User talk:Dboje

Uber-postmodern:

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Uber-postmodern:, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Hqb 19:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Antenarrative

The article Antenarrative has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be original research - invention of the term is credited to the article creator

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Antenarrative

The article Antenarrative has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Antenarrative for deletion

The article Antenarrative is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antenarrative (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antenarrative

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Antenarrative, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://astoriedcareer.com/2010/07/questions-about-organizational.html.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Antenarrative

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Antenarrative, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. 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. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

email

This is regards to your posting an email address on the article David Boje. Please make sure you have read and understood Wikipedia:OUTTING#Posting_of_personal_information Arjun^codename024 18:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiresome

David, I did not initiate the deletion of the anti-narrative article. When someone else did I supported it and declared an interest with my vote. The reason was that the entry was in effect your writing (you may have written it), it was not based on third party sources which is a requirement for articles here. You or others could easily have defended it, nothing gets deleted on wikipedia without community consensus. No need to do an IP check either (which by the way is improper in Wikipedia unless you are an admin with the right authority). I link to my web page from my user page so my identity is open to all. You should also consider your recent direct edits of your own article (the use of I in particular). In general you should only correct errors per policy. --Snowded ^TALK 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to the above: the material posted on my talk page belongs at a deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review) if it belongs anywhere. That's the avenue that you should pursue, if you wish to pursue this. However, deletion review will ask for sources that are independent of you, and most of your material is not so independent. Bear that in mind if you wish to pursue this. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in reply to your most recent post on my talk page (I'm going to keep as much discussion here in one place as I can) : I'm not "in league with" anyone, and my reason for wanting to see that material removed is that it appears to constitute original research, which is prohibited by policy from appearing in the encyclopedia. If anything, Snowded has been taking your part, by noting that he's aware of your standing in your chosen field. He would appear to have much more tolerance of such material than I do. If you want the "Antenarrative" material to appear in Wikipedia, you ought to take it to Deletion review, as I suggested. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

OK, lets get formal on this. You are repeating a false accusation that I initiated the deletion of the anti-narrative article. You are making multiple accusations of a conspiracy Based on that you are in violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. In addition you are writing essays based on your theories as Wikipedia articles. You are directly editing the Boje article in violation of clear wikipedia policy. You are removing tags from articles before consensus has been reached on the talk page for their removal, again against policy. You need to get your head around the way Wikipedia works, quit the conspiracy theory crap and stop throwing accusations around. If you don't its going to end up with an ANI report --Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Storytelling organization. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please read WP:BRD If another editor reverts material you insert you should discuss. The reason for the deletion is that you are inserting your own material - this is known as original research. You need third party references to show its relevance and determine the content. --Snowded ^TALK 22:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Storytelling organization has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. O Fenian (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabula and Syuzhet

When you started the article on 'Fabula and Syuzhet', you referenced the 2nd chapter of Boje (2008) as supporting the assertion that Propp and Shklovsky were the first scholars using the terms 'fabula' and 'syuzhet' in the sense given by the article. However, I could not find these terms nor the names of the scholars in the referenced chapter. There is an index at the end of the book, but it does not show any reference to 'fabula', 'syuzhet', 'Propp' or 'Shklovsky'. Could you please check the reference and correct it if necessary? I added a couple of lines in the discussion section of the article for knowing others' opinions as well. Thank you.150.203.124.123 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]