User talk:Leflyman/Archive4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Leflyman. 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.

Post replies to my main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Next archival selection is User_talk:Leflyman/Archive5.

WP:BITE

I find it somewhat ironic that you yourself refer to WP:BITE in Talk:Lost (TV series)#The Canterbury Tales, yet choose to ignore what it says. Jon Harald Søby 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are of course right; I was uncivil. Anyways, the sentence that made me react was "Save such new theories for fan sites." – I don't think it had been necessary to add that (or it could have been put differently). Anyways, I find your work on the Lost articles to be very good. I wish I had the same patience with the Norwegian articles (which I mostly created). Jon Harald Søby 15:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Creditbility

Yeah — it's a bit past ironic when someone trying to prove their credibility as a writer can't even spell the word. And I'll let you know if I find out who my superiors are. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Its also frowned upon.....

Its also frowned upon, and pisses off a lot of people, when someone edits your work, when you know its accurate. Dickclarkfan1 15:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

NOR

The "nutshell" does not deal with specifications as to what must be sourced; it attempts to be a short description of what should not be included in articles. For sourcing, we refer people to Verifiability policy.—Leflyman^Talk 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I say yes if we consider that "sourced" means that a citation is actually provided, which is more than just a source exists. I should have written "have a reputable source" instead of "sourced", and "there must exist a source" instead of "must always provide a source". The distinction between these two concepts is a subtle point that is important in Verifiability, and I was not careful about it here. But, if this was the only problem, you could have made the correction yourself. -Lumière 01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Episode guide

Well, I am gone for like 2 weeks, and I come back and I can't believe what's going on! Who are these folks who just showed up and made this new episode guide? (And did you see they made a Danielle page! Jesus!) Anyways, I sent a message to Baryonyx. Obviously, it's inevitable that the episodes are being split up into their own pages, and as much as I don't like that, I'd rather we take control of this rather than these jerks. I've been perusing some of their comments (especially to JTrost) and they are unbelievably condescending and bitchy. It just burns me up. You and Baryonyx are the most knowledgeable when it comes to "Wiki" rules and regulations (and good comebacks!), so I hope that we can all work together on this new episode guide. Danflave 18:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Dan, I've been reading through some of your comments on the discussion pages dealing with the new set of articles. While I agree that the sudden explosion of articles without a comment or notice for any long-time Lost editors was inconsiderate, I do think it would reduce the level of antagonism if we avoid profanities and incivilities about editors we might disagree with. Referring to others as "bullies" or to certain articles as variations of fecal matter probably doesn't win arguments :) Please take a look at the policy on "Civility", and consider going back to refactor some of your comments to reduce the confrontational stance that some might perceive you to be taking. Thanks! —Leflyman^Talk 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. :) I was just really overwhelmed and angry about all the changes -- I can get hot-headed at times. (Although I stand by my statements that the "episode pages" for many of the television show pages are s***!) Danflave 17:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

You're right. I would like to withdraw the nomination. But it will be featured someday! Also, should we move "Addicted to Lost" to the Lost page?- JustPhil 02:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Danielle Rousseau

Thanks for your comments, really appreciated. Sorry for the late response! ~_~ —Joseph | Talk 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD vote on the map from the Hatch

I noticed that you haven't expressed an opinion here. While I am leaning towards keep (Jeremys779 makes a persuasive argument), I'd reconsider if you argued for delete. -- llywrch 16:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution -- although I suspect that this kind of information will force some consistency on the creators of Lost. What do you think about providing links for some of these items to Lostpedia? This would help divert some of the less important details from Wikipedia. -- llywrch 02:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned Lostpedia because it has details from the show laid out in an easy-to-find manner. (In the case of the hatch map, there's a complete transcription for the fan -- & a link to it means that it could be excluded from Wikipedia without worry that the information may be lost.) There are a few other sites like Lostpedia worth linking to for specific details, e.g. Sledgeweb's numerous "Investigations" at lost.cubit.net; I feel the trick is to emphasize those that are clearly easy to use & accurate. -- llywrch 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. -- llywrch 03:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

removal of fact templates

Even if faz is pushing a point of view, its unfair to remove fact templates from any unsourced claim of fact. Thanks, --Urthogie 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stepping in it? Nah

