User talk:Ursasapien/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Ursasapien, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dolly!

Yes, by all means, the plot could definitely be fleshed out a bit. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 12:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Social Work Article

Hi there! I am glad someone besides myself is using the MSW userbox I created. I agree, I think the social work origin section has a great deal of room for expansion. I will be busy until this weekend, and I will try to sit down then and pull some resources together.

Eleos^Prime 10:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional Social Worker Userbox

As luck would have it, I am a professional social worker. :) Great userbox! I added it to my page. Eleos^Prime 01:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How to sign up?

Yes, I have a MSW, how do I sign up on the category you mentioned. I will add the userbox to my page...Thanks!SamDavidson 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

Information on this site must have some sort of non-trivial real world relevance. This is impossible for 99 percent of episodes. There is no way to improve most of the articles because they lack development notes and any critical reception. I encourage people to improve them where they can be improved, but most never will have a chance, so something else needs to be done. Overtime, they have just piled up to the point that it only encourages more and more of them. There is no reason to ignore them because I haven't seen them. They fail the notability and verifiability requirements of this site, so that is enough. TTN 03:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Real world relevance" as in what went in to making that cartoon episode. How was that cartoon episode received by the public (e.g. Nielsen ratings, professional reviews). Were there cultural impacts, or references. Not every episode article can achieve this, but it is possible. Aquaman (TV program) was recently promoted to FA status. So, "real world relevance" isn't in the eye of the beholder so much as whether or not the "real world" information is relevant is what's in the eye of the beholder. It's clear if it's "real world" information, what becomes subjective is its relevance to the encyclopedia, but even some of that can obviously be fannish trivia. User:Bignole (Contact me) 03:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, episode summaries don't usually need sources. That's generally the only thing taken word of mouth. But, you can't have an episode article that only contains a plot, or a plot with very little real world context around it. The reason being, if you merely have a plot summary (especially a large one) it is considered a derivative work, and violates copyright laws on that episode. This is one reason why we limit word counts for summaries of episodes, and why we required some type of critical commentary on the episode. Nielsen ratings and professional reviews are not fancruft, they are your "real world context". They show that people outside of Wikipedia are reporting on those episodes. Nielsen ratings alone won't generally help you keep an episode article, because those ratings are kept for every episode that airs television, and can easily be summarized in one sentence, thus making it easy to be merged into a larger parent article. Reviews from critics say that the episode stood out in the main stream news organizations. Find out how the episode was made gives us more encyclopedic content to justify an episode summary. If these things cannot be found then the merging of pages into larger ones becomes the best option. It's much easier to justify 3 lines of summary for 21 episodes on one page, than it is 500 words of summary for one episode on one page. And sometimes it's easier to find reviews for television seasons, as opposed to individual episodes. Critics will reflect on how the show turned out after 20 episodes, instead of writing a review for each individual one. Occassionally, some stand out and warrant their own articles because they are large enough to support it. User:Bignole (Contact me) 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Point me to some episodes so that I can let you know if they will be in question. I picked a couple at random and they didn't have anything. Plot summaries (lol, kind of redundant) should not be detail for detail, it violates copyright no matter how much encyclopedic information you have around it. It should be a basic summary, brevity is the key. BUT, when you are talking about a scene in a production section, say for instance if you want to talk about how they pulled off some physical effect, you can explain the scene there. Look at what I've done for Pilot (Smallville). If you go through the production section, even more so with the "Themes" section, you'll see that I will explain the scene when I talk about it, but that the plot section may not explicitely mention the scene itself. Give me some examples of LOST episodes you think will be in jeopardy, and I'll let you know if they will or not. User:Bignole (Contact me) 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Lost

I'm afraid I'm no expert at uploading images, but I suppose this website is a good way to get them from. --The monkeyhate 10:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Social Work

Hey ho. I like your idea of getting down to it on the Social Work page, something long overdue. I'm not a professional social worker but I do work for the General Social Care Council, one of the four British social work regulators, so I am happy to participate and advise where I have expertise. In particular, I am increasingly coming to the view that we are going to have to divorce Social Work into national pages - what think you? I can feel some kind of a project coming on...oh dear! Peeper 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lost Themes

Thanks for the help!

--Qwerty7412369 06:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sick of it?

