User talk:Ursasapien/Archive 3

Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters
The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting
I don't see consensus on the page you linked. I see a comparable number of opposes and supports making arguments for and against the redirection of the page. I believe there is "no consensus" based on what I read and participated in.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the problem, based on the discussion to redirect, there is no consensus. You, after the discussion, went on your own to draw up a proposal for a merged page and rewrite WAF to show that merger. The problem is that you have to find consensus for the new WAF page, you cannot just rewrite the page and say "hey, we don't need EPISODE anymore". Also, you don't blank guideline pages, you keep them as historical record. If and when the new WAF page is finished, and people have time to read it and agree upon it, then EPISODE can be archived for historical record. Not before.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Can you show me a guideline or even precedent where we must mark a guideline "historical"? I see no consensus to keep the guideline and certainly no argument to keep it that supercedes WP:BURO and WP:CREEP.  Ursasapien (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about voting, I said the redirection discussion. Secondly, nothing was redirected to FICT concerning television articles. I checked the history, there was nothing there. Lastly, nothing has been redirected to WAF. Do not confuse coming up with a proposed new WAF page, which includes EPISODES's style information as a merger, as the page has to be implimented, and to do such a major change the proposal has to be finished and then viewed and discussed again (consensus has to agree on the new page). Afterward, as I stated, you do not blank the page, you place a historical tag on it, like what is done at WP:TV-REVIEW.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you show me one that says blank an active guideline when it's been merged? Tagging as historical preserves even "redundant" information as the position that it was left, as opposed to assuming that it was all merged to other respective pages with the same wording (which, it hasn't been merged at all). It's also hardly beneficial to claim information was merged to a page that is in an active dispute of its own. How about you just wait till a decision is found for FICT before you redirect EPISODE and claim the information was merged to FICT (again, which it has not been).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You said, "I see a comparable number of opposes and supports." I take this to mean you were interpreting it as a vote.  I thought the new FICT was posted.  It certainly has the relevant, non-repetitive parts of EPISODE merged in.  I just checked.  The history can always be accessed as the guideline has not been deleted.  I am not one to delete stuff like that.  I even went to the extra step of adding EPISODE's archives to WAF's talk page, but you undid that.  Ursasapien (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I was interpreting it that there was not a one-sided agreement for the redirection of EPISODE. FICT has not been changed in quite awhile, except to decide if there is sufficient people who disagree with the page. Shouldn't merge/redirect to a page that is actively disputing itself at the moment. In regards to what FICT has, FICT has the basic notability guideline information, nothing specifically directed at television articles. Also, the point of a historical page is that people who know of it will want to see what happened, but if it just automatically redirects you are forcing them to go to WAF's talk page to find the archived discussions. They may or may not know to do that in order to find whatever they want. This is why we preserve the page as historical record, instead of blanking and redirecting, so that people who are not active on the guideline page can still see what happened to it. I would also say, wait until the new WAF page is finished. Now, I'm off to work and school for the day, so I won't be able to discuss this for awhile.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