I don't think you did (step in it, that is). In this case, it now seems clear to me that we were all (you, me, Jtrost) struggling against people who could accept one and only one outcome, regardless of whether it conforms with Wikipedia policy. I've kind of run out of patience with the endless back-and-forth on it. Your suggestion for a third opinion was definitely on the right track here (actually, I looked it up, and it turns out that an RfC would be better: third opinion is when there's only two people involved in the dispute). In any event, we all have to try to keep our chin up in these struggles, even though it's easy to get discouraged. You're a great contributor and a reasoning advocate of Wikipedia principles, so I'd hate to see you stop participating. -- PKtm 04:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I feel like I stepped into it too, but only out of earnest lack of understanding how you (Leflyman), PKtm and jtrost interpret the policies you site in the context of a television show. I think it is possible for two rational people to read the policy statements you cite and come to different conclusions. I appreciate the time you three have taken to engage in the discussion. I am still, pardon the pun, lost. I hope I did not use invective or make acusations. I did feel that the citations of policy at times felt non-responsive, though, and that is not to say that I won't accept only one outcome. I just seek to fully understand and at this point I do not. I do plan to make an Rfc, but first I have attempted to summarize the differences in positions at the end of the thread. One piece is missing, and I hope one of you will reengage just for that clarification or to clarify the positions in the summary. Regards, Bldxyz 23:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Weren't you the first to suggest an RFC? Now you are encouraging me to reach the same conclusions you have reached by reading pages and pages of policies and past discussions? If you've run out of energy, you could simply give in... ;) But seriously: I have read most of what you and others have pointed to in this conversation and can come to one of two conclusions:

a) it doesn't mean what you say it means, that in the context of these pages about Lost, a television series, there is much ambiguity given the official wikipolicies, or

b) the whole entire set of Lost Pages are completely overblown, and 90% of it should be deleted. I mean, one can easily argue that the whole thing is fancruft, to the extent that any episode summary is more than four sentences. Move it ALL to LostPedia and just link there.

I can't support b, and it seems impossible that you actually support it, too. I have gained my own perspective on these pages by means of reading all of the Lost pages and internalizing the standards based upon what is there. You seem to have a set of guidelines by which you wish to reform all those pages, but I have to say, it cannot be universal given how you must police the pages to make them stick, and it cannot be easy to communicte, or else you'd have a page of guidelines that effectively, concisely, and unambiguously demonstrates what belongs and what doesn't. Short of that, there is discussion. Bldxyz 00:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman: I'm wondering if you might be open to some feedback about the way you discussed the issue on the Talk page. I might have some suggestions about how to be more persuasive. Bldxyz 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to listen. I think that one reason I didn't speak out against ArgentiniumOutlaw right away was that I was put off by some of the things I observed in the discussion. He(?) used words that I would never have used, but I understood, emotionally, where he was coming from. Here is what I observed:

• Using seniority as an argument (I'm right because I'm experienced, you are wrong because you are not). I got the feeling you were telling me this, which doesn't enhance my desire to see your point. Example: "Bldxyz, I think you as a new editor may have a slight misunderstanding about Wikipedia (no worries-- we were all there at one point!) It's contrary to WP's purpose to be an initial source of information.", "And you bring up excellent points above, which are exactly the ones we've repeatedly had to deal with, when new and anonymous editors re-insert them." "I urge new editors to spend some time reading to coming to understand the Policies-- although they may seem complex, they actually do make fairly straight-forward sense; at some point, most new editors experience an epiphany about the policies, and say, "Aha! Now I get it!"" ... they just aren't ways to convince me that you are correct, they just seem to imply you are because you say you are and are experienced. Initially, I found your comment more welcoming, but later, when the theme re-emerged and was repeated, I found it demeaning. It suggest limiting such observations to once per conversation, if at all, and focusing instead on comparing the current issue to one you have seen before, settled by some consesus.
• Claiming to speak for a consensus. Example: "I'm afraid you're outnumber by the entire consensus of Wikipedia itself." - This is to generalize your prior experience and prior validation on certain points. not specific to the issue. I found it condescending. In this case, there was no consensus. It may be directly parallel to other cases, but those cases weren't shown to me, so I can't see the consensus on issue X applying to this issue. My suggestion on the prior point might be a better way to bring people into your corner.
• Saying, "you should submit an RFC" (emphasis mine) instead of "we should consider". It is more collaborative and more consensus-building (consensus with the present set of people, that is) to suggest an action for the group. Example: "However, if you don't trust my (or Jtrost or PKtm's) interpretation of Wikipedia policy, please feel free to ask for a Third Opinion or even make a Request for Comment". The suggestion is to propose a group action (and stick to that). We might have come to that option sooner, and may have reserved some energy for such.
• Linking to policy without illustrating how the policy means what you say (numerous links to policies and discussion pages). While I didn't feel the links were random, upon reading the links, I didn't come to the same conclusion. It would be more helpful to say what I have interpreted from policy X is that where is says _____, it means, relevant to this case, ______. That allows the reader to both read over the policy, know which part you have in your mind, and know how you see it applying to the current case. It would get your point across more convincingly, and it is sort of annoying to be told something general (go look it up) over something specific (here's the specific citation).
• There were also a few times where you pointed to policy instead of responding to an argument, but that's a little trickier to illustrate and I prefer to be concrete. That said, while it is tempting and time saving to point to policy, it doesn't persuade.

Thank you for being willing to listen. I do wish people were commenting after the RFC were posted so I could get a broader view on the issue we've been discussing. Bldxyz 23:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. Just to clarify: I didn't take your comments as derogatory -- I knew you didn't intend to be snide or rude or anything like that. I just found it frustrating in the context of the discussion, and was hoping to point out other ways that might encourage an even richer conversation. Thanks for your comments. Bldxyz 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: vote count on AfD Ultraviolet map

Hi,

I noticed that you closed the AfD for Ultraviolet map with a decision of no consensus; could you please post your vote count/reasoning in closing it thus. Thank! —Leflyman^Talk 01:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that shortly. Stifle 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Stifle 12:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. ... (full reply on User talk:Stifle Leflyman^Talk 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. AFD is where the deletion of articles is discussed. I don't think it is helpful (or, for that matter, valid) to determine that there is a consensus, or not, to merge - it's not a delete, and I don't think that two-thirds or more of the people from the AFD think that it should be merged. The talk pages are the correct place for this discussion. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering A Return

Hi, Leflyman. Just read your's and Danflave's posts on my talk page, and I'll let you know I am considering a return. I will say, again, that my enjoyment of Lost has gone back up, almost in direct correlation with my ceasing participation on the Lost pages and on the forums, but at the same time, things seem to have turned into (to be blunt) an unmitigated disaster. I personally see no other viable solution than to start a WikiProject, dissolve the Season pages (because now we have duplicated information all over the place), condense the extraneous trivia pages that have sprung up (AfDing things we should be merging and excising speculation from is an issue), and find a way to work amicably with the newer editors to create the best damn pages we can. It's easy to think some of us "own" these pages... hell, major chunks of things I've written for these pages remain largely unaltered weeks or months later, which makes it sometimes easy to think it's "mine", but the key is to not actually see it that way and most definitely not bludgeon people with that perception. Personally, I feel that most of these debates I've seen are inexcusable, with neither side truly being in the right, either by behavior or by merit. That said, if you think my coming back would be of help (knowing that it means I will likely create a WikiProject under the Be Bold guideline, and set about trying to do what I describe above), then I'm willing to consider it. I'll also note that K1Bond007 has peeked in as well, BTW, so maybe we can get him on board too. Whatever we do, we'd likely need his help, possibly DDG's and even Josiah's, to attempt to wrangle the debate away from the incivility and hard-headedness its devolved into.

