|
User talk:Leflyman/Archive9
Next archival selection is User_talk:Leflyman/Archive10 LOST leadThis is article is great on the whole... but the lead paragraph is quite clearly written from a director's perspective, or that of an avid fan for whom every minute detail is colossal. Most of the original contributors of tis article where avid fans who know all the details behind the scenes whereas most articles on dramas simply depict the plot. The current lead immediately delves into the whos'e-who in the directorship and which, what how many brass pieces they where awarded with. We need to see more about the plot in the lead. Please discuss. frummer 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your participationHi Leflyman, Thank you for participating in my RfA. I also thank you for your comment on my talk page. You mention that you opposed primarily because of the ArbCom case. I first want to say that I didn't take your oppose personally. However, since you brought it up, I thought I would answer you here. I didn't make a statement in the ArbCom case (at least not yet) because I really don't have much to say, and I'm not sure in what way my statement would be beneficial to the community. I hope it is not interpretted as a snub to the ArbCom, because it in not intended as such. I have made statements on the evidence page, that I think are useful. I think they are useful because (imho) they add balance to what are otherwise very adversarial, and consequently one sided, allegations. I think I am assisting ArbCom by providing what little concise, balanced information I can provide. In accepting the case, one of the arbitrators suggested that we should continue to try to resolve the issues outside of ArbCom, and I have been attempting to do that. (I would be happy to provide you diffs). Adding (in my opinion unnecessary) allegations in a statement would not help that effort. With regard to the stalking allegation made against me, I did respond to that allegation in a statement in the RfA [1]. I haven't responded in the ArbCom case, because the party who raised that allegation has not yet provided any evidence. I hope that helps you to understand the choices I have made so far in this matter. If you have concerns that are still unsettled, I would be more than happy to discuss this with you further. I wish you well. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Request for CommentI normally respond to notes on my talk to notes left there, but I think that you may be getting more than one of these so here it is: I'm not stalking you or anything, but I notice that you've responded to both of the people who had contributed to the RfC so far. Your responses are all appropiate, and I'm in agreement with much of what you say. But the point of a forum is to keep discussion in one place. I' recomend you summarie your last couple of talk page notes and add them to the RfC. In fact the forum is intended as a "last resort" and I don't see that the other, err, resorts have been used up: You least are plenty ready to talk. This can be handled at a "lower level," as it were. brenneman 05:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Alienus againDon't you find it odd that there are several IP's editing the Patrecia Scott article, and none of them has more than a few other edits? It has been confirmed that User:Alienus is using Tor to bypass his ban by generating new IP addresses, and that he uses these to undo edits from users he dislikes (primarily me). LaszloWalrus 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Flag on Responsibility assumptionI have added references as requested by user Crosbiesmith via the "who" flag in the "Total responsiblity" section of this article. Does this revision meet your concerns, as expressed by the "Original research|article" flag you placed on the article? WikiLen 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Outcome of the Request for CommentA request for comment is intended to give feedback to various users concerning their actions. This particular RfC did not have enough community input for anyone to draw strong conclusions. That being said, I think you should take something away from the somewhat tepid community response to your accusations. The editing pattern of the anonymous contributor of the Objectivism articles (and let's be clear, I think it's obvious to all involved parties that he is singular) was and is unacceptable. Defending Wikipedia against this sort of behavior is absolutely within the purview of any administrator, and indeed of any logged in editor. Looking back at the history of the Ayn Rand Institute article, I see that in nearly every case I was reverting the anonymous user, who I and a number of other admins believe in good faith to be Alienus; even if he is not Alienus, he is still an anonymous user who is using Tor to hide his edit history to make the exact same edits that Alienus made when he was a user, and thus is subject to be treated in the same way. I do see at least one edit where I rolled back Buridan (who rolled back Laszlo, who was rolling back the sockpuppet). That's the one edit I saw that I made that was questionable, and I'd avoid doing that again. I understand that you think I have an axe to grind, or am supporting a particular POV, but all I can do is assure you that I do not: I find the vagaries of such political pettiness to be boring beyond tolerance. I will continue to revert sockpuppet edits on these and other articles, and I will continue to semi-protect on articles where this user continues to, in his own words, "go vigilante". You've made quite a show of demanding that I assume good faith of someone who, through his actions, has demonstrated egregious bad faith. Now it's your turn to assume good faith of the longtime contributors and administrators who have a track record of working hard to act in the encyclopedia's best interests. I did not and will not criticize you for filing a request for comments. You got your comments. Now I would like to see you internalize them and accept that, in this particular matter, your judgment was mistaken. I urge you to join us, put aside the short-sighted legal positivism, and help defend Wikipedia from those who would use us as a soapbox, be they logged in users or anonymous. That would be a truly happy outcome from this RfC. Nandesuka 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I was one of those who told you so. Your RFC never stood a chance and now you're on Nandesuka's enemy list and can expect preferentially negative treatment at his hands. You heard him: the official policy is that anyone who opposes LazsloWalrus is guilty until proven innocent of being Alienus, even though it's impossible to prove innocence without losing anonymity. You see, Nandesuka has a crystal ball and magically knows these things. Likewise, using Wikipedia as a soapbox is strictly limited to Objectivists, and will not be permitted for those who want articles to be uncensored. At this point, the best you can do is make more request for page unprotects, since he has no legitimate basis for those. He's kept some pages on ice for months at a time, making a mockery of the claim that anyone can edit Wikipedia and, not so coincidentally, making things easier for LazsloWalrus and other Objectivist zealots. Well, now you know why we "anons" have chosen to remain anonymous. The system is rotten, so we work outside the system to do what will not. 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.183.71 (talk • contribs)
You'll have to pardon me for sticking with my first-hand knowledge over your brilliant detective work (or were you just sharing Nandesuka's crystal ball?). If you want to play detective, dig a bit in the right place. Start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justforasecond&oldid=76534315 International broadcastersHello Leflyman, I was hoping you'd be willing to comment at Talk:Lost (TV series)#International broadcasters concerning this consensus issue. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Contrary.I have been told that messages like them were to be removed. Some of my early messages have been removed, and I accept that. When I see racist or sexist comments, they have to be removed. I have read in the help pages, and also have been told that messages like them must be removed. I didn't remove them because I hate Krune, I removed them simply because of their offensive content. I urge you to read them before this situation gets out of hand. Acalamari 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
MergeYour really ought to begin a discussion for your Khamaseen/Hamsin merge. Another editor is liable to remove the merge templates because it is not being discussed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Your queryUser talk pages should not be deleted except in rare circumstances, such as the right to disappear, if the user is definitely leaving and not returning (although even that is disputed by several admins); serious harassment; legal threats; posting of personal details and similar. The presumption is always in favor of retaining talk pages because they mostly contain posts from other users, not posts from the user whose page it is — unlike the user page, which will have been edited mostly by the user himself. I would say that, while an admin might delete his own user page, he probably shouldn't delete his own talk page, unless there is very serious abuse on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
|