Are you sick of TTN's non-consensual, mergist attitude? User:PeaceNT has told me that TTN is not allowed to merge any more episode articles unless aggreement is reached. Angie Y. 20:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to understand were TTN and others are coming from. As an editor, I tend toward inclusionism versus a cropped and neat encyclopedia. I think this makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia than Britannica or some others. However, that being said, other editors want to avoid Wikipedia becoming the world's largest collection of fan speculation, trivia, and silliness. I understand their point of view, I just believe that eventually "the creme will rise to the top" and I choose to err on the side of including rather than trimming. That being said, most things on Wikipedia are utterly "undoable." Continue to voice your opinion in a civil manner and I firmly believe we will have a better encyclopedia for it. Ursasapien (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to be civil, but this weirdo (TTN) is not hearing me out. Angie Y. 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN Sincerely, --24.154.173.243 15:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding TTN, "DIMEist cabal", et al

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Sceptre 12:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been nothing but civil despite being the victim of extreme incivility. I have been mocked, belittled, and hounded over my editorial POV. I have had pages in my userspace preemptively redirected and my userpage edited without any discussion. I have done my best to assume my attackers are editing in good faith. I apologize for the use of the word "cabal" but the persecution I have experienced has made me paranoid. I honestly wonder if there is not a conspiracy to silence certain viewpoints. Anyway, I think this warning is senseless and would be better directed at others. Ursasapien (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's basically the word "cabal", to be honest. Doesn't assume good faith very much. Sceptre 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are two ways to use the word cabal. One is meta-humor, and it's fine, and the other basically accuses editors of conspiring against you, which if it isn't a personal attack, it's certainly incivility. Sceptre 13:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

can't be deleted as it's on Commons. My page is an in-joke to the editors of the community that watch Doctor Who - and won't offend people, as the joke would fly over the heads of those who don't understand. The userbox you used can and did offend people, and would've been deleted had it been in template space. Sceptre 13:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ursa, Sceptre. I also have been civil to TTN and Ned Scott. But it's just not working - they are not letting up. Angie Y. 00:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My Incivility

As you seem to be seriously concerned that I have civility issues, as evidenced by your often references to it, would you show me where I have been? Other than on the TfD, as I am already aware of your concerns there. I  ^{(said) (did)} 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The TfD is pretty much the only place that I have had dealings with you. To me, you displayed a great deal of arrogance and disdain for other points of view. My point was not to single you out, but to say that many (including Ned Scott, Bignole, Sceptre, and even TTN himself) have behaved aggressively and at times incivilly in this lame edit war. I hope that the purpose of the RfC is to assist Angie and maybe get her a mentor. I hope it is not to silence her or get her away from editing episode articles. I believe we can find a compromise and work out this disagreement regarding episode articles. I think, as resistance is noted, that efforts should be made to invite those editors to the table. Let's get back to making a better encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I really hope you didn't lump as all together and leave out yourself. That wouldn't be fair now, would it? Wouldn't be fair to leave out any others either, ones of like-minded opinions as your own. Then again, maybe you still think we're all runing a CABAL. Just about everyone has been incivil at some point or another. The problem comes when someone address that to you; your (not you, I'm referring to the universal "you") reaction to that is what is important. Angie has been spoken to about her actions several times, and she says one thing and turns around and does another. That is what the RfC is about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I truly meant to include myself in that list and, yes, everyone that is passionate about editing sometimes lets that passion carry them across the line. My point is that Angie has been singled out, as if her actions are so egregious. I believe her Asperger's and her fear of getting banned is what explains her changing her mind so often. Essentially, this comes down to a editing conflict. And, BTW, I am still being persecuted so I do still wonder about the CABAL. Just kidding. Ursasapien (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Aspergers is an unfortunate condition, but one that we can't verify here. I don't mean to take anything away from Angie, but it doesn't take a genius to read up on the subject and perform it. I'm not dismissing Angie's condition as a joke, merely pointing out that we can't look at it as an excuse, because we can't possibly prove it beyond her actions and her words, which merely interpreted through cyberspace, and not in person. That aside, having that condition or similar conditions can cause a lot problems when here, mainly because of the skepticism regarding it that I pointed out, but also because regardless of fact or fiction, it is still disruptive. Look at the conversation that took place on her talk page right before the RfC. There was clear attempt to avoid it. Angie isn't singled out any more than any other editor. TTN wasn't the only one to redirect articles, but he was brought to AN/I (two or three times). You have to remember that the RfC isn't requesting a block of Angie because of her actions. As for your persecution, I'm sorry. No one deserves to be persecuted, and I would wish anyone that is to not assume badly for the rest because of the actions of a few. And no, I don't believe Angie is being persecuted, primarily because this is at an RfC instead of somewhere more serious, like an AN/I.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can only take your word that I have acted with disdain towards others, because I don't think I have, but I guess it's what you see. So I'll try act...less disdainful. Anyways. And I say this with no malice towards Angie, but her various comments have been egregious, and very incivil. And if you don't see that, well, then it positively baffles me how my behavior can be seen as incivil. Regardless of a syndrome that like Bignole says we cannot confirm or deny she has, she is capabale of understanding her actions. You keep saying you are being persecuted. I honestly don't understand how. As best I can tell, I'm the first person really to comment to you specifically. Just curious. I  ^{(said) (did)} 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you and I have only had the one major interaction. Another editor has been the one that has been harrasing me, but I am over it and I hope they have moved on as well. I am of on my wiki-break and I hope to come back refreshed. Ursasapien (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Talk:Capco

