User talk:Loqi T.

lost
hey loqi... your efforts regarding a keep on lostpedia have been nothing short of trojan. however (and i mean no offense whatsoever here) i would exercise care in the discussion; if you argue every con-point in the debate, you risk being labelled as the "AntiFenton" by many of the neutral agents who participate in it who haven't contributed to the article (which are exactly the type of wikipedia editors i've tried my best to get involved in the AfD). i am not suggesting you withdraw from the discussion by any means, just inferring that rebutting every point can have as many negative as positive consequences as far as personal bias is concerned! --Kaini 05:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kaini. I sometimes get a little itchy when I see stupid or accusatory ravings. [a discussion turn bitter.] I only hope anyone reading through that thing can see a difference in quality, even if I do jump in too often. --Loqi T. 05:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) --(amended) Loqi T. 03:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You look a little like Sawyer!
Hi Loqi, Thanks for taking such an active role in the discussion about Lostpedia. I'm still not really clear what your position is, but I respect your passion! I just wanted to drop a note and say hello as well as comment on the Sawyer thing. I hope you don't take it the wrong way. --Kevincroy 07:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, it is Sawyer who looks like me. Sawyer's always keeping secrets too. But I thought I made my position clear. I want Lost to link to something other than just ABC's domesticated fan sites, and I don't really care so much if Lostpedia has its own article. I wouldn't be too upset either way on whether the Lostpedia article gets deleted, though a deletion would raise some fairness issues vis-a-vis those Star Wrek sites' articles. Mostly, I just want a few knuckleheads [scurvy scamps] to get a clue to [share my views on] what WP:EL is supposed to be about.

Respect and "knuckleheads"
Loqi, treat others with respect, as in avoiding the use of words like "knucklehead" to characterize those who disagree with you, and you will be treated in turn with respect. User pages are not free ground for personal attacks. Thanks, PKtm 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a little slow here, PKtm, but I'm not clear on exactly who is being attacked by the 'knuckleheads' word. It's a bit of a padded pejorative. And it's plural and not attached to anyone. I've fixed the word with strike-through. Are you implying that you have been withholding respect from me? --Loqi T. 03:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Example #2: "I sometimes get a little itchy when I see stupid or accusatory ravings." (here). Again, a case of you speaking disrespectfully of others' views who disagree with you. But sure, it's your deal, your karma, but it's also not behavior consistent with Wikipedia basic guidelines of respect. -- PKtm 03:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Somebody's been a busy one! How about this instead? "Sometimes I get a little itchy when I see an unsuspecting Wikipedian wander into PKtm's path." Please don't make me roll the tape. --Loqi T. 04:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) --(retracted) Loqi T. 03:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've decided that my pointed talk page comments, while carefully crafted to avoid technically violating WP:NPA, have outlived any constructive purpose they might have served. I must say, on October 27, I was tempted to write an actual snotty personal attack, just so it could be correctly identified as such. But I thought better of that idea, and wrote the path-wandering line instead.

On October 24, when I was stumbling over my own keyboard with grammar and spelling, I happened to notice that PKtm quietly stepped in, to unobtrusively repair one of my spelling errors that I had missed. My text that he fixed was an admonition of conduct he was involved in that I found objectionable. I remember feeling pleasantly surprised by this. I choose to see it as a small act of goodwill, however subtle it may have been.

I am now ready to up the ante. I am amending my path-wandering comment, which was itself a snarkily-amended version of the accusatory ravings comment. Here is the final version:

I sometimes get a little itchy when I see a discussion turn bitter.

PKtm, I apologize for the tone of both earlier versions of that comment. --Loqi T. 03:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrospective references
Here is the conversation, before, and after. --Loqi T. 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The infamous AfD
Looks like it's drawing to a close...I'd recommend letting yours and Leflyman's comments speak for themselves. I know it's tempting to keep responding, but the AfD should get closed soon and continuing to go back and forth probably won't make any difference now. Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm done with that eleventh-hour bickering. I just had to reply to the new pettiness and re-sequence my comments to address Leflyman's concerns. I think the discussion has benefitted from my final edits, but there's not much more to be said now. It's pretty clear where this is headed. --Loqi T. 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

lostpedia... again
i've edited my latest comment for conciseness; that last response (or, to be more precise, the quote from leflyman) really annoyed me, and i should not have let it do so, i agree. i think that you're involved in the debate for similar reasons to me; i genuinely want to make both wikipedia and lostpedia as good as they can be. and to see (what i percieve as) unfounded accusations of puppetry really annoyed me. the last thing i want to do is to come across as irrational or biased; i believe that the AfD system is essentially a good one, and i trust that a review by unbiased wikipedians will reach the correct decision (one way or the other). --Kaini 04:22, 29 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)

