Urzatron

Re your question: For example, if you could find a version some time in the past (perhaps a few days ago) that had the words "led by" in the same context, you could list that as the "previous version reverted to". It doesn't have to be identical to the versions created by the later reverts: other parts of the article could have been changed but that wouldn't matter.

By the way,

Welcome!

Hello, Urzatron, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :)Urzatron (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're "welcome"! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RRN

[1] - I've blocked the user and I just thought I'd tell you. Have a nice day! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars

No, others have reverted it several times from the proper order of the films, and I have merely corrected it. If there is any grounds for a block, it is on those that try to put the films out of the order their creator placed them in. 12.227.159.219 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Account history question

Hi Urzatron, it gives me no pleasure to ask, but your recent involvement in contentious editing at Fox News Channel combined with your editing history (link to wannabeKate's tool) concerns me. You registered your account in December of 2005, made 7 edits, and then did not edit again until you made 142 edits in April of 2008, most of which were to the FNC talk page. Can you please provide an explanation for the apparent initial disinterest in editing followed by a surge in edits this month? Let me reassure you that this is not a targeted inquiry, but rather I checked every editor (that I didn't recognize) in the last 50 edits to the FNC talk page. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I suppose I should say, thanks for your interest? Over the past few years, I've made edits without logging in. (redacted -R. Baley (talk)) Recently, I felt like logging in.

My interest in the FNC page actually came from spotting it on the 3RR report page, after reporting a user for violating 3RR in connection with the Absolut Vodka page.

Your statement, "involvement in contentious editing," is highly ambiguous. I have never edited the Fox News Channel page. Talking about editing the Fox News Channel page has been in attempt to avoid edit warring.

The number of edits it takes to express an idea on the talk page for that article is naturally quite substantial as opposed to the number of edits it takes to fix any other page; you will see from my histories that I edit all sorts of pages, and since these edits are not part of edit wars, they are not reverted; and therefore, it only takes a single edit.

Thanks for your interest? Urzatron (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I will check some stuff out as time permits, but at this point, that sounds reasonable. R. Baley (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the redact, that's interesting and probably a good idea. :) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good faith

Regarding this comment, I am all for productive work on Wikipedia. If you are truly an established editor who has simply been editing anonymously for years on end, and you truly are otherwise uninvolved with the other editor causing disruption and strife at the FNC article, then I apologize if I haven't assumed as much good faith as you would like. However, if you look at the situation from an objective position, you have to acknowledge that your arrival upon the scene after years of inactivity (at least with regards to your account), in which you seem to always support the position of a disruptive editor who only arrived at Wikipedia around the same time you decided to start logging in and who has already been blocked for duplicitous account usage seems pretty suspicious. I have made no direct accusations towards you, only having noted the strange circumstances encompassing the current difficulties. I do think that you're more inclined to ignore policies, guidelines, and the comments of other editors in favor of positions that support your point of view, especially since you seem to side with JSN (who's assertions clearly are not grounded in policy). However, that's not uncommon for Wikipedia and I'm quite accustomed to working with other editors who may have their own view of things. If you got caught in the crossfire, I'm sorry -- you do seem more willing to be objective and work towards a consensus, and it is both noted and appreciated. I can respect someone with a different viewpoint on things, as long as passions don't trump policies. The things I can't tolerate are deliberate trolling and combativeness, which I have not (and do not) accuse you of. Hope we can move forwards from here. Thanks for the note. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry if I was disrespectful throughout the last two weeks or so. At first it really appeared (to me) that your motives were less than altruistic, however it is now much more clear that my judgment may have been frustrated by the wikidrama that was then occurring. I do my very best to restrict my comments to content and not contributors, but I'm not perfect. I harbor no ill feelings, and I hope we can work together in the future (even if our opinions differ). I'm glad this all worked out, and even if it doesn't always appear so, I'm glad we have editors like you (and others) who try and improve the project for all of us. I look forward to our next encounter.  :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an extremely generous statement, and I really appreciate it. I harbor no ill feelings as well. :) Urzatron (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification

I have decided to go ahead and implement the remedy as outlined at ANI concerning Jsn9333. Assuming Jsn9333 chooses not to comment further concerning this dispute,, I expect that other involved parties also let the issues/hard feelings go, specifically by not making any other comments. I am serious about the "poking" issues, and I want to re-iterate that everyone is cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor. I hope this will close the book on the current dispute at the FNC talk page. Please go the extra mile to treat each other with respect. Thank-you, R. Baley (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Urzatron (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility, etc.

Thanks for your occasional kind words on the Absolut talk page. I'm not about to respond to that guy's homophobia and (IMHO) racism. People like that can give conservatism and patriotism a bad name. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Urzatron (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)