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Capco, by Claudia schiepers (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Capco is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Capco, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug) vandalism

okay fine ill stop. but you werent so quick to find this :

" New breeding and cultivation techniques Main article: Cannabis (drug) cultivation Afghanis breed by Sadam Houssain. He is one major player, and screws all the afghani women until they're with child. Then, he pretends that they;re not his and makes them slave away while he admires his rubies. How do I know this? I had sex with Sadam before. (He was shitty, by the way. Ladies.. you did not miss out). Moving on...I don't know what I deleted, so we'll start with this word: "

which i didnt do, but someone did and i think its a hell of a lot worse than what i wrote. so idk how you tracked me down, but next time look for something like that. User talk:Steppingaway

RfC for Angie

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome.

Seraphim ^Whipp 17:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

yo

hey man i havent written any profanity or anything bad. im just trying to put my opinions in the articles.

That's fine, but the articles are not a place for your opinions. You can use your user page or the sandbox for that. Seriously, you will be blocked quickly for these actions, as they are considered vandalism. Ursasapien (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It is always a good idea to sign your post by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~

alright but what if i have some facts on a subject and u think it is false or my opinion and u block me.

First, I can't block anyone, as I am not an administrator. If someone is guilty of repeated vandalism, you or I or any other editor can request that an administrator takes action. You are more than welcome to contribute to any article. The best way to be taken seriously is to have some source/reference for the material you add. Glad to have you aboard. Again, please sign your post. Just type the tilde (~) four times and it will automatically put in your name and the date/time. Feel free to ask me any other questions you have. Sincerely, Ursasapien (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's spreading...

TTN's breakneck "edits" have spread to the point where it's gotten site-wide, Ursa. Angie Y. 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What, specifically, are you speaking of. Can you give me some examples? Ursasapien (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thematic motifs of Lost

Sure, I'll do what I can - though I must say that, as I've noted before, I believe secondary sources will be difficult to find for the "Apocalypse" entry, just as it seems to be difficult to find good secondary sources for any other entry in the whole "Thematic motifs of Lost" section. I believe the entries in question should be allowed to stand on the primarty material alone insofar as they meet the criteria found in the No Original Research policy that you and I have discussed in the past. I personally do not see why "Apocalypse" is targeted for deletion while "Eyes" and "B&W" passes without comment, as there seems to be no difference in the level of research in these entries.

Also, I have noticed in the edit history that you have been quite persistent in fighting for the inclusion of my contribution as well as for others. Thank you - please let me know if there is any other way I can assist you in the future

--Qwerty7412369 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thematic motifs of Lost. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fool, The Stage Spirit

Hello. I would like to say that the deletion of "Fool The Stage Spirit" must be some king of mistake, because I made an Information box and after that I would complete soome information about Fool and his activity in the show Kaleido Star. Thank you in advance for making me have more attention. Goldenphoenix2007 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's some news...

Check this out. --Qwerty7412369 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Here's some sourced info to counter User:70.189.74.49's bogus claims next time he pops up - In an interview Damon Lindelof has verified the Canonical status of The Lost Experience and the information provided therein: "I would say in terms of all the… background that we did, in terms of the Valenzetti equation and explaining the formation of the Hanso Foundation and doing the other films…we’d consider that stuff canon to the show." I found this interview here: "BuddyTV Interviews LOST's Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse - and gets Answers!" [1] This undermines User:70.189.74.49's claim that The Lost Experience can be disregarded as "some stupid online game to sell Sprite and Jeeps." I have also added this source to the "Apocalyptic references" entry and will keep an eye out for more sources so that we can bolster our positions. --Qwerty7412369 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Picked up a few more secondary sources and added them to the "Apocalyptic References" entry. Take a look. --Qwerty7412369 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Lost

