when I was part of the font-freak community. The trend of the remarks from one correspondent was that all Europeans are uncouth and ignorant. I don't think the guy was a conservative, politics didn't enter into the discussion. He was just annoyed with the three of us with whom he was in conflict (he could not even have realised that one was an Australian, another a Canadian) and that was what came out. My point is that these feelings are often subliminal, which makes them all the more dangerous. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Henny Penny
Hi there -

Would you mind making more explicit your support for Henny Penny over Henny Penny (fable) back up in the Requested Move section? At the moment, your vote of against doesn't make it clear that you were mainly against Chicken Little. Thanks! And by the way, that was a great book cover you found! Dohn joe (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of film adaptation of The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse
Please see my question on the article Talk page. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your message on my User talk page, surely you can at least see that there are better ways to approach simple content disagreements than to attack me as "lazy" and "insensitive," simply having the audacity to try and improve the article. I have no quibble at all with the other editor in question, or his guidelines: he was polite and helpful throughout. You were not. If you intend to stick around here, you've got to find a better way to address editors who are trying to add content to "your" articles on fables without making them feel like they've been attacked. Your colleague seems able to do so. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

...and regarding your reply, I see it's no use wasting courtesy on you, however belatedly. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ben Perry
Greetings Mzilikazi1939. Thank you for your message regarding Ben Perry's quote in Aesop's Fables. I have replied to you on my talk page User talk:Poshzombie —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC).

Aesop
Greetings Mzilikazi1939. I have responded to your comments re the Aesop article at my talk page. Stevensaylor (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Image size
When asking other people to be courteous, remember to show some courtesy yourself! The information is at Images and IMGSIZE - you need to make a case for forcing editors to view a larger image. Warofdreams talk 08:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The miller, his son and the donkey
You were fast there, Mzilikazi1939. I was wondering how I was going to find time to do justice to the artistic interpretations, and you just rolled it out. It looks like you were preparing this article yourself for a while. Your description of them is just what it needed. And the linking to images - I hadn't found the Vedder series, so it was nice to see them all! How about a...

(Haven't done one of these before - seems a bit American - delete if you don't like it.)--Annielogue (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks, Annielogue. The award is gratefully received. I just looked up what a barnstar is; now I need a barn to nail it on...


 * I didn't mean to clash with your editing of the final section. I thought you'd finished and, yes, I put in 4 hours of work this morning doing the research. You probably noticed I also slimmed down narration of the fable to its bare bones. That way you can spot variations when they come. I'll slip in another pic too: the final episode in the Vedder set, I think, probably the drawing. In that way we have a narrative flow in the pics and also a fine variety of items. I'm sure there's more to say in the earlier sections, but right now I have a new fable article of my own to add. I'm glad it was me acting as your partner this time, for a change. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Monkey and the Cat
If there is a reference for the introductory paragraph of The Monkey and the Cat later in the article, which one is it? If you could identify it and place it in the introductory paragraph that would be great. Thank you.  Barkeep   Chat 15:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Barkeep! My understanding of the introduction to articles is that they should act as a summary of what is to follow. That's the reason why the misattribution to Aesop is mentioned there. There is absolutely no evidence that the story dates from Classical times. It was popularised by La Fontaine and in the century before him existed in two versions, one of which involved a puppy rather than a cat. All of this is described (with references) in the first named section and there then follows an explanation of how the misattribution came about. In this context to demand a citation is like asking for documentary proof that the Hebrew Bible was not written by the Prophet Mohammed! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia's policy on when to cite material and WP:LEADCITE. My addition of the citation needed template was some what of a "challenge." Not that I don't believe the statement being made, but I'm more looking out for the general Wikipedia reader. While not a requirement and in some agreement with your statement above, I personally view the lack of no references in the introductory paragraph as a weakness in an article. When I write an article I assume that the reader will not continue on to read the rest of the work. My personal preference. I won't fight you on this, so do as you see appropriate.


