User talk:Ursasapien/Archive 2

Canada/Lost

Hi there, I'd just like to say thank you for acknowledging that my Canada/Lost paragraph at least has some merit.Burnside65 10:27, August 7, 2007

Social Work page

Ursasapien,

Thank you for your message. I hope to be contributing more to the social work page over the next few weeks. Your contributions have been excellent. I am new to this so it may take you or other to fix up some of my contributions and editing errors.

I am a social working living in Australia and thought it needed some extra info about us down here. I will endeavour to add more about New Zealand and other issues around social work.

Thanks. User:Jackthecat001 21:17, August 7, 2007

Your checkuser threat

The anon user was not me, but why should that stop you? Go ahead and file the checkuser; I welcome it. After it resolves to nothing, please leave an apology on my talk page. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No threat. No threat at all. I came across a thread on your page like this:

Please strike the comments accusing me from the RfA Talk page, and the ANI page, and I'll drop this. If not, I've prepared a response. The Giblets guy was Willie_Peter, as he burned out in exactly the same way he always does. --Eleemosynary 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Joehazelton. Could it have been him? I think he is capable of writing coherently when he isn't foaming at the mouth. I'll go strike. - Crockspot 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to delete and strike your offensive comments about me or not? 81.169.170.70 05:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

{emphasis added for comparison}

Then User:81.169.170.70 went and vandalized Crockspot's RfA. I was going to report this series of unfortunate events, but I thought evidence of an abusive sockpuppet was so obvious that an admin could take action without going through the checkuser board. However, if you are telling me that I read those two piggy-backed statements wrong and you were not posting under User:81.169.170.70, I do indeed apologize. Perhaps, you can see how I read that wrong and explain to me what the second statement meant. I truly have only the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Please, assume good faith. Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thematic motifs source

You keep referencing BuddyTV. I looked at the page and do not see what you are referencing on the page. Could you quote it for me? I also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost a few days ago. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't get to the reference now (at work and it is blocked). However, I believe the reference is there to simply verify that "The Lost Experience" was canon. There are other references that talk about the influence of The Stand and The Watchmen on Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof. I believe references to the Lost Experience count, as well. On top of this, Qwerty has argued that the primary source (the show itsself) demonstrates this apocalyptic theme. Ursasapien (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It does verify that the Lost Experience is canon, but I don't see how that's relevant. --thedemonhog talk • edits 06:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am working on an answer to Bignole's bigger question - "Are all of the thematic motifs synthesis or original research?" Nevertheless, the point was made "Lost never specifically mentions the Valenzetti Equation/the end of the world" so, if the Lost Experience = canon, the Valenzetti Equation = canon, therefore end of humanity/end of the world/apocalypse = a thematic motif of Lost. Ursasapien (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Please use the talk page and work towards a compromise rather than blindly reverting things. You do not own that article, the present version DOES contain "some biographical information" despite your assertion to the contrary, and as noted on the talk page the page does need some work. You are hampering consensus by preventing people from working on the article. >Radiant< 10:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're the one that is not working towards consensus. You have not attempted to achieve it for your changes. Tyrenius 10:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please use the talk page and work towards a compromise rather than blindly reverting things.
  • Ditto. Do not blank huge sections of an article without using the talk page and working towards consensus/compromise. Don't use my talk page, use the article's talk page.
• You do not own that article, the present version DOES contain "some biographical information" despite your assertion to the contrary, and as noted on the talk page the page does need some work.
  • Again, ditto. YOU do not own the article. You should not blindly continue to push your POV, but rather use your powers of persuasion. The article does need some work, but your blanking of large sections seems to be a pretext to try AfD one more time (and this time, hopefully, get your desired result.
• You are hampering consensus by preventing people from working on the article.
  • I most certainly am not! be bold, edit the article, work toward consensus, but don't just blank huge sections with such a vague edit summary.

Sincerely, Ursasapien (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Just a caution about your edits to Anna Svidersky, which have reached a maximum reversion limit. Please read the policy page for full information. Tyrenius 11:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just being helpful. I'm sure Radiant is well aware. Edits are OK. It's reverts you've got to be careful of. Tyrenius 12:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:3RR:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Standard revert is just changing everything back exactly. Partial reverts are changing some of the material back; it's still reverting. Fixing a link or grammar is not a revert (unless this was what the reverting was all about in the first place). Best thing is WP:BRD, i.e. stick to one revert, then take to talk page. Editors can be blocked for less than breaking the 3RR max, if there is ongoing edit warring.
Tyrenius 06:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:

Oops !! Sorry , because I'm very fuss now about vandal and bad words, never like this before. --Passawuth 11:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dante Santiago

It qualifies for speedy deletion per G11 at WP:SPEEDY#General_criteria. Otherwise do some ruthless editing and cut it down to appropriate material. You seem to think it should be kept. Tyrenius 07:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A thank you.