I don't know about you, but I'm taking a break from Thematic motifs of Lost. I wanted to stop by first and thank you for your assistance during the debate. If there's anything I can do to help you out in the future, feel free to contact me. --Qwerty7412369 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your persistence and your dogged pursuit of reasoned debate. I am sure you have seen what has happened to the article today. I am considering removing the "Evil" category and reshuffling that info into either "The end of the world" or "Black and white". However, I understand your desire to take a break and I, too, have turned my attention primarily to other projects. Thanks again. You are an editor that is a credit to Wikipedia. Ursasapien (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Julian Gorkin

Wait a minute! It exists now! Bronks 08:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tag

May I ask why you tagged a fellow editor's user page for speedy deletion?[2] SalaSkan 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, must have been an error. I thought for sure it was in the article space and not the user space. Too much time cleaning up and I messed up. Ursasapien (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a 'speedily deleted' page

Victoria Hart is semi-famous already, has appeared in several television interviews here in the UK, and will doubtlessly become an esteemed and respected jazz singer. Like it says on the page, she has sung in front of George Clooney and Brad Pitt and seriously impressed them - she is damn good! Therefore I wonder if it's possible not to delete the page? It is relevant and significant! Many thanks

First, when you leave a comment on any page, it is best to sign by typing four tildes (the squiggly little thing on the upper-left on my keyboard). This automatically inserts your signature and the date. Second, if you think the article is notable simply type {{hangon}} just below the {{db-notability}} tag. Then add a note to the article's discussion page regarding why you think the subject is notable. Your argument will be more convincing if you have some references (i.e. a mainstream newspaper that quotes Brad Pitt saying, "I was quite impressed . . ." or even an article that talks about the subject as an up-and-coming talent). Best regards and good luck, Ursasapien (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was searching for Victoria Hart and noticed a speedy on it (which you were completely right to speedy since it had no sources, although I wished you'd just done a simple google of her name!). I googled her and added 6 references; as a result I removed the speedy tag, however, I had hoped you wouldn't think I was undermining you. I just thought it looked silly to leave a speedy on an article with 6 references.

Seraphim ^Whipp 11:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just did the same regarding Colbie Caillat. I try to be careful, but I do not think it is reasonable to Google every new article with no sources. Ursasapien (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

right sorry Yoyo24 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A basic wiki concept for you

See: meta:Don't_be_a_dick

Ever think that maybe, just maybe, you are dead wrong, because you just don't really understand the article? Try editing something that you do understand. 70.189.74.49 06:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

An endless loop?

How so? Its simply a redirect. Im i missing out on smoething here? siarach 09:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed i am. Id linked to itself rather than the intended article which was Glasgow. Fixed it. siarach 09:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Overwriiten tags

If you add a deletion tag, would you please not overwrite other maintenace tags but leave them in place? Thanks. --Tikiwont 10:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:QuackGuru

It's doubtful the editor will answer your question, but he is not Sanger and it is extremely unlikely he is in any way related to Larry either.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia: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, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Jmlk17 05:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Incivility warning

I agree with what you said to me, but has BobCub also been warned for his inappropriate edits? 69.181.156.67 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has warned me. And I don't think the simple act of defending myself merits the creation of a section titled with my screenname. Remember, you attacked me initially, and in the oh-so-brave manner of hiding behind an IP address. Just pointing it out.BobCubTAC 07:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thematic motifs of Lost

Done. I deleted the version you had there as part of the move, since there's no need for it now (it would be a GFDL violation to keep it, anyway). Besides, you have the full history. --Coredesat 19:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also done. --Coredesat 02:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your warning to me

Fine, warning taken. Can I assume that you warned this other person for his personal attack against me, which precipitated my return attack on him? From the discussion section of your page, it appears to be the case. I just do not want to feel like I am being discriminated against due to my left-wing political views which are currently under attack wholesale by the Bush Admin and the right-wing media machine that supports/enables it, plus much of the law enforcement that currently occupies this country that I used to recognize as the UNITED States of America. Thank you in advance for understanding my concern, and I will refrain from posting such comments to others from this point forward.BobCubTAC 07:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

dont delet other peoples posts

it is very rude, and is can make the other people think you havnt responded too there posts :(--Mhart54com 07:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth or you talking about? Ursasapien (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting editor list

I took my name of your list too. It was done to me by an administrator. Please don't put it back. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 09:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that an administrator put you on a list on his user page? From what I have seen, this is a relatively normal tool, used by a lot of editors. It is a way of mining the vast amounts of edits for contributions that may be of interest to me. Additionally, it allows me easy access to various editors talk pages. I have re-added your name (as I see nothing wrong with this practice) and I would ask that you avoid refactoring pages in my userspace in the future. If you have a question or problem with me, just add a comment on my talk page. Sincerely, Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley has no say on what you do in your userspace. Bmedley, stop. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)