AfD edit
Hiya, I saw your post to PKtm, and thought I'd help clarify. The only reason I edited that one post, is because it occurred after I joined the discussion. Also, it made no sense to me to be attacking Fenton, considering that he'd already indicated that he was in support of the article. If you see other things in the discussion which you feel are personal attacks, regardless of who they are directed at, I'll have no complaint if they're removed. I'd be much happier with a civil discussion all around. :) --Elonka 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to imply that you're playing favorites with personal attacks. In that instance, I preferred to leave PKtm's personal attack undisturbed, and comment on the attack. Mitigating the damage is his job, not mine. I couldn't have asked for a better illustration for my point than the one you provided. I assume your opinion carries more weight with him than mine, so I juxtaposed the two examples side-by-side. They fit perfectly in my reading. And the timing couldn't have been better, coming after my apology to him, but before an AfD ruling. Hopefully something good can come of all this turmoil, but at least I'm having fun with it. BTW, you might want to check this out. --Loqi T. 07:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Here's another, rather obnoxious personal attack. This one's against me. Talk:Lost_%28TV_series%29/Archive11 --Loqi T. 07:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar. Made me smile after a rough day at work.--Opark 77 18:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More thanks
and for mine also. very eloquently put. thanks, loqi! --Kaini 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome aboard, sir. I salute you. --Loqi T. 17:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

An open letter to PKtm from Loqi
Dear PKtm,

Over the past months we have had a long series of contentious dialogue together. That is in the past. I will try to avoid bringing those days up again. If I perceive new abuses, I will respond appropriately, which might include talking about the past. Otherwise, I hope we can move ahead in a better direction.

It's understandable that when you first encountered me, you might have dealt with me as a garden variety link spammer. I fit the profile perfectly, as you alluded to here. That was then, this is now. In the future, you might be well served by Hanlon's Razor.

With regard to your provocative statements of the past, I have noticed several patterns. You have tended to be quick with the personal attack accusation. Paradoxically, you have also been quick to attack the character or standing of others. You might want to look into that. If you notice a trail of prickly relations, it might be time to re-evaluate your style. If you find that the style of the past doesn't fit well with the culture around you, please consider being bold by experimenting with new ways of relating. If you feel safe enough to say something nasty, you probably feel safe enough to experiment with new, more constructive ways of saying it. Be bold, but don't bite the newbies. Your first message to me was to the kind of newbie who hits the ground running. Not everyone is as tough as I am. Please take reasonable precautions against breaking people.

When I speak, I try to imagine it could be the last thing i'll ever say: it might be, especially in a setting like this. Even today, I'm not making assumptions about your motivations, when I say that intentionally misquoting someone else's words is almost never okay. Only you can say why you did what you did, but if you choose to say nothing about your motivations, we are left to our own assumptions.

I must say I am disappointed that the two of us haven't reached an amicable resolution (yet), but I have said all I need to. I am now explicitly taking off the pressure for you to address the problems of the past. I won't bring those problems up again. I am fairly content with where things are between us at this moment. But I do hope you'll try to patch up any problems you might have with others. Even if they say they aren't personally hurt, harm might have been done to the community we're trying to build here.

Most of all, I hope neither of us has to flinch when we see the other coming. I look forward to productively working beside you in any area of common interest. If you'd like to talk, publicly or privately, my door is open to you.

Sincerely,

Loqi T. 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ternary_logic
IMHO, You have problem with ternary logic. Plz, change back the article. Ignat99 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Day Break
Have you watched Daybreak during the dreaded hiatus? I belatedly (sorry) responded to your email. Have you seen this? User:Pedant 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Invite


Gregbard 08:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Susan Reed
A template has been added to the article Susan Reed, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Oo7565 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)