User talk:Harvestdancer

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey Jason! Thanks for introducing me to wikipedia. I had no idea that it could be edited and other wise corrected so easily before the Jason wars. Now I'm hooked, this is very cool. Cheers David D. 17:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation with Jason Gastrich

My conversation with Gastrich

More conversation with Gastrich

Conversation about the Conversation

I had to put this in its own archive to avoid the page getting too long.

Re : A recently deleted page

Hi Harvestdancer,

I've transferred everything to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich and deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jas. Hope this settles it. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 20:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

This messege is in regard to the page Benedict Arnold. I don't want to have a bad reputation, so if you'll look at the edit, a vandal had initially made two changes to the article. I reverted to an old version, but only happened to change one problem in the article. You and I were editing at the same time, and somehow things got mixed up. I just wanted to clear that up. Thanks for the messege though. I'll be sure to be more careful with reverts from now on and to check the entire article for potential errors.

Amit 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians against X

You mentioned at Category_talk:Wikipedians_against_Scientology that you didn't feel this was an appropriate category. Do you think the category should be deleted? -Harvestdancer 17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how Category:Wikipedians against Scientology is going to help Wikipedia. I guess it should be deleted. --JWSchmidt 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated it for a "Category for Deletion." -Harvestdancer 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Schnoebelen

I feel bad about deleting the category you added, since it's one I happen to agree with, but I don't think it can be considered 'uncontroversial'. Sorry :-( --Calair 11:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's one of the less controversial interpretations of his actions. See talk page for his article. Harvestdancer 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Least controversial interpretation? Quite possibly. But interpretation is not Wikipedia's function; see Wikipedia:No_original_research for some related discussion. We can report on extant interpretations (citing sources), and indeed the article already does, but it's not our place to endorse one interpretation over another except maybe when the matter has already been settled, not just on the balance of probabilities - which is what 'least controversial' means - but beyond reasonable doubt.

By way of parallel, most of the world thinks O.J. Simpson killed Nicole and Ron. It's the least controversial of the competing theories, and the civil trial found against him on the balance of probability. But 'least controversial' is not the same as 'uncontroversial', and so he is not listed in [[Category:Murderers]]. --Calair 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you forgot the No Wiki and accidentally added both of us to a category. Harvestdancer 05:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what a category, too :-) --Calair 12:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvestdancer

Hey, is this the same Harvestdancer that uset to post on news:a.r.w and news:a.r.w.m? I used to post there as Taliesin of Earthstar. Justin Eiler 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged. Harvestdancer 02:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! It's good to see you again. Justin Eiler 02:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template:user fsm

I'm calling out a posse, to fight for freedom of choice, to fight all those who think that only their opinion's right, template:user fsm was speedy deleted by an administrator without any cause or even discussion, I'm therefore putting it up for undeletion since people have put a jihad out against opinions in userboxes. As you were one of many people using the template, I'm trying to rally you into the posse. If you think the template should be returned to active status, put in a vote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#template:user_fsm. Janizary 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On speedying userboxen

I don't feel that consensus is relevant to the issue of userboxen, because I believe that Jimbo is steering the community away from them. Wikipedia is not completely democratic -- this is one of those cases where most people don't understand what the best interests of the community are. I would be happy to discuss my thinking with you if you're open to conversation. --Improv 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bannana Peel Sockpuppet Tagging

I tagged it for this. Its clearly a sock, as it is bringing up an incident from the RfC that occured with another banned Gastrich puppet. Hexagonal 18:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. There was a typo in the sock notice, making me look for contribs by Banana Peel instead of Bannana Peel. Harvestdancer 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Request

I think I found overlapping templates that might be suitable for merging - but if I have, I have no idea how to do it. Please, I'm not asking for someone to do it for me, I'd like to do it myself, but I don't know how right now. I'm asking for instruction. I'd make a Suggestion to Merge, if one can do that to templates.

Anyway, they are Template:Middle Eastern deities and Template:Meso myth.

The first step is to engage in discussion on the talk page of both templates. After considerable discussion you would just choose one template to keep, and then use the "What links here" button in the toolbox to find all instances of the old template and convert them to the new one. But discuss first (maybe even find a relevant WikiProject and let them know).--Commander Keane 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for abritration has been filed against you

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Markkbilbo.2C_Harvestdancer.2C_Daycd.2C_Dbiv.2C_WarriorScribe --Ben 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A baseless case that will soon be dismissed brought by a troll who has an RfAr filed against him. Harvestdancer 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOVization on Native American slang in the Twinkie Article

