User talk:Daniel Sparkman

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for editing but some points about your edits so far:

• You need only sign on talk pages.
• Paragraphs need to not have any indent. They get fucked up if you try to intend.
• It's a good idea to put references for the material you add in the appropriate fashion. Information on this can be found here.

Munci (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel Sparkman!

Thanks you for your clarifying comment under mine about KT copyrights on the Dave Guard Talk page. I am a major KT fan, but I really didn't like what they did with a lot of traditional tunes and even less what they did with copyrights, Guard especially. However - for some reason your comment is not showing up in its entirety on the Talk page - I'll see if I can fix it.

One point - I listed some of the KT copyright malfeasances, but the story of "You're Gonna Mis Me" is actually even funnier. The "Seeger, Paley, Cohen" who grabbed the copyright from ol' Charlie Poole were (as you probably know) none other than The New Lost City Ramblers, purveyors of authenticity in response to the crass commercialism of the KT. After SP&G co-opted Poole's song, Guard changed part of a line or two and appended his name to the copyright. I don't believe that SP&G ever objected; KT albums sold in the millions in those days and enriched anyone who owned a song copyright on them. RegardsSensei48 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel Sparkman,

Your proposal may work. I think the critic You received is incorrect: lack of direct relatedness betweeen genetics and linguistics does not necessarily imply statistical independence (total lack of any correlation). Your proposal may contribute to scientific research significantly if applied with right context.

I am not an expert, thus I cannot evaluate the plan, I only wanted to say that 85.241.124.173's critic seems to be based on a mathematical theorem that does not hold (he seems to confuse notions like statistical independence, correlation and dependence and causality), thus the critic You received may be potentially incorrect.

Much success and best wishes, Physis (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]