User talk:Leflyman/Archive7

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

Next archival selection is User_talk:Leflyman/Archive8.

3RR
One of my reverts was of a banned user's (Alienus( sock puppet. I would appreciate it if you would respond to my arguments for my position rather than just reverting. LaszloWalrus 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say that this gentleman is doing 3rr violations all over, he just did his 3rd on list of political philosophers. he refuses to engage in discussion to build consensus and gives evidence that others reject or find faulty and he ignores that and just reverts. --Buridan 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism to Political violence
I am messaging you because you were the user who moved Talk:Zionist terrorism to Talk:Zionist militancy after a VfD

Please see:


 * Talk:Zionist_political_violence

In this page's case, is there anyway to avoid a VfD and still get a title change? Travb (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for listening anyway. I am going to unwatch your page. Best wishes. Travb (talk)

Episode vs. season articles: your view
Hey, I've noticed that you've stayed out of the more recent discussion, largely, on episode articles vs. season articles Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. Am I truly, as Elonka states, the last holdout? I'd appreciate anything you have to contribute, either on this page or to me on my talk page. Right now, I'm "going it alone", which is never all that fun. I'm leaving a similar note on Jtrost's talk page. Just wondering if you two have changed your view, or gotten weary of the struggle, or what. Thanks. -- PKtm 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you very much for the barnstar, i'll put it on my userpage now ! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article
Hi

You maybe interested to know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination, would be wonderful. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pilot2backgammon.jpg)
I removed the image from the thematic motifs article and tagged it as orphaned because it still has no fair use rationale. Without a rationale it is inappropriate for use on wikipedia and should be deleted. I like the image and hope it will get a fair use rationale so it can stay.Opark 77 09:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, please stop annoying me by re-inserting inaccurate tags and filling my talk page with excess template text. The image you have tagged was already examined by an admin, and returned. See additional discussion at Awyong_Jeffrey_Mordecai_Salleh's talk page. If you feel that the image is still lacking what you deem enough "Fair Use rationale" please be ever so good to add it yourself based on the extensive discussion already made. It's a wiki; you can edit the images, too. -- LeflymanTalk 17:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my attempt to improve content for the article is annoying you, that was not my intention. I have struck through the standardised template text as a good faith gesture seeing as you have stated that you feel it is inappropriate. Please do not remove it as removing content from talk pages is considered vandalism. I used the template because the tags suggested I do so, the edit was not nonsense or intended to upset you just to notify you that I had replaced the tag. Please remember that we assume good faith here at wikipedia.

The image was returned previously. However, I tagged it as orphaned after removing it from the article a second time. I removed it because it still has no fair use rationale, I see you have re-added it. I will not get involved in a revert war with you about this. I really am trying to help you create a fair use rationale and make the image appropriate for use on wikipedia. I don't know why you think it is fair use other than what you have told me. I'm not sure if this is an appropriate fair use of the image so I can't write the rationale. I will be happy to collaborate with you on a fair use rationale and help with any wording you might suggest but the rationale is supposed to be your opinion. I hope that we can sort out this relatively minor issue without too much more discussion.--Opark 77 20:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked User:Ed g2s and User:Awyong_Jeffrey_Mordecai_Salleh for help in resolving this matter.--Opark 77 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Opark, please take this with due consideration, I'm sure you consider it "improving the article" to remove images, but I consider it a failure to understand some basic Wikipedia principles. Rather than tagging images you deem not to meet your standards for fair use, perhaps you might consider focusing on actual editing of article in areas you're familiar with. It's clear that the images chosen are discussed in the text, and that the images are identified as to their source. If you feel that's not enough, I'll again suggest: add the missing info yourself. Incidentally, you might want to note that I'm been editing on Wikipedia since 2003. I'm well familiar with policy; stating "Please remember that we assume good faith here at wikipedia" comes off as pedantic. (You may want to note that WP:AGF points out, "Accusing the other side in a conflict of failing to assuming good faith can, itself, be a form of failing to assume good faith.") Finally, users are given leeway in editing their own talk pages, and allowed to remove comments they feel are inappropriate. Users are advised not to remove warnings without cause, as this may be seen as uncivil; however, the excessive template you placed on my page was not such a case. Removing it was most certainly not vandalism, and your claim as such seems to indicate some misunderstanding of policy.
 * Please See: Help:Talk_page:
 * "Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them." -- LeflymanTalk 21:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think deleting images improves the content. I do think that it is important to have a fair use rationale for fair use images. In encouraging you to produce a fair use rationale I hope to improve content. Deleting the images from the article is necessitated by your failure to produce the fair use rationale after being given fair notice and time.

Thank you for pointing out the policy about users editing their own talk pages, I've now read this and will bear it in mind. I was wrong about that and I apologise. I am not wrong about fair use rationales. This is an area of wikipedia that I have a good level of experience with and I understand the policies and guidelines involved despite not having been an editor here since 2003. Thanks for your advice about how to spend my time as an editor, but I'm afraid I'm going to choose to disregard it. I strongly believe that keeping wikipedia free for reproduction is a valuable goal and enforcing fair use policy is essential in achieving this. This is not the only way I spend my time as an editor and I do make plenty of content edits.

