User talk:Mavarin/Archive 1

.

Oh, gosh, someone should have given you a welcome template days ago! Well, here:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

So... I actually use "rvv" to mean revert vandal. Sadly, there's a lot of vandalism on the website, so those of us who spend too much time here as editors quickly learn how to revert it. It's actually not too hard!

Ilsa (novel) is looking great! Most newcomers (as writers) to Wikipedia don't start with nearly so comprehensive an article. There are a couple of minor formatting issues left to work on; I can help you with those later. For now, I've got to get to sleep! Cheers, Melchoir 07:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks for the welcome and the encouraging words.  I look forward to your suggestions.  Sleep well! Karen 07:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No prob! I'll edit the article now; most of what I do should be self-explanatory, but if you have a question, just ask! Melchoir 20:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. That answers several questions I had. But I'm still a little unclear on the internal reference format, when the displayed text does not match the article title.  (Example: Ilsa (novel) I'll have to look at your examples and play with it, I guess. Thanks again. Karen 22:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Piped link explains that one. Melchoir 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The laughing man, he comes forth with his cries of peace!
Greetings to you! I have accepted the case that you filled at the Mediation Cabal. I hope this is settled smoothly and that no one is discouraged by it. Thank you for allowing me to help!! :-)

Now, onto the matters at hand. Shall we have a discussion with all those involved, or do you have a different plan? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}} 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! I greet you by the sign of Harold's Purple. I looked at your user page earlier this evening and am intrigued.

As for the matter at hand, I have no coherent plan, only frustrated idealism. My private opinion is that Marky48 is about 10% right, but so convinced that everyone else is his bitter enemy that he assumes that everything we say is a lie, an attack and the vindictive pursuit of some anti-Mark agenda. He therefore won't give us a fair hearing. This makes compromise or consensus difficult, to say the least. Meanwhile, I think his inflammatory remarks make it hard to avoid behaving with that same vindictiveness.

The reason I requested mediation, aside from the prospect of this daily drama continuing and escalating otherwise, is that someone with no history working on either of these articles, or commenting on the blog Making Light, or posting on the writer's community Absolute Write, is more likely to be recognized by Mark as a non-enemy. If that person then says friendly, sensible things that acknowledge Mark's concerns while helping to make them part of a larger solution, he may be more willing to reach some compromise position. (I've tried to do this myself, but got flamed. He's already decided I'm an enemy, and mere facts, plus supporting parts of what he's tried to do, can't shake his opinion of me.) This is where I hope you can do some good. I'm confident that JulesH will cooperate if Mark does, and no one else will object at that point. My big concern is that Mark won't listen to you, either, even if you come bearing cookies. Mark has already interpreted the calling in of a mediator as a complaint against him.

As for method of resolving this problem, the main drama seems to be the back and forth between Jules and Mark. (Before that it was between JeanMarie and Mark, but she withdrew.) Speaking to each person separately may be better than inviting more confrontation from direct interaction. However, that's probably just me getting upset because people are being unpleasant. If you feel that group interaction might work better if you're helping to direct it, feel free to try.

The background, which may not be apparent from the Talk pages, is this. Mark showed up on the Making Light blog a couple of weeks ago, in a thread about the Absolute Write site losing its ISP on an hour's notice after Barbara Bauer threatened the ISP. Mark had been banned from Absolute Write for being unpleasant to other users. He wanted others to know that Jenna, proprietor of Absolute Write, was no saint. People replied that they quite liked Jenna, but could understand that if Mark told other people their books were worthless, Jenna might treat him as she did. Mark felt he was being picked on, got increasingly rude and nasty, and was then disemvoweled. He refused to leave Making Light, sent in a sockpuppet, and got banned. People called him Murk Yurk, so it's true that ridicule was directed at him. Mark felt that the Absolute Write and Making Light readers were out to get him, and also trying to destroy the ISP that dumped AW. He believed that the inclusion of a link on the Barbara Bauer page to the ISP's explanation of their actions was somehow unfair to the ISP. (They soon went out of business, but not because of Wikipedia!) And on the Disemvoweling article, Mark wants the world to know he and others have been treated unfairly through the use of disemvoweling. He wants the article itself to state 1. that the inventor of disemvoweling uses it with insufficient cause, and 2. that the purpose of disemvoweling is ridicule prior to inevitable banishment from a site. The first claim is subjective at best, and hard to source. The second seems to be factually inaccurate, and based on a single case history. Yet neither claim is 100% false. The opinion should probably be acknowledged. Conversely, a source link for the phrase "proponents claim" should also be included, but Mark keeps removing it.