Thank you for your assistance and advise on my entry in the Sean Hannity article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.67.218 (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

I restored the information because it is relevant I however do not know the proper formatting to cite a reference, however information regarding the violations by CSE can be found here... http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/9978 I would be eternally greatful if you would add the citation for me or show me how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K Watson1984 talk 06:03, September 12, 2007

Marie Bjelke Petersen

Hiya Thinking Bear. You helped me set up the Marie Bjelke Petersen stub, as it then was, which has now blossomed into two pages which need melding. Not asking you to do anything about this just spreading the knowledge around. Of course helpful advice would be appreciated, I feel a little reponsible......Jeremytrewindixon 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Joh Bjelke-Petersen

What on earth was that about? There was no discussion of this move, and in any case why on earth would you want to move it? And if you ever do have a legitimate reason to move a page, you do not copy over; that's what move is for. -- Zsero 05:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

Hi Ursasapien. I see you commented negatively on the Cannabis article. Could you please detail what type of information should be added/deleted for the article to be less "garbage"? Thanks.SidiLemine 10:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)---

Amir Taheri

You, sir, are a better man wikipedian than I am.

... in other words, thank you for your great work on that article. Cheers, CWC 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fallujah 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fallujah 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fallujah 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fallujah 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fallujah 3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fallujah 3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic contributions

Here you questioned my contribs to Wikipedia mainspace. In reply, I provided a link to the relevant section on my user page, but haven't heard from you since.

First off: I know that article contribution is not my strongest side, since my interests are diverse and I like e.g. to fiddle around with code, which has led me to create things like this. As an explanation rather than an excuse, I'd like to put forward that my somewhat low-ish substantial mainspace content contributions have to do with a mixture of being something of a perfectionist and a non-native speaker. Nevertheless, I have contributed to articles in several ways: Creating some, translating others, and cleaning up and formatting a few.[1][2]

I also try to assist others with things like e.g. this, where I posted the results of 2 hours of googling.

Further, I have indeed had very positive encounters with some users regarding writing about fiction-related subjects, which leads me to the assumption that I'm not always an insufferable "policy wonk".[3]

Again: I know that I'm not exactly the most productive writer, but it's unfair to say that I do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. — aldebaer⁠ 13:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I apologize. I am quite passionate sometimes and though I try to be careful, I sometimes post things I have not thoroughly researched or thought out. The conflict (an ongoing and fairly ardent one) is between those who wish to greatly decrease Wikipedia's coverage of fictional subjects within a realtively short period of time versus those who wish to leave most of it alone and gently coax, over the course of years, articles to standards of notability and encyclopedic writing. Those who oppose the former or generally labeled as "fans" who have no interest in writing an encyclopedia, but want to create a huge collection of "fancruft." Those who oppose the latter get labeled as "deletionist" who want to destroy fictional subjects. I got caught up in the name calling, but I have renewed my commitment to avoid this in the future. Conflicts like this are natural in the growth of an online encyclopedia. I am looking at how to move forward now. You have no need to defend yourself as an editor. You do what you do, I do what I do, and others do what works for them, and all that is great and does, indeed, improve this great project. Ursasapien (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"I am quite passionate sometimes and though I try to be careful, I sometimes post things I have not thoroughly researched or thought out." — Full ditto. And I know what you're talking about wrt different "camps" digging themselves in without actually reaching out to the other side. I'd love to help establish a culture of mutual education, but the enormous inertia in this place requires a lot of patience to overcome it. So, nevermind, and thank you for the explanatory reply. — aldebaer⁠ 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice job .

Now please fix the Hannity article. And I am having a hard time seeing how my name would have any bearing on the edit I made on that page. Please enlighten me.Die4Dixie 08:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Actually, I want to very kindly ask that you look at the article on nationality here on Wikipedia . For someone to have nationality or be a national of a country, that country must exercise some type of legal jurisdiction over that person. Many people here in the US, and unfortunately , even some with postgraduate degrees do not know what nationality means. I myself have been traveling internationally for 36 years. It is for this reason that I know. I have cleared U.S. customs at least 150 times. I appreciate what you did for my user page. I'm a big fan of Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and Rush. My edit was factually correct. Please look up exactly what nationality means, and then help me fix that box. I am a language major, and am working post grad in linguistics. Words do mean things. Ancestry and Nationality are not synonyms. Now, after junking up my talk page with aspersions on my character, I hope that you will be honest enough after you have read the article on nationality to apologize on my user page for your revert of the edit that I had made in good faith. In fact, I hope that you will edit your comment to remove the implication that I might be disruptive, and replace it with your apology. As a therapist, I'm sure that you recognize what you have done on my talk page. I call it " Bandwagoning". It was gratuitous. If you didn't know what nationality was, there was no need to be embarrassed; you could have asked someone who knew what nationality is, and we could have avoided this whole encounter.Die4Dixie 08:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you have me change it? Should we deny his Irish heritage? Should the only mention be in the early life section? Put the information in the lead (undue weight for me)? Or do we put it in the infobox? Feel free to answer me on the article's talk page. Ursasapien (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of my comments.

