User talk:WordWrightUSA

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:The English Patient (film)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 11:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where this is going. All I can say is that I requested this action in effect but not knowing all the ins and out of Wikipedia did not address it to this body. If my body of information and experience is the entire TALK page of The English Patient (film) then what I can surmise is that this "dispute" is not about "three words" but the tactics in general used by the disputing volunteer about the article discussion in general. There appears to be a pattern that someone establishes a discussion on a point then what follows is a discussion that then calls into question by the disputee the motive for the other participant in the discussion as if in effect attempting to scare off the differing view. First let us address the "three words". The fact of the matter is that is it necessary to establish that the burn person use to be a dashing archaeologist in the total understanding of the film? No. If it is then why is it not crucial to qualify fate/romance/etc in order to establish no confusion as to how each had a role with the characters? Also, the three words speak to a statement of fact immediately established by the preceding statement of fact that things come to and end. The disputee seems reluctant to use the technique of inferred sequence to stand for text that in a logical thought process fills in for unstated text. As concerns confusion, it was established that the appropriate description should be used for Almasy's involvement in the Cave of Swimmers. The disputee went on about how inappropriate was the word "find" as if it had been suggested as appropriately neutral when in fact it had not. I can only surmise that since the word came at the end of the discussion of the proposal it may have had a misunderstood striking point of reference. Then after it is agreed that appropriate word(s) are needed and then suggested that they are not deemed appropriate by the disputee for reasoning that reflects a misunderstanding as to why. The disputee would like it to be understood that the words "map and explore" are not suitable reflections of Almasy's involvement with the Cave because mapping infers that only western cultures impose that action on those that do not have it and that since the time of Columbus exploration is synonymous with genocide. Talk about fallacious presumptions. Maps have long existed in non-western cultures but it can safely be said that these maps lacked longitude and latitude which although a western development is a tool by which even non-western cultures find useful and not an affront to their culture by its use. In fact, it is not a disregard of physical descriptions by which to locate a site (i.e., the back of a woman) but a more precise means of locating sites. As for genocide, now really, that is a leap in labeling all exploration efforts which are not reserved to western cultures.

Then the piece de resistance is when the disputee calls into question the sincerity of not being interested in the matter at hand.

I apologize for the length of this but what needs to be said, needs to be said. And as the disputee has stated clearly, that is accurate and factual.

I guess I should have put the signage at the end but forgot. But let me also say that the disputee would like for this situation to be portrayed as someone being unreasonable but all I can say is that someone is not being sincere in the Wikipedia intent.WordWrightUSA (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to comment upon or participate in the dispute resolution noticeboard listing, you must do so there. Statements which you make here on your talk page or at other places will not be considered in that discussion. You are not, however, required to participate at all; participation in mediated content dispute resolution is always voluntary. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (DNR coordinator)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Poplar Forest may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

house museum by the Corporation for Jefferson's Poplar Forest (1983).<ref>ref name="tjpf_main">{{cite web|url=http://www.poplarforest.org/main</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The English Patient (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

then begins a three-day walk for help. Dazed and dehydrated, he gets to British-held [El Tag]] and feebly attempts to explain his non-British name and the circumstances of Katherine's plight.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WordWrightUSA, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi WordWrightUSA! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

There is a rule against reverting excessively. You have reverted me at least three times today, so if you do it again I'll lodge a formal complaint. See WP:3RR if you have questions.

I've opened several discussion sections, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do what you have to and I will respond in kind and just as the talk page discloses YOUR BEHAVIOR IS ALSO CONSIDERED.WordWrightUSA (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]