 * Additionally, I've watch listed your talk page so you can post your responses here instead of my talk page. Thanks.  Barkeep   Chat 18:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Barkeep. Lead etiquette can be a minefield. I find present practice of providing an abstract at the head of academic articles - that are in fact largely made up of chunks of the following introduction - infuriating, but that's because my training dates from before that convention came in! Let me record here that I've appreciated your patient formatting of my references - the product of my g-g-generation yet again. But, just to apply a small lick of the whip, I find it hard to credit that a reader not prepared to go beyond the lead to look at the argument that follows is at all likely to check one's citations! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How about we say something like:
 * The earliest known mention of the story is in 16th century sources and, although fables have often been welcomed into the Aesop corpus with little evidence that that they could ever have been by Aesop, this one has not even merited inclusion in the extensive Perry Index.
 * One thing (that doesn't materially affect this) - the fable is one of those in the 17th century Labyrinth of Versailles, which Perrault says were Aesop's fables. Not that that means it was of course, just that its welcome into the corpus was a little earlier.--Annielogue (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing (that doesn't materially affect this) - the fable is one of those in the 17th century Labyrinth of Versailles, which Perrault says were Aesop's fables. Not that that means it was of course, just that its welcome into the corpus was a little earlier.--Annielogue (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, you're the versatile detective, Annielogue! Your 17th century fact does 'materially effect' the article because the guide to the Versailles labyrinth was translated in English and would have passed on the impression that this fable was by Aesop, as the 1804 cartoon asserts. I was wondering how it arose. And here's another infuriating fact. Isaac de Benserade, who was responsible for the inscriptions at Versailles, published a collection of fables not just of the bare quatrains but one in which the format was of the quatrain summing up the fable, followed by a prose telling, followed by the moralistic verse conclusion. From this it becomes clear that the statue was of the older version in which the cat's paw was forcibly used, whereas the prose account follows La Fontaine's later telling. It's almost beginning to seem as if the 16-17th century version is counted as Aesop's (it's the one Landseer follows too) and La Fontaine's modified version of 1679 is only thought of as original for the detail of persuasion rather than compulsion.

Now here's what I need to find out. In what influential collection of fables did the version known to the 18th century English appear, given that it's not in Croxall, Dodsley, Bewick? And to whom was it attributed there? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the image in the Versailles labyrinth guidebook - and it looks like the monkey is forcing the cat's hand. Hard to tell. There are also some old monkey statues from the maze but they don't look like the right one.
 * As for the English link... that looks like a hard quest.
 * --Annielogue (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A very rough translation of the quatrain goes: 'The monkey looks sprightly/ but the cat didn't/ when he gave it his paw/ to pull chestnuts from the fire'. Keep looking for an English source, please. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm getting dizzy with all the versions... What about the 1792 (possibly 1780) Fugitive Fables by Isaac D'Israeli ?--Annielogue (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Annielogue. Who would have thought D'Israeli père would provide a version? It's interesting because in that odd compilation I only spotted a couple of fables that were really Aesop's. Isaac says his version is by him and, inevitably, it's the one that differs from La Fontaine. But this isn't what we're looking for. The political cartoon of 1766 has the fable at its centre and the 'cat's paw' idiom is well enough known by then to be the title, and this is well before D'Israeli's work. Geoffrey Whitney is the earliest English recorder I know, but his emblem has a puppy. There must be another English source influential enough to perpetuate the old version rather than La Fontaine's and create that idiom. I combed 20 pages of Google and couldn't find it...or even your D'Israeli version. How do you locate things, by the way (if you'd be prepared to reveal trade secrets)?