I really think that saying that I am trying to annoy you by notifying you when I tag an image you uploaded is a failure to assume good faith and that is why I reminded you of the policy. I'm sorry if that was pedantic in your view, I am finding out that it is often necessary to be pedantic when it comes to fair use issues. Please can we focus our discussion on creating a fair use rationale. This is not a personal view of mine, as I think you might believe, this is in fact wikipedia policy. Pagra has left a comment on my talk page clearly explaining the policy if you want reassurance that I am not the only one who think fair use images need fair use rationales (see: fair use policy criteria 10). The policy also clearly states that the uploader or the person adding the image must create the rationale although anyone can contribute. I am not sure that this is a fair use of the image so I cannot priovide a rationale. I can help you with the formatting/wording and am happy to do so if you just get the ball rolling.--Opark 77 07:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Elonka has actually made a first pass at a rationale. I'm going to improve the format a little. I wonder if there is anything you want to add.--Opark 77 07:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOST Page
Hi Leflyman,

Thanks for the warning on the fansite issue. I was merely including a good example for Wiki users to check out and understand, and had no idea that was considered vandalism. I will refrain from adding links like that in the future.

As a substitute, would it be possible to build a Wiki page of LOST fan video examples, and link to that so that Wiki users could see examples of these works?

Thanks, Dulcimerist

Great work.
For your great editing and helping new people i award you the Lost barnstar :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Protecting visible pages
From WP:PP : "Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." JBKramer 14:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Messenger
Hey Lefly, do you use msn messenegr or AIM :-) ? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be interested to know that a particpant in the Lostpedia AfD nominated 30+ articles i created for deletion.. Articles for deletion/The New and Improved Carl Morrissey (The 4400 episode) - some of the Lostpedians have also joined in the debate, the math just doesnt add up for me :\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

An open letter to Leflyman from Loqi
Dear Leflyman,

I'm sorry to hear that this Lostpedia business has sapped your motivation. (I mean that sincerely.) For me, it's become my way of learning my way around Wikipedia Level 2. Honestly, I'm not really all that committed to any particular outcome of this whole saga. No-one really cares that much about a tiny detail. (Maybe I should say few care that much, as we seem to have met every one of them lately.)

It's not so much about getting my way, as it is about doing what's right. I don't get worked up about a particular line item in a particular article. I do get worked up about a perceived problem with how conflict is handled. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I'm just explaining my motivations here.

I will spend the next days reading through what you've given me to chew on. Thank you, again, for all your hard work. Whatever happens with the AfD and the Lost external links doesn't really interest me much at this point. I hope one day to contribute to the Lost article in a meaningful way. When that day comes, I would like to think I'll be received graciously, by whomever is keeping shop over there at that time.

I have read the essay you mentioned, Beware_of_the_tigers and have taken it to heart. In fact, I loosely resolve to read Tigers annually, around Halloween. In honor of you. I'd say quite a number of Wikipedians could do with a similar personal policy.

If you've been monitoring my activities, you may have noticed a subtle nod to a line in that essay: "For example, if you've just gone through the process of writing a book and dealing with lawyers about a potentially controversial book, consider working on related articles like index or publishing or libel." Now I'm making it explicit: I've recently been working on a renovation project, employing an interesting technique for interior walls, so I started a brand new article on the topic. It's fun!

On my end, this three-month episode started off rewarding and energizing. When it petered out without resolution, I was disappointed. The latest festivities at AfD2:Lostpedia have been a source of immense pleasure to me. I've learned quite a bit about Wikipedia behind the curtain, and I do enjoy a good scrap. Unfortunately, not everyone experiences the same event in the same way. I only hope you can get your groove back, and enjoy the bad with the good.

Very sincerely,

Loqi T. 00:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm guessing the "on vacation" shingle in your user page is derelict. You might want to check into that.

Thanks
Thank you for your comments on my talk page, and congratulations on your first new article! I was actually on extended Wiki-break, but the continued discussion about Lostpedia just further emphasised that it's time for me to move on. I don't know when or if I'll be editing about Lost again; a number of the editors who helped shape the article over the past two years are no longer active there. Not to toot my own horn, but I've shepherded it through two Peer Reviews, getting it ready to be a Featured article, all the way to being the FA of the Day at the beginning of this month. Barring some major catastrophe, from here, it's just maintenance.-- LeflymanTalk 04:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Thank you, sir.
Leflyman, It seems like only yesterday my little article was just a baby. But then along comes Xhin and removes its stub template, on the explanation that it's no longer stub sized. Maybe someday my little toddler will be within striking distance of the Daily Feature club. When that day arrives, I might be knocking on your door for some pointers and recommendations for finishing school. Don't take too long a break, they grow up before you know it! I'm glad we've finally gotten past the old days here. I intend to reply at least one more time at Lost/Fansites though, so do keep a handle on it for a while. See ya. --Loqi T. 04:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Still at the library...
I'm still looking into the materials you provided. In the meanwhile, there's this little matter:

Nice work, Leflyman. --Loqi T. 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)