I hate to be blunt, but at this point, I'm not about to get re-involved with this if it's going to make me miserable. Baryonyx 08:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen your comments on NOR and have rewritten the paragraph on 'synthesis' to address your concerns and others. I would welcome your comments and possible contributions to put together a proper definition if you disagree with my rewording. Thanks. --Northmeister 01:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing article Jew to Jews

Leftyman, I am for it. However, it is now listed in Talk:Jew as "No consensus". My understanding is that it means nothing will be done at least for awhile. Probably the best thing to do would be wait at least 6 months and then visit articles like "Jewish Messiah", go through the History and leave a message on the user talk pages of people who would probably support the change, then post another poll. I have not checked, but I get the impression User:Eliezer and User:IZAK would probably agree with the name change and would know others to contact before posting the poll. Light Orlanu Brecker 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Vote on Ultraviolet map

Hi I was thinking about taking this whole merge discussion in an entirely different direction. Instead of merging the info on the poorly named Ultraviolet map into the unfocused The DHARMA Initiative. How about we expand on Silentplanet's idea and create sub sections on known Hatches?

Remember the "The DHARMA Initiative" article is supposed to focus on what it is. Adding more information to "the Swan" only shows that this hatch should be expanded upon in another article. The title of this article after all is not "The DHARMA Hatches." To me it looks like we should put in some information about what exactly the DHARMA Initiative is. We should give some history on it maybe include the information on the film and then some brief information about the hatches and what they are. Hatches that we know more about like "The Swan" should have its own page that would then contain information such as "the Map", "The Timer", etc... I think that this is a more reasonable solution and would also make it a more logical solution as an encyclopedia article. Please let me know what you think (in your talk page)! And if you do agree please note that on your merge vote! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 04:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. The biggest issue (as I keep repeating) with LOST-related articles is that people seem to want them to delve into speculation (i.e. "guesses"). I agree that the DHARMA Initiative should be focused on what we actually know about the group; and thus I wouldn't be opposed to a division of that page, with a separate article dealing with "the stations". However, speculative content (AKA "Original Research") would need to be kept from flourishing. I suggest that the idea be raised on the Talk page for the DHARMA Initiative article, where other editors can comment.

Regards,

Leflyman^Talk 04:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are some speculations about "the map" and I think that such guesses should be either noted, isolated or removed from any article. But I do think that some speculations can be rather informative. I hope that we don't merge "the map" with the DHARMA Initiative since I really don't believe that it belongs there. If it should be merged with anything it should be merged with a new stations article. As a side note I try to keep convos together so that it makes it easy for people to follow convos... So I hope that you dont mind that! (c:= Chat to you later -- UKPhoenix79 08:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR

I agree very much with limiting who can edit policy pages. And remember this has been going on for weeks witih -Lumiere, who basically caused discussion to stop on talk NOR and V, and badly affected it on talk NPOV. We more or less have the straw poll: 16 editors support the current version, and it's not clear how many against because the numbers are dwindling, but it was Northmeister, Herschelkrustofsky, Ragout (but s/he has called Northmeister a vandal so they don't seem to want the same thing), possibly Lumiere, and then the numbered account who has made four edits and who went on a vandalism spree last night as an anon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm probably going to stop posting about it for a few days, Leflyman, though you're welcome to e-mail me. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I think people have already made their views clear on talk. I'd say what's needed now is a longish period of calm. But as I said, feel free to e-mail me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's have the straw poll then (which I will participate in, I am not the direct discussion on a promise made) as I am unsure who these 16 are you speak of. Further, Ragout has stricken out vandal. Also, why do you refuse to engage with me about my objections? Engagement with myself and those who have concerns might actually provide resourceful and would have prevented a lot of bickering there. Consensus is a process. "Consensus usually involves collaboration, rather than compromise. Instead of one opinion being adopted by a plurality, stakeholders are brought together (often with facilitation) until a convergent decision is developed. If this is done in a purely mechanical way it can result in simple trading—we'll sacrifice this if you'll sacrifice that. Genuine consensus typically requires more focus on developing the relationships among stakeholders, so that they work together to achieve agreements based on willing consent."[1] --Northmeister 03:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

NYPL-Abyssinians recruiting followers

Hi Leflyman, thanks for your message. It did not completely satisfy my curiosity, though. Yeah, I know about the old Flag of Ethiopia and the Lion of Judah. What I would like to know is who/why are the "Abyssinians recruiting followers" in 1904? Why does the other flag contain the Star of David, the sign "Zion" in Hebrew and two stripes? Is there a relation to the Zionism? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)