Oh, and I combed through WP looking for Aesop allusions and discovered a very inadequate article on The Belly and the Other Members. Bother! That's going to be a complicated one too, but I do know of a very nice Japanese print to go with it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As you say, there is the obvious transmission via translation of de Benserade. Such as this in 1768. I use Google Books, but for this you can do "advanced search" and set the date range to e.g. the 18th century. (I also look at the "look inside"s of amazon when Google Books won't let me). Maybe you do this already. If not, have a try. There was a mention or two of the fable being well known in the 18th century.--Annielogue (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the paper chase perhaps goes back to 1456...--Annielogue (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, a Jean Miélot proverb, a Jean Molinet poem and in the line before in that ref (or exactly the same text in another book) - an early one in English (1578)... John Florio Can't find the actual Florio quote though.--Annielogue (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Annielogue, that's VERY useful. I've also found the title of the article being quoted in the book, it's Elizabeth Dawes, Pulling the chestnuts out of the fire in L.A.J.R. Houwen (ed), Animals and the symbolic in mediaeval art and literature, Groningen 1997, pp.155-69. So now we're back in the mid-15th century, when there's already a proverb, so there may well be a Latin text in the background. I've drawn a blank with Simius et feles, although it may be Simius et catelum where the last means a little dog and is confused with the Germanic Latin 'cattus' of the period. It's probably all in that article, of which I can't find a copy to read. I'm beginning to wonder whether there's an Eastern origin too.... Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't, as you can see, done anything much to add to the article, but I too am beginning to wonder about Eastern analogues. The Japanese The Battle of the Monkey and the Crab, though a very different story, also features a monkey wanting to get food by taking advantage of a friend, as does the Philipine Tortoise and the Monkey. Distantly related, if at all, but... --Annielogue (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've now completed my revision of the article and would like to thank you, Annielogue, for the research that you did that has fed into it. I've now contacted the Novel Portal and got them to upgrade their assessment of it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw. Well done you!--Annielogue (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:CM chanticleer.jpg
Regarding this edit, as you can see, File:CM chanticleer.jpg is clearly not on commons, but a local file. Moreover, it is tagged as 'non-free', and hence should need a rationale for each use of the image. If this file is indeed free, and available on Commons, then the local file should be deleted. If the file is not-free, it should have a rationale. Could you please have a look whether local deletion is warranted (note, if the file is non-free, it should not be on commons, and will likely be deleted there). For more info, please have a look at WP:NFCC, WP:NFUR and WP:FIXNF. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the explanation. I didn't really like its appearance on that page in any case and the guy who uploaded it has different priorities from mine! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

three friends of winter

 * Thank you, and I'm relieved with the co-operation. About that, to be honest I was contemplating to place it too. I think I will just remove the specifics until then. I will try to find Zhu Qingyu's poem, but I'm not sure if its still extant, might as well that the critiques and commentaries on the poem was the source of info for the Taipei National Palace Museum. What I initially had in mind for the "symbolism" section... It was suppose to focuss on explaining why they are connected as the three friends to the winter. I think we have "over"-reworded some things, I guess I didn't wrote clear enough..
 * yield (or bend) > submit > submissive (from bamboo)
 * does not wither in the winter > surviving the winter > survivor (from pine)
 * song zhu mei means just "pine, bamboo, plum" btw, just like sho chiku bai
 * not sure on the interpretation "since the blossom must eventually fall in the spring" (which is my fault because I shouldn't have written "during the winter" in that sentence), I'm not quite sure to what or when "transitoriness thereafter" specifically refers to
 * Also, I was thinking on the format of "the pine [is viewed as]" instead of directly stating that "the pine [is]" for the section, as to give some distance. I'll wait for your input. I'm not quite sure how to fix the disagreement over this last section though, also I'll relent, but I'm not sure what you are aiming for, so should I place something along the lines of (Template:See also)


 * Cold Season (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the changes made so far.
 * 1. The History Section has been transformed into Cultural Use and includes a couple of pleasing discoveries of modern Western instances to make the subject more relevant to that audience. If you can't find the original T'ang poem, it doesn't much matter; you give the reference to the claim. It would be nice to quote one Chinese poem, though, now that I've discovered a Korean one. Don't modify the statement about Song transmission to Japan either. There are tags elsewhere on WP that are two years old, so time is on our side.
 * 2. The Gallery has been added. There's the problem of the Cheng Man-ch'ing painting, which I should be sorry to lose since it's a 20th century example. It's from the National Palace site, which is copyright but allows 'reasonable use'. Exposing it in not-for-profit WikiCommons does not seem to be one of them, but they do recommend asking for permission. Could you do so, in your best Mandarin, explaining that you've just created the WP article and wish to demonstrate that it's about a still living tradition?