Hello, I'm in the process of trying to fix the article on Twinkie. Part of the article deals with its usage in slang of American Indian culture. Becuase I am not familiar with it, I figured I needed the cooperation of someone who was Native American on wikipedia before I attempted editing the section. You'll see that it clearly needs wikifying, but a lot of it is very grey on what is false or simply badly worderd. I saw you had a userbox indicating Native American ancestry on your page, so I'm coming here with a request for help. --The i kiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 03:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock cat

Hello Harvestdancer, I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up after me.[1] Indexing cat tags is something I have to work on remembering.;-) —Encephalon 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, happy to do my part. Harvestdancer 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Mackensen (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

May I ask why did you put that stuff back on my talk page??? The Reason I deleted it was 1) I don't know who this Jason person is and 2) I already addressed the picture issue. #1BEPFan 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Wikimedia

All the Gastrich stuff we just went through ... well, it's about to start over. You see, he discovered he was only banned from Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Check out His User Page. Be sure to look in the history, especially with regard to one possible sock puppet there. Look into his talk page too just for fun. Harvestdancer 01:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did make a mention of this on his RfAr. Harvestdancer 01:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up (although I'm not sure why you contacted me, because I'm not an admin on meta). I don't know if it'll be necessary to block him there, but I'm sure the meta admins have it under control. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you're not an admin there, you are one of the admins who handled the case here, and as such I though you should be aware of this. It's the same reason I contacted JzG. Harvestdancer 00:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

One of your userboxes- the userbox for 42/Hitchhikers seems to be not displayed correctly but I couldn't tell if that was deliberate or not. JoshuaZ 15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't paying close enough attention. It's part of the Great Userbox Compromise. Harvestdancer 18:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuk Sool Won

Hello I heard you take Kuk Sool Won. I am a first degree black belt and the administrator of the Kuk Sool Won Wikia. It is a new wikia and I would like you to be a user on The Kuk Sool Won wikia. Please post reply Here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.2.135 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Jewish angelic hierarchy

I appreciated your turning the article into a table. Wanted to point out that some of the material you added is unsourced and I believe does not necessarily represent what the article describes, Maimonides' system of angel classification. For example, you added material about archangels, but I don't believe it likely that Maimonides had the concept of associating archangels with ranks as the table described and it's not clear to me Maimonides had the concept of archangels at all. As another example, the material you added associates Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael with different kinds of angels, but Jewish tradition generally describes them as being of the same kind. Similarly, some of the interpretive translations you added are unsourced and may not be authentic. It's worth noting that Maimonides was a rationalist, not a Kabbalist, so concepts associated with the Kabbalah do not necessarily represent his system of angeology. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you find it acceptable if the Jewish article were divided into two parts, the first part being a Maimonides section and the secon a Kabbalah section? Harvestdancer 04:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with two caveats. The first is that (per the article title) the article is on traditional Jewish interpretations and sources. The Kabbala has influenced a number of religious traditons as well as popular culture generally, so I believe that popular and other interpretations of the Kabbala that aren't specifically Jewish might better belong on a separate article. The second is that (per: WP:OR) I believe the article should avoid presenting a composite from different points of view but should help the reader identify which source has what view, so I'd suggest a separate table giving Kabbalistic interpretations. "Kabbala" encompasses a wide range of sources and interpretations, so it would be valuable to identify whose interpretation of Kabbala is being presented. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bad faith

Assume good faith on my part, friend. I just gave the generic 1st level warning using VW for removing sourced content without any reasoning or mention on talk page. I just hoped that, in the future, this user will now know more about how Wikipedia works. There was a discussion on the talk page, and the edit actually ended up being valid, but it took a long discussion to get there. A user removing sourced content from articles for no apparent reason sometimes seems like vandalism at first glance. Political articles get very heated, at times, and users must be wary of edits and make sure consensus is met be making big changes. Random deletions of facts with no discussion usually get reverted in the circumstances, especially removing of something that has been in an article for a while (this is a hypothetical situation). I'll try to use a different template for future similar circumstances in other articles. I will apologize to the user as well. Happy Wikying, hmwith talk 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting Creashin to Checkuser

That's a fair question. The WP:RFCU article also includes the statement, "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first." The only provision that I can see that might apply to Creashin is found under "acceptable requests," item F, which states that Checkuser may be requested to investigate "evasion of community-based bans or blocks." However, I don't see the need and I don't see this particular case as falling under the "difficult" rubric, nor am I in a situation in which a "last resort" is necessary. Checkuser is reasonably useful, but it is fairly time and resource-intensive and is made more difficult by the fact that Jason Gastrich hasn't posted as himself in a couple of weeks. Checkuser is also not always conclusive. It can be countered. Thought it appears that I have been caught up in the Gastrich-hysteria, as many of us have since Jason's first appearance in Wikipedia, my only interest would be in enforcing the community consensus that was established when he was banned. Users like Jason need to be kept out of Wikipedia by all reasonable means, and the overwhelming majority of his suspect socks, even those that flew under the radar, as it were, were never submitted for Checkuser. If it comes to that, I'll consider submission, but it hasn't come to that, and I don't really care that much. ;) - Nascentatheist 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? May I just ask, then: how many other banned users do you perform this valuable service to the community for, other than Jason Gastrich? Uncle Davey (Talk) 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for other regular abusive sock-puppetters as well. Do you admit that Gastrich is such? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 03:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gastrich sock puppets