non-notable rivers
Hi. I was just reading your sandbox and saw your question about why editors don't go after non-notable rivers. I guess I view rivers as obviously notable and expect that there are reliable sources available for facts such such as "where and how long". I also do not see the limited number as a problem because their number will not change much over time (while the number of tv episodes will continue to grow at an ever increasing rate). I would probably draw the line at streams and misses of the toilet bowl. And I would be all for trimming the school articles by a lot; probably the highways, too. --Jack Merridew 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: and now there are none. --Jack Merridew 10:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest. I suppose I, too, would draw the line at misses of the toilet bowl.  However, I have seen streams, ponds, and tributaries that have been created and abandoned.  I just feel that, just as there is systemic bias that creates a huge amount of articles related to fiction, there is a systemic bias that is vehemently restrictive about fiction related articles.  I would love to decrease the wikidrama and have everybody get along.  I just do not see the urgency for chopping the heads off of baby articles before they have had a chance to grow.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, there may be articles that are just uncategorized. :) For example, there are a lot of creeks in Category:Tributaries of the Ohio River. Ursasapien (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Television episode merge
You didn't say in your edit summary that it was based on consensus. Instead you deleted everything, when the proper thing would be to archieve everything. I'm going to go out of this discussion now, but from my point of view I fail to the concensus from the discussion to merge this page. --Maitch (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rush suddenly is. The idea of merging parts of the guideline to WP:FICT and WP:WAF seem to have reasonable support, at least enough to see where those proposals take us. -- Ned Scott 08:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If left unchecked, this guideline-cruft will grow exponentially. I felt like three weeks was a reasonable amount of time for discussion and I see consensus as generally in favor of merging the episode specific guideline into the main guidelines for notability of fiction and manual of style for fiction.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You must understand that two of those weeks were in the middle of holidays, and activity on the talk pages for everyone died down. While I still don't think WP:EPISODE is harmful, I understand the concern about instructions creep. This isn't going to be left unchecked. -- Ned Scott 09:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop closing the merge discussion and removing the episode guideline. There is NOT a clear consensus rejecting the guideline nor for a merge. 5 opposed and 5 supported. That isn't a consensus at all. Nor should it be removed until after any merge, if agreed by consensus, is actually done. Collectonian (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The guideline is most clearly rejected. It is most clearly in violation of WP:CREEP and WP:BURO.  Opposition to de-guidelining can only be considered when there is an argument that meets higher policies.  I have continued to offer discussion and no one shows to argue how this is not so.  I proposed a way forward and again there was no answer.  I have been making a diligent, good-faith effort to implement policy and clean up guideline-cruft.  Isn't understandable that I would assume that this change has the force of policy behind it?  Please engage in discussion rather than revert war.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You aren't allowing discussion to continue as you keep removing the pages all together. The guideline has not been "most clearly rejected" and it seems extremely inappropriate that you are deciding to do this on your own.  Not a single editor has supported these actions, but multiple editors have undone them.  You can't implement policy on your own when dealing with a guideline like this.  It needs plenty of discussion, a clear decision, and it is something that should only be done by an administrator, which you are not! Collectonian (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You clearly have not only been not participating in the discussion, but have not been following the discussion at all. Many editors have supported this move.  Hiding, Ned Scott, Eclecticology, I, Johnleemk, Rebecca, Bryan Derksen, Nydas, Masem, and even Bignole have all voiced various forms of support for the concept of archiving EPISODE and merging the usable parts into WP:FICT and WP:WAF.  Can you point me to a policy or even guideline that states an editor in good standing can not implement policy on their own, but must wait for an administrator?  I have boldly followed consensus and policy.  A few random editors that have not participated in any discussion have chosen to revert my edits.  I do not know why I should have to be prevented from impelmenting policy because some "local consensus" doesn't like the global consensus of policy and wishes to exhaust my efforts to implement said policy.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't read it either as I did participate in the discussion and people were still discussing it yesterday. Yes, you should let an administer deal with a guideline that will effect a huge range of Wikipedia policy when you are a relatively new editor who is discounting any argument that disagrees with your own views. And I find it interesting that you are listing people as "supporting" your work who also reverted your inappropriate actions.  The discussion to merge was not complete, nor do you just go delete the page when the merge to fiction (if there will be one) is not even done yet. Collectonian (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You call me a relatively new editor, when you have approximately four months on me (excluding a lone edit in 2005)? I am still waiting on the policy or guideline that states that I, apparently because I am a "relatively new editor," can not edit without administrator approval.  Can you show me where you participated in this discussion between December 22nd and tonight?  You have still not answered the objections that EPISODE violates WP:BURO and WP:CREEP.  