Well, I've probably gone on too long, but the story is kind of complex and I needed to vent a little. I hope you can help! Thanks! Karen 08:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

mmmhmmm mmmhmm *tapping chin*, A rather sticky situation. I can see how you'd be frustrated, and (to a small extent) I relate to mister Mark. I think, given Mark's everyone-is-an-enemy mindset, that having a one-on-one with him might appear a bit too confrontational. At first, having individual dicussions seemed like a good idea, but I think a group sort of thing would work out best. Hmmm

I can't help but feel Mark is simply using Wikipedia to make a point, but regardless, we should try to be as understanding as possible and assume good faith so that no one's feelings get hurt, and everyone is happy-tastic about the situation. I'll notify all parties involved, and we'll have a discussion. Unless you have a paticular place you'd like to discuss things, I'll probably direct everyone to the talk page of the article. This might get a bit heated, so we should handle everything very delicately. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}} 08:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Thanks! Karen 08:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you like me to contact Shinto and JeanMarie? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}} 08:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm not sure.  They may appreciate the invitation, but I doubt that JeanMarie will want to re-enter the discussion at this point.  She has basically indicated that life's too short to continually try to deal with this sort of thing. I'm not sure about Shinto, either way.  Perhaps you should extend the invitation, but indicate that they are free to decline if they don't wish to continue their involvement. The fewer people there are criticizing Mark's actions, the less he's likely to feel ganged-up on. To this end, you may also wish to invite Will Beback, since his comments were relatively sympathetic to Mark's pov. Karen 09:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone that you mentioned in Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 Disemvoweling has been notified, except for Shinto and Jeanmarie (Whom you listed as secondary). I'll simply let JeabMarie be, but I'm not sure about Shinto. Hmmm, if you'd like to make a mention, I guess you could tell him. hmmm. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}} 09:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I did invite Shinto, but said that I would understand if Shinto didn't want to get involved. Meanwhile, I hear crickets.  I didn't expect things to suddenly get so quiet.  Does this happen a lot? Karen 04:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The lack of response, it be quite common for a reason I do not know. However, it appears there's still a conflict to be had, as the edit history tells me so. I don't believe Mark to be an actual trolly-trollie-troll, I simply think he's a tad misguided, and doesn't quite understand Wikipedia. Either way, I'm going to be totally neutral about it. Heh. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}} 05:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You now are a Nobel man/woman/otherworldly-creature
Thanks for keeping a cool head. I think you'd be a pretty good mediator. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {{sup|{Prophesize)}} 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC


 * Thank you very much! I do try to make peace (I sometimes call myself "the cheesemaker" in reference to Life of Brian), but too often it doesn't work, which I find very stressful. Thanks for the help, the fromage, and the kind words! Karen 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Route 66 theme
i did NOT remove the passage. i moved it to the Trivia section. please go take a look. Drmagic 09:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Salutations!
Simply saying "Hello!" since I see you've got some similarly ultraplusgood interests and suchlike.. As well as recently just joining the WikiProject Television. There's a similar WikiProject, if you're curious, concerning the episode lists if you're any inclined towards joining. Personally, I'm keen on my duties with my comrade Wiki-Whovians but that's pretty apparent prolly due to my vast edits therein. Anyways, it's quite neat coming across your page and keep up your contributing herein.

Many happy returns, DrWho42 07:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's definatley a pretty solid WikiProject, although despite that there's still work to be done seemingly... Like I made at least a hundred articles on the books, and edited several other more things therein that segment of Wiki-whole..
 * In any case however, there's definately alot of unexistant or needing-of-improving articles on a great plenty obscured TV shows..
 * Mmmm, if you're any curious and this would really help out in my keeping this article preserved from the Deletionists (or not..): you could send in your input on whether or not the List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs should die here. DrWho42 06:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the input on the AfD. (= It seems beyond me as well, but I s'pose it's the inherent nature of the Deletionists... Still we're five away from having things even out, and that's pretty plusgood considering.
 * I know what you mean about television though.. It's quite simply the fact that there's still alot of articles that need improving or writing and you're quite right with the state of things for those articles, especially if they don't get reran or DVD's have yet to be released..
 * Hehe, keep up the good work. =D
 * Cheers,
 * DrWho42 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd be interested.
Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. --Maxamegalon2000 04:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We're going through the motions once again...
 * List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programmes (2nd nom) DrWho42 17:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on Possible Citation
I'm sorry if I missed your question - I don't pay much attention to that page. In response to your question, let me start by repeating my boilerplate formulation: The job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. (I haven't yet worked in "no original research".) WP:NOR says that we mustn't integrate otherwise reliable information to arrive at novel conclusions. Comparing two lists and drawing conclusions from their differences and similarities is most likely original research. We can integrate information, so long as we don't arrive at new theories. Another principle to remember is that vagueness improves accuracy. The more precise we are the harder it is to be accurate.