I definitely think we should go for the option of making the Symbolism section much shorter, adopting the template you suggest. The other redirections should be to the relevant section in Chinese White Pine and Bamboo. We should confine consideration to only those themes that link the three to winter. That the bamboo is hollow and submits to the wind is irrelevant. Besides, Western reactions to the similar situation in the fable of The Oak and the Reed is ambivalent. In certain circumstances, submissiveness may be interpreted as cowardice. Your distress over "since the blossom must eventually fall in the spring" highlights another clash of interpretation. In Japanese culture viewing plum blossom is done when the flowers are at their fullest and close to falling. This evokes aware (wistfulness), one of the four traditional aesthetic moods. It all depends on context: in the springtime plum blossom is a symbol of the beauty of the transitory; it is only when it first blossoms above the winter snow that it can associate with the evergreens. Kim Yugi's poem is another example of this ambiguity of meaning, as is the poem quoted under The Gourd and the Palm-tree from which you linked to your newly created article on 10 August. I would recommend making this point about changing interpretation according to context a part of your discussion. It was because of such relativity, quite apart from the irrelevance of some of the other qualities, that led me to delete the section in the first place. I have a colleague called Annielogue (with whom I co-operate on fable subjects) who particularly delights in ambivalence of interpretation. Such a discussion would delight his/her eyes!