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the suspects were not Jason, and that's probably why one template suggests that there were and are impostors. As you say, that doesn't excuse his behavior; but it also doesn't change the fact that the current discussion on the matter has become quickly moot [2]. My reading of "Bible John" and reviewing the list of edits is a disconnect - a knowledge of Wikipedia that would probably be a bit beyond his capabilities. It's possible, and one such edit even has a "Bible John" signature; but that sort of thing isn't beyond Jason, as far as I've been able to tell. Again, however, the issue appears to be moot, and if it wasn't for Davesig's apparent obsession with Louisiana Baptist University, I'd be moving on from the subject already. ;) - Nascentatheist 22:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You called it

Of the relationship between Uncle Davey vis-à-vis Jason, and your comments here, I think you have it right. No one seemed to notice that you advocated for Jason, and no one noticed that I put his request on the noticeboard, even though I opposed his reinstatement. There was so much hate on the part of the "Christians" in this situation that they didn't seem to notice that it was you and I who were acting objectively. My questions to him were designed to see if he could truly comprehend why his behavior was unacceptable, and if he was rehabilitated or had hope for rehabilitation, and let the community decide regardless of my position on the matter. I have my doubts about codependency in this sort of situation, but you make a good case for at least subconscious manipulation. - Nascentatheist 01:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

You might consider that every time Uncle Davey posts false claims, uses ad hominem in order to avoid points or minimize others [3] because he can't muster an intelligent rebuttal, or when he tries to invoke imaginary gods and spirits, he does nothing more than decrease what little credibility he might possess. Between that and banned user Jason Gastrich's continuing juvenile behavior [4], it should be pretty clear that these guys bury themselves more and more with nearly every "contribution." I think you are wasting your time arguing with either of them. I see you as an admin someday, and these petty arguments will only come back to haunt you. FWIW. - Nascentatheist 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naah. Nobody would be stupid enough to bring these things up to the front of anyone's attention again.Uncle Davey (Talk) 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue

I'm not making this official yet, which is why I'm coming to you this way. You're an administrator I've worked with before so I want your opinion.

I've been cleaning up after User_talk:Wtimrock, and am considering an RfC on User_talk:Wtimrock if he doesn't stop removing AfD notices, CSD notices, and occasionally recreating deleted articles. As I'm not an Admin, I can't get all the proof because the deleted articles are, well, gone. On the other hand, I may be over-reacting.

So please go to my talk page, take a look there, and tell whether me I'm full of it or not. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you have told him how to do it properly, I would be more inclined to list it on WP:ANI with a view to blocking him. In the meantime I am posting a polite warning and explanation that this-is-how-it's-done-here. I doubt he'd respond to an RFC. Feel free to drop back to me if you need help. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th nomination). Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Donald P. Scott for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald P. Scott is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald P. Scott until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Talk:Barry O'Sullivan

I've reverted your edits on Talk:Barry O'Sullivan. Consensus of sources and editors is that his claim of "being a woman" was merely rhetorical flourish in parliamentary debate and not a statement of fact. If you have any sources that suggest he is actively behaving in ways relating to transitioning gender other than his floor speech, please provide them. If not, please stop disrupting the discussion before administrative action is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have his own words, but apparently that isn't good enough for you. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of mammal genera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of mammal genera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Galea, Malacothrix, Cuniculus and Hystrix

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bird genera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chilia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of reptile genera moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of reptile genera, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harvestdancer, Greetings. Pls note that stand alone list needs source just like any other article - see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots or sources on the other side of the links, as this list was researched entirely on Wikipedia. Is it your advice that I have the sources in both places? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of reptile genera has been accepted

List of reptile genera, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's considerable overlap with List of snake genera, which should be addressed. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - biography of living persons

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that

Harvestdancer, if a user gives you a discretionary sanctions alert for a particular topic, it's surely obvious that they themselves are aware of those sanctions. To then post back an alert to them, as you did here, looks merely retaliatory and hostile. Please don't do it. Bishonen | tålk 14:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colubridae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oreocalamus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]