I gather that is because you can not.  However, do not bother crowding up my talk page.  Post your answer here.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I may only have four months on you but that's because I spent time studying and learning the way things worked before I started doing a lot of work. I've also made over 6000 contributions, versus your 1400 (not counting user space).  I edit a wide range of articles while you primarily edit a single article (Michael Savage) with just a handful of edits to others. So yes, to me you are still an inexperienced editor.  Time alone doesn't make for experience. My post in that discussion is right below Ned Scott's and very easy to find by searching for my user name.  I haven't answered your accusations because you've made it clear you don't care to listen to anyone who isn't agreeing with you.Collectonian (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your incivility and arrogant attitude are duly noticed. I contributed for quite a while under my IP, so my edit count to mainspace is higher than you might imagine.  I also have contributed to a wide variety of articles including Michael Savage (commentator) (bringing this article from B status to GA status);  Sean Hannity; Neal Boortz; created a Wikiproject; Ferdinand Marcos; Social Work related articles; Hello, Dolly! (musical)‎; Mediterranean Monk Seal and many other animals;  Head louse; Cannabis related articles; Hashemite‎; wrote a new article; LOST articles; Plame affair; local college, town, hospital, radio station, and geographical features articles;  policy discussions; recent changes patrol; participated as a party in a RfArb; participated in the adopt a user program; Michael Peroutka‎; Jean Charles de Menezes; Kent Hovind; Desiree Horton‎; and I even worked on Jimmy Wales article.  In comparison, you have worked on a narrow aspect of television, animie, and other realms of fiction (like Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers‎ and List of InuYasha characters) for which we already have a great deal of coverage.  It is time to get off your high horse and realize that I am anything but an inexperienced editor.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point to a specific instance of me being incivil. You attempted to say we were equal in experience, when we are not.  If you are going to claim that I work on a narrow aspect of articles, at least actually look at articles I do major work on. My greatest number of edits has been on Meerkat Manor (a non-fiction television show).  The Inu Yasha character list isn't even one I do all that much work on at all, not even in my top 10.  Yes, I focus mostly on television shows and anime, however also among articles I regular edit are Clinical depression, Insomnia, and Regent University.  I've also worked on several company and business related articles, biography articles, and articles related to Texas localities and the like. We could sit here and continue trying to one up each other on who has more experience, but that would be silly and pointless. If you don't want to be taken for an inexperience editor, stop acting like one and attempting to force your particular idea of what should happen with WP:EPISODE on everyone against consensus and after multiple editors repeatedly told you not to. Collectonian (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We're not ready to take such action yet, and I'd have reverted you as well. I was just throwing ideas out there when I responded to you on my talk page. I didn't mean to go right ahead and do those things right away. Right now the idea to merge is still just an idea, and while it's promising, lets not rush things. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: B, R, D
I'm not trying to keep guideline cruft, I'm not even particularly interested in the discussion, I just saw you repeatedly redirect the guideline despite protests from others editors and percieved your edits to be disruptive. Being bold is fine, but it seemed like consensus wasn't on your side and I thought you were edit warring. Sorry if I was wrong.  Paul    730  14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting editor list
Can I ask why you find me an interesting editor? Cheers :). Seraphim  Whipp 18:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I find you to be an interesting editor for a variety of reasons. First, you have an interesting take on the deletionist/inclusionist wars.  Second, I am curious about the world of music that you have had a hand in editing.  Third, if you look through the archives of my talkpage you will find that we have had previous conversations.  Those conversations piqued my interest in you as well.  Ursasapien (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding... I'm glad those aren't bad reasons to be interesting :). Seraphim  Whipp 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I notice that several editors have come to you, requested help or making inquiries, assuming you were an admin. Have you consider becoming one?  I could see myself nominating you.  Ursasapien (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank-you. Sometimes I think I could do with the admin tools because I do a lot of housekeeping work...If I could have the tools for purely that purpose then yes... but there is a lot more to adminship than that. It's about being a good representative of the community and being able to offer guidance and advice to those who aren't as experienced. I'm not sure if I have enough experience yet...That sounds funny because I've been here for a year now, but I feel like I need to understand the workings just a little more throughly. Only about two or three months ago, I voted merge and delete in an AfD...Of course, you can't merge and delete because you need to preserve the history to attribute the editors for their edits to satisfy GDFL requirements. I know editors aren't infallible but I feel like if I'm still making mistakes like that then I'm probably not ready to be a good representative of the community. Maybe in some months time? :) Seraphim  Whipp 12:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Volapük
Hi Ursasapien. I found your name via the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought that you might care about this discussion: Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you agree with us that this is not the best way to go for the Volapük Wikipedia, you could help us fight the proposal with your vote. Thanks in advance! --Smeira 12:42, 6 jan 2008.

