User talk:Ursasapien/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Deletion

Hey! I don't agree with you that article Ričardas Mikutavičius should be deleted. Its notability is enough! --Visconsus (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You should put this note on the article's talk page. Additionally, you can establish notability by citing published, third-party sources about the subject. It is certainly your perogative to remove the tag, but I may still nominate it for deletion (AfD) if you can not establish notability. Ursasapien (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the fact that there was a monument for him built after his death? Doesn't that dispel all doubts about the notability of that article? :) --Visconsus (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See my answer on the article's talk page. Ursasapien (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2

What the "Delete" section mean? I did not understand. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability (Fiction)

I note your recent edit of WP:FICT. Could you explain the reason why you have made such an extensive changes to the guideline on the talk page WT:FICT? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A rather sarcastic April Fools joke. Some editors need to get a sense of humor. Already reverted by an individual that apparently appreciated the tease. Ursasapien (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

This editor is a Journeyman Editor, and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
This editor is a Journeyman Editor, and is entitled to display this Service Badge.


== April 2008 == Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AgentCDE / Talk / 07:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Archives make agent have the dumb.--AgentCDE / Talk / 07:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the Original Research template without reasonable justification

Please do not remove the Original research cleanup template from the articles such as Nerull and Yeth hound (Dungeons & Dragons), articles contain unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template as there are no sources cited to support the article's content. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template which was put there to address this problem.

The only way you can show that the content of these articles is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material. Since you do appear to have neither added any sources to support the position, nor to have removed any of the unsourced content, I do not understand your actions. I would therefore be grateful if you would restore the templates and refrain from removing them from other articles until such time as cleanup is effected. The templates were placed there to alert other editors who may be able to cleanup the article, and so its removal is actually self-defeating. I would suggest in future that if you disagree with my viewpoint, you that you should seek a Third Opinion, rather than simply reverting my edits without making any improvement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, this comment would have been more appropriate on the article's talk pages. Please do not come to my talk page unless you have an issue with me overall. The difference between a lack of citations (unverifiable) and original research had been tediously explained to you over and over again to the point of exhaustion. There is no need to go over it here, but for the benefit of the casual reader, let me point out that both pages have multiple tags including calls for inline citations.
As you are already aware, you are quickly approaching a third opinion via the Mediation Committee. As you seem to be entrenched in your idiosyncratic point of view, I predict this will be followed shortly by an Arbitration. If you continue to edit-war to get your way, this will be followed by successive blocks. I implore you to not head down this road. Take a wikibreak. Gain some perspective before it is to late. Ursasapien (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I do have an issue with your behaviour on two counts. Firstly, it is clear that these articles contain original research, and I quote from the guideline, so that I am making myself clear about what I mean:
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
I believe that you should take your own advice about getting a third opinion; if you disagree with my view, I recomend that you get an independent editor to doublecheck your own. It is not down to me to prove that the content of these articles contains OR; it is OR if there are no sources cited.
Lastly, I note from the edit history that you have never contributed to these articles before you reverted my edits, and it questionable why you have chosen this particular time to do so. Please to not treat the duration of the Mediation case as "open season" to revert my edits. Although I will be busy with the process of mediation, do not presume I will not challenge attempts to remove cleanup templates without cleanup being effected just because I am busy. For this reason I ask that you restore the OR templates until such time as the Mediation process has been completed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I note from your edit history that you have not added to any article in some time. You have simply pasted tags and argued in the guideline space. I have no intention of reverting your edits. I improved some tags that you happened to place. You are extremely touchy about this. I also have no intention of replacing the OR tag either, as I do not see any evidence of original research just in-universe writing. You do what you are going to do as I am sure you will with or without my permission. Cheers. Ursasapien (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I won't replace it. What is the point? You have revereted my edits once, I have no reason to believe that you would not do it agaiin. In fact, I don't know why I am addressing you at all, other than the slight hope that you would actually care to discuss the matter in a rational fashion which does not involve reverting my edits without reference to Wikipedia guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You have already told me that you are unable to discuss your edits in a rational manner. Why would I bother trying to discuss things with you when you have shown yourself to be impervious to reason. However, I can assure you that I will not revert your disruptive edit again. I like to avoid edit wars. I can not speak for the other editors on those pages and I can not assure you that your continued insistence on getting your way might not land you on ANI or some other administrative intervention. I would like to, again, extend the olive branch and encourage you to engage in the discussion currently going on on your talk page. I would be thrilled to discuss our difference of opinion and what I have noted in your editorial behavior there. However, I would ask that you do not post any more replies here. Thank you for your consideration. Ursasapien (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user

Caution There is currently a backlog of 52 users at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. Please consider offering adoption to one or more of these users. Don't forget to change their {{adoptme}} template to {{adoptoffer|Ursasapien/Archive 4}}. Thank you for your continued participation in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. xenocidic (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I understand that you would like to join in the mediated discussion Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender. Please just sign your name under the agreement to mediate and check the talk page for venue discussion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender#Conditions. :) BOZ (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Heya! :) In the interests of moving things along, check out Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender#Starting questions when you get a chance. :) BOZ (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your response to my request for "Adopt me!♥"

You may adopt me! I will ask you for help anytime I need help, but I feel some others are not available! I accept the offer! You are more than welcome to adopt me!♥Kitty53 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I adopted, yet?Kitty53 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)