User talk:Ursasapien

Welcome to my talk page

Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is Ursasapien's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 10 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kent Hovind

I restored the information because it is relevent I haowever 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.