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review
Person Centred Planning is open for peer review - I think your contribution would be particularly helpful in improving the article. Max (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A technical proposal
Would you support an attempt to improve the level of, and particularily progress in, debates by introducing a system where, whenever (a) someone considers the rules an end in themselves, or (b) accords discussion about the rules a level of importance that's grossly disproportionate with what it is (i.e.: a handful of website obsessees squabbling online about notoriously tricky minutiae without a real idea of the outcome or effects), someone comes over to that person's house to slap them with a fish?

Thank you. --Kiz o r  01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a great idea to me. Perhaps we should propose a guideline to that effect. :) Ursasapien (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Trifecta
You might be interested in Trifecta. It eventually became the five pillars, but it's still there. Hiding T 11:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject National Football League/St. Louis Rams subproject
--Pinkkeith (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note
I should perhaps draw your attention to this edit I just made. Probably not a big deal, but in case it is, here you are. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a big deal, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. Ursasapien (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Head Louse refs
Thanks for moving the citation from head louse into Template:Head louse pediculosis. I agree that, for translcusion, we need full citations in the template. There is no guarrantee that the template will be transcluded within a document that already cites those references.

However, your recent edits  moved some text as well as the reference citations. I think this text belongs where it was in Head_louse. Because this text (and citation) appears in Head louse prior to the transcluded template, I think the only way to get the refs to format correctly AND have a full citation in the template, is to have full citations in both documents (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm going to undo your changes, move the text back, and create full citations in both locations. Noca2plus (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Noca2plus (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Human lice navbox
Nice work with the Human lice navbox. Great idea! Noca2plus (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SW-org-stub
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub.

In this particular case, there seems to be some confusion between stubs and Stub-Class articles. Stub-Class articles are those marked as being stubs by an individual WikiProject using an assessment template on the article's talk page, so as to separate a small article on a subject from larger articles on the same subject - these templates can later be changed to Start-Class, B-Class, A-Class or FA-Class. Stub articles are those marked with a small template at the bottom of the article itself, in order to sort small articles across Wikipedia by subject.

You have created a stub template (and it looks like it is intended to act like a stub template), but it leads into a Stub-Class category. If your intention was to create a Stub-Class template, then changing it to Stub-Class SW-org would be the simplest solution. If, however, your intention was to make a stub template, then it should have a stub category (of the form ), and should have been proposed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first!

Grutness...wha?  12:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For now, probably the best step is simply to join in any discussion at Stub types for deletion. If you explain what you were aiming to do, chances are someone will be able to point out possible alternative stub types or ways to proceed. Grutness...wha?  08:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

please consider this
Remember, I'm involved in this arbcom case because I also saw a problem with the way TTN dealt with some of this stuff. I'm not TTN, I'm not Eusebeus, I'm me. I'm not trying to endorse content decisions, I'm trying to objectively deal with a situation regarding behavior. One where it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, or what is being talked about, but how we handle the situation. I honestly believe that we can achieve something that you would find acceptable by simply restricting TTN when he's challenged. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re:


 * There's still other shortcomings to their proposal, such as that it doesn't stop TTN from applying the non-desired force to non-TV articles, and doesn't teach him anything. If I were in his shoes I'd probably be so frustrated that I just wouldn't edit for those six months. My proposal, on the other hand, keeps him active and will get him to seek other, more desired alternatives over slow-motion edit warring. This also treats it as if everything he did in his fictional cleanup was bad, rather than identifying what it was he was doing that should be changed. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanations on a sentence
Excuse me, I need an help: I am not American and I need to know the explanation of a sentence. Would u be so kind to translate it to me? The sentence is what the hizzle for shizzle? Thank u if u wanna help me--89.96.198.38 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am curious how you came upon my talk page to ask the question. I am also curious about your use of "u" for the word "you".  Nevertheless, I can explain the slang, I think.  I believe it would mean, "What the hell, for sure."  It could mean "What the hell, for shit" but that does not make a whole lot of sense.  What prompted you to ask me the question, if I may ask?  Ursasapien (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Er
Why did you revert this like it was vandalism? I undid that because I thought it was spoilerish. If I was wrong, my apologis but goodness gracious I wasn't trying to vandalize. :P Just wondering. Anyways, happy editing! - Warthog Demon  04:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)