I'll leave the section for you to deal with - especially as you may have to jetison some of your references in the process. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I went to the search function and searched for any mention of the Three Friends to make it in a wikilink. I think it's several kinds of pine besides the Chinese White Pine, like Huangshan pine or others. It's kind of ambiguous to me in contrast to the plum of which the species is specifically named (I've never heard of the white pine). I'm not sure on the images of the plates and woodblock either, as per guideline unless you have that covered. I think I'm beginning understand where you are going for with the symbolism section, do you still think I should scrap the whole thing? I think I should now. I'm quite uncertain on how to make that section work at the moment. -- Cold Season (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's over to you now, Cold Season. I've located some more cultural examples and have commented briefly on how the motif has been used. I've also rewritten the section on cultural symbolism along the lines I was suggesting to you. Among other things, it struck me that the Korean poem really fits best in a discussion of contextual symbolism. Please check to see that I haven't missed out relevant references. I've linked to the cultural sections on individual plants in the way you suggested; there the Chinese White Pine article is the only one that seems to consider the pine's place in Chinese culture. If you can locate a convincing example of the friends used together in a poem, I'd be grateful if you would add it. All the ones I looked at did not seem strong or relevant enough. So far as items in the Gallery are concerned, most are covered by the rule that copyright expires after a century. WP does not seem too concerned by photographic copyright on such items, except in the case of Flickr. The only problematic item for me is the Cheng Man-ch'ing scroll and I'm relying on you to apply for permission to use that. I'll look forward with interest to any last minute touches of yours. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just want to thank you, for the excellent work, even though it was a rather rough process. It looks good. One issue what I want to adress is, I'm quite hesitant about the five images of 3D ceramics and woodblock..., as the rights for the art is passed, but as per guideline these photos still have rights due to the "unique" composition by the photographer and these are not free (paintings are 2D and thus free). Well, it's really better to be safe, so to avoid trouble, I'll leave it to you. Thank you for the effort, and yes... I have begun contact with the NPM for permission of use. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cold Season. I've shifted quite a bit of our technical discussion here, which is the better place for it, as you may have noticed from other discussions of articles under development. I'll leave in the images that trouble you and see what happens. In the past I have been allowed to keep (some) pictures of 3-dimensional objects. I'm not sure why you're worried about the woodblock illustration, which is 2-dimensional. Did you mean the wooden panel? That would be an interesting test case for what constitutes 3-dimensionality. Again, some of those pictures are of objects that aren't generally available and it's worth trying to get them a wider public. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the wooden panel, my mistake. I have no further issues to raise and everything else seems in order in my eyes, so it seems concluded. Excellent work. Cold Season (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I see we haven't finished after all. I've looked at Sevilledade's web activity and see he is notably high handed in his interventions. However, I've reduced the items to the 12 he recommends and made sure most of the remainder illustrate the discussion of cultural use. Since I'd referenced use of the bottle to a fuller set of illustrations at the Ashmolean, I got rid of that in the purge too. That means we leave only two of the 3-dimensional items that were bothering you. I thing Sevilledade was way too early in removing the statement without citation. I hope you'll bear in mind that finding a reference to it is important, and that it would be useful to locate a Chinese poem to quote under cultural usage too. I'll look forward to finding what you come up with. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * He edits well overall, perspective I guess, I see him all the time on my watchlist. But that aside, I can't find the ref, I've tried, but it's not really a priority to me. I'll come back to it eventually. I have re-arranged the refs btw, but I can't seem to place a ref to "This is further emphasised by the evergreen qualities of pine and bamboo, added to the early flowering of the plum while snow is still on the ground, and makes of them symbols of perseverance and integrity". So I presume it's from several refs? Neither with "Together they symbolize perseverance, integrity and modesty" (can't find it in the ref). If you can, otherwise I will leave it for now, since I don't see fault with it. I think I will stumble on a suitable poem over time. -- Cold Season (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fables Wrongly Attributed To Aesop
This title is misleading, and should be changed to something like: "Fables of Unknown Origin, Sometimes Attributed to Aesop". Truth is, most of Aesop's fables can't directly be attributed to Aesop. However, over the centuries these fables have become part of the Aesop canon so to speak. Furthermore, the title makes it appear as if the fables listed are certainly not Aesop's. This is NOT true at all. Just one example, "The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" IS usually attributed to Aesop. Some scholars believe it *may* have first originated in the Christian Bible, but this is NOT certain. Aesop lived before Christianity, therefore other scholars believe that this fable did originate with Aesop. Secondly, most of the fables in this section (such as "The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" do NOT provide any citations. This is not acceptable. On the other hand, fables such as "The Dog and its Reflection" which is listed under "Fables Wrongly Attributed to Aesop" actually has a citation and says: "The Dog and its Reflection (or 'Shadow' in several translations) is one of Aesop's Fables and is numbered 133 in the Perry Index.[1]" Therefore, this whole section needs work. First however, the title definitely needs changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropi (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Astropi, I see you are a new contributor and therefore must be forgiven your dogmatic language and lack of Wikipedia etiquette. Please note that you should sign your comments with four tildes (~) which will automatically give your user name. It would also be better to bring up points you want discussing (by the whole WP community) on the discussion page of the article concerned. Finally, there is a rule that evidence should be given in the form of references that can be checked, rather than your opinion or perception of what is 'usually' thought. Where is yours? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mzilikazi1939, yes, I am quite new to Wiki, so I apologize if I don't know the etiquitte. Please explain about signing comments with a ~? I don't quite understand how that works. As for evidence, of course: there are numerous places that show that fables listed under "Wrongly Attributed to Aesop" may in fact have originiated by Aesop. For instance, take a look at "A Wolf in Sheeps Clothing" : http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.html and http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/AesFabl.html Numerous reliable websites (such as .edu) list A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing as being part of the Aesop canon. Evidence goes both ways, I want to see evidence that the fables listed as "Fables Wrongly Attributed to Aesop" are actually wrongly attributed. Otherwise, this claim is entirely without evidence and therefore I will challenge it. I'm not trying to be hostile here, but I know for a fact that most if not all of those fables that are supposedly "wrongly attributed" have been part of the canon for hundreds of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropi (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand the nature of scholarly evidence, Astropi. It doesn't matter what some ignorant webmaster thinks, or if the attribution has been of 'hundreds of years'. In most cases, if there is no version in Greek or Latin before the Common Era, then the attribution is suspect. The two most reliable scholarly sources are the 3-volume work on the Graeco-Latin fable, which makes no mention of it, and the online Laura K. Gibbs site, which finds no evidence of the fable earlier than 1,600 years after the death of Aesop. If you would do me the courtesy to actually read the article under discussion, which is based on solid research, instead of quarreling with the lead outline, you might learn something.