Getting down to details, the Predators and Editors website appears to be a reliable source so we can use it as a source. The Bauer site, even if somewhat unreliable, may be used in a limited fashion as a primary source about Bauer. I'm not familiar enough with this topic to make pronouncements on what would be correct. However I would say that your proposed text appears reasonable. The sources are sufficient, and no original conclusions are made. The website takedown issue is confusing to me, but you should be able to summarize what you find in reliable sources.

Overall, my opinion is that the less we say about the subject the better. Attack articles are not encouraged. While we must show our subjects "warts and all" we shouldn't enlarge the warts, nor ignore their better features. Balance is a part of NPOV. -Will Beback 06:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"but you should be able to summarize what you find in reliable sources." There no reliable sources only a he said she said blog flame war. It is alleged the website takdown was instigated by Bauer. It isn't clear if she did, and other factors between the forum and the IP are not known. It was the root cause of this article and all the players here were involved via these blogs. I don't see how that can be objective.Marky48 00:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bauer
I'm sorry I did not get back to you about the Usenet stuff et al., but I've been somewhat overloaded at work. Personally, I think the article is better now than when I first saw it, thanks to a lot of effort on the part of the primary editors of the article to bring the best sources and present them in a way that doesn't seem like a lynch mob. Y'all are doing a good job, and there should be enough editors on either side to ensure that something resembling nuetral gets posted. I'm glad to help and try and make the article neater, and I don't mean to sound brusque in the summary field, but there was a lot to cram in there. Thanks for the note, I appreciate it! -- Avi 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say Karen saying I've called her names is an out and out fabrication. I've never done any such thing.

"or whether it's because he's been able to insult me and call me names on Wikipedia, repeatedly and without consequences"

I've accused her and Jule of carrying the water for TNH and Absolutewrite and they have. That isn't namecalling by a long stretch. I'm really weary of these attacks over this. This is mob rule. While avi seems genuine, she's hanging with a tough insulting tribe. The threats against me are real and escalating by the hour. Blaming me won't make my points any less valid. Nobody likes to be piled on by a crowd. It's the Internet equivalent of stoning.Marky48 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a fabrication. I get awfully tired of being called a troll, or part of a mob or cult or "group troll," or a "self-interested partisan," or a "blog comment commando," or other things I could point at if I wanted to depress myself. You also made a "theoretical" comment about me being "nosy, fat and ugly." Putting the word "if" in front of it doesn't make it any less of an insult. I've tried to be polite to you, and will continue to do so, but this is the response. And, please notice, like abi (Avi is Avraham the admin, abi the ML commenter who believes in kindness) I counseled against piling on. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are not ad hominem names Karen. Yet you've linked to a thread where you and Teresa caled me a psycho. You should hear what she said in private when I asked NOT to be spoken of negatively in threads on Making Light. It's obvious you two are pro-TNH and absolutewrite. That's self-interest and backed up by the fact that you run to her for counseling. Well, avi can make her own decisons about it then can't she? It looks like she just made one. You're an advocate here. That isn't NPOV. Marky48 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake on avi and abi. Please disregard that inference. It's hard to keep these players straight in all the cross-blog banter.Marky48 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(See also User_talk:Rebecca/Archive20) I'm aware that a lot of work seems to have gone into this article, but there are some difficult WP:LIVING problems with the article as it stands, particularly when it is the subject of an OTRS complaint. The first paragraph I removed is essentially original research - the conclusions made are reached by the author of the article, not by the sources cited. I've removed this paragraph again - it needs to be based on an actual source to go back in.

I'm also quite uncomfortable with keeping the second paragraph when it is cited almost entirely to blog posts and internet forums - one internet forum in particular. I won't remove that again right at this moment, but it really does need some better sources if you want it to stay in the article. Rebecca 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OTRS is the project's system for responding to complaints and inquiries from the general public. As such, when the subject of an article is complaining about that article, we need to take it seriously and make sure that what is being said is backed up with reliable sources. I know that this is difficult where the person concerned is on the fringes of notability, but if these claims are to go in the article, they need to be backed up.


 * I'm not quite so worried about the current version of the article, as it contains some brief statements that do seem to be fairly easily and somewhat indisputably backed up, even if the sources themselves aren't ideal. As for the absolutewrite situation, the Ansible citation isn't great (it's kind of vague), but it can at least be directly attributed to a notable person who himself has a Wikipedia article. Rebecca 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)