I see where you deleted some of my comments on the Sean Hannity talk page.I also see where you have requested that if someone feels that you are wrong, then you would like them to tell you here. The problem is that you have elsewhere characterized the same comments as racist and referred to my "racist ideology".That is an ad hominem attack that I'm sure you made when you were no longer able to defend your position on nationality. This is a common ploy of leftists, and beneath you(I hope). By editing my comment on a talk page, where we are given a lot of latitude, and then cherry picking a quote in several places, you deprive others of the chance to see my comment in context. Now my family would be very interested in knowing that I am a "racist" espousing a "racist ideology" against Irish Americans, as my first ancestor to arrive (from Europe) set foot here in 1732 and was from Dublin. There have been many more recent infusions of Erse blood since. So I respectfully ask that you undo your edit on my comments, refrain from editing my comments in the future, and ask if you have a question about a comment I have made address it on a talk page.15:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Die4Dixie 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of what you are speaking. I have not refactored any of your comments as far as I know. Can you show me a diff where I deleted your comments? I used comments you made at one point on the talk page, to illustrate my contention that it was perfectly acceptable to have Sean's nationality as Irish American. You on the other hand have insulted my intelligence and maintained a stubborn, disruptive attitude. I am not inclined to make any more concillatory gestures and would appreciate if you would assist me in avoiding future contact. I will take the Sean Hannity article off my watchlist and will avoid editing any articles which you choose to edit. I would appreciate if you would not follow me to any article that I have regularly edited. Thank you. Ursasapien (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Na-Scam Ka Na Ba?

I do agree on this. Please help me, because I am just new to making articles. I can't help making a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girl With An Attitude (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Social Work Page

Hey!

I like what you and a few others have done with the Social Work page. A huge improvement over the last time I remember being there.

Granite T. Rock 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Iraq War, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 10:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Iraq War. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hovind

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kent Hovind. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "interesting editor list"?

What is your definition of an "interesting editor" at User:Ursasapien/Sandbox and why did you add me and several others? C56C 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no objective criteria, it is simply a list of editors who0 interest me for various reasons. There are somewhat frequent additions and less frequent deletions from this list. It is quite common for editors to create and use such list. Can I ask how you came upon it and if you have any other specific concerns? Ursasapien (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: TTN Arbitration

If you'd like to be part of the Arbitration, just add yourself to the "Involved parties" section (just put *{{userlinks|Ursasapien}} on the end of the list) and then make a new section called "Statement by Ursasapien" with a brief statement (500 words or less) of your whole take on the matter. Nothing more to it than that. ^_^ -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 13:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of highways

You mentioned in your statement regarding the TTN Arbitration that there isn't any effort to merge articles on highways. Actually, there have been, but they consist largley of bannered routes of U.S. Highways, and short state routes. I just thought you'd like to know. ----DanTD (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A Message By the El-Dude-O'

El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Martin

I left a reply on the article's talk page ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, still Lost

Hi, sorry to bring up this dead subject. Back in that debate about the thematic motifs of LOST, that user 78 or whatever kept deleting and denouncing my article on the links between Canada in Lost and lying - how it was original research, not a motif, etc. For a while I was just going to live with losing that discussion, but today I was in Cole's and saw some guide to Season 3 book, and I happened upon a little tab where the author had commented on the same Canada-lying instances I had brought up, plus one more I hadn't noticed.

So, just asking your advice, now that I have an actual source for my theory, and now that the official section says "Recurring Elements" - not just motifs - do you think I'd have a chance at putting a cited sentence about Canada and lying in there? Thanks. Burnside65 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! As you know, "recurring elements" no longer has it's own article, but I think a sentence or two, now that you have a source, would be wonderful. Be prepared for the argument, "That is just a fan guide!" However, you have my support. Ursasapien (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My statement

You are free to use parts of my statement as long as you are careful about presenting my views. I would not like people to get the wrong impression of what I have said. And thank you for the barnstar. Though I wish it had been under better circumstances. :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adoption offer

Hey I would like to accept your offer to adopt me in the Adopt-a-User program. I am very interested in learning on how to become a good editor in the wiki, and I am willing to learn. vendion (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of starting a new topic here, I'm posting it here. First of all thank you for adopting me, the reason I made an account is because I want to help edit and add articles to wikipedia, but wiki markup is new to me, HTML and basic CSS I can handle but this is different. vendion (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)