 * I repeat, simply type four tildes {~) after your remarks and you user name will automatically show up. No-one is going to take you seriously if you can't even master that. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So, you're calling all these professors/instructors at research universities (such as UVA, to which I included a link) "ignorant"? Apparently in your own mind you know better than anyone else. I have to say, you come off as very arrogant. You included a link to a large work, and said it's one of the two "most reliable scholarly sources". So, are you an expert? If so, what are your credentials? You then try to prove something by simple lack of evidence. You should realize that a lack of evidence is not enough to justify a conclusion. You say "In most cases, if there is no version in Greek or Latin before the Common Era, then the attribution is suspect." That certainly may be so, but again where is your justification (can you provide a link to a scholarly article which points this out)? I am emailing various professors at research institutions to ask them if they can provide information on the origin of these suspect fables. I am perfectly willing to admit I am mistaken, however I feel that there should be scholarly evidence that points one way or another, and thus far I can only find scholarly evidence that seems to say that fables such as "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" originated with Aesop.Astropi (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Overriding user settings
You've now attempted to fix the size of the picture in John Holland on four occasions, without giving any coherent reason. Your latest summary was "bring this up as a discussion point". This seems rather odd given that you've not done so, but I thought I would respond and give you a chance to explain. Bearing in mind WP:ImageSize, and that you can set the default image size to be as large as you wish, or as small as a mobile device might require, what possible reason is there for forcing users to view a not very relevant image at the size you happen to prefer? Warofdreams talk 12:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I resent 'no coherent reason'. As a self-confessed bureaucreat, you doubtless find it irritating that users don't automatically observe regulations. However, my degree happens to be in English (I did research at Sheffield University, incidentally) and, as I explained to you on another occasion, that particular guideline is not framed as a rule but uses the subjunctive case: 'should', 'may'. I therefore exercised my own judgment, based on observation that sizes of illustrations are highly idiosyncratic and do not appear nearly as standardised as the guidelines make out. Some (and I judge the one I use as an example) appear impossibly small and therefore need adjustment - as the guidelines allow. In such a case adjusting my settings won't help since that would unbalance all the other illustrations.


 * I will also point out that your remark on the relevance of the image is impertinent as well as inaccurate, since the subject of the article devoted one of his best known poems to Sheffield Manor. I'm beginning to think that this may be an occasion for a third opinion, since you're not prepared to accept even the compromise size I suggested earlier. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A third opinion would probably be useful. WP:No personal attacks is a good thing to remember at all times.  The issue is with overriding user preferences to set a size for a picture of limited relevance; the issue is the same whatever size you set it to, so I'm not sure why a different size would be a compromise.  You do, however, explain exactly why the image is of limited relevance - it's a picture of something which Holland wrote a poem about.  A picture of Holland himself would be highly relevant. Warofdreams talk 14:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Welcome to lovelock.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Welcome to lovelock.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Obtained permission of copyright owner on 5 Nov. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Serra Fox1.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Serra Fox1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Serra Fox1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Serra Fox1.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I did my best to address the issue based on images I've uploaded, but hopefully Eeekster can fine tune what I did. Jessemv (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Jessemv. I don't know what went wrong, with my upload or what you did, as you'll see from the notice below. I've gone to Eekster's talk page and asked for advice. The photographer of the image thought the new license he assigned would be sufficient when we discussed it on Flickr. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. ''Reasons for this message: Your recent report to AIV was not formatted properly (please follow the instructions in the AIV page), the report was not signed and most importantly the editor was not properly warned. It also was doubtful it was vandalism per se as it looked more like a content dispute. If you have any questions please ask or read the detailed instructions in the AIV page itself.'' Alexf(talk) 21:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Your recent editing history at Lion's share shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Responded to the Administrator's talk page on 3 Dec. explaining that this was not an edit war but part of an ongoing dialogue - which was corroborated the next day by the reverted editor. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Woodcutter and the Trees


A tag has been placed on The Woodcutter and the Trees requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry did that too soon. I didn't see anything about it when I searched for it and thought maybe it was named incorrectly because there were other fables with woodcutter in the title. I removed the notice. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There's more on the article's talk page. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit offline
You undid all my recent changes with your edits to The Song of Hiawatha, please don't copy articles and edit them offline. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Bare URLs
You took this off a bit prematurely. There are still a few citations that just say "See online" with online linked. Such links are still prone to link-rot. The point of the bare URLs tag is that all the citations need to be fully formatted textual citations, with as many of author, title, publisher, etc. fields as possible, so we know precisely what was being referenced if the link goes dead. Footnotes should be citations, not merely external links. Yworo (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)