User talk:Leflyman/Archive3

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/Archive4.

Lost & Leflyman

I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your edits and maintenance of the Lost page. You are absolutely the only "regular editor" that I always agree with (I will not name names of those who are doing crappy work...) You have an excellent knowledge of the Wikipedia guidlines, as well as a no-nonsense, level head when it comes to proper editing. Thanks for all you do! Danflave 07:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman -- can you do me a favor? You are a lot more knowledgeable of Wikipedia rules than I am. Could you please look at the article for Greg Grunberg and please tell me if that speculation is acceptable? I deleted the speculation, but someone re-inserted it with a note that speculation was "fine" as long as it was indicated as such. Let me know what you think (and feel free to edit it yourself!) Danflave 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Eko

I'm copying you on the same message I posted for Baryonyx -- could both of you take a look at the Mr. Eko character page? It has been bugging me for the past few days because it just reads like crap to me -- bad grammar, subtle OR, not encyclopedic. If either of you can help, I would appreciate it. Danflave 06:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Flashback Characters @ CoL

Hey, Leflyman. Danflave and I have had a discussion about the once again overlong Flashback Characters section on the Characters of Lost page, but we're looking for more input. The idea I had was to move pertinent FBCs to the Main Character pages, but you can read more on the details on the Talk page there. Thanks. Baryonyx 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Present tense for character bios in Lost

Hey, Leflyman, thanks for your comment on my user page about the work I'm doing on standardizing to present tense. You make a good point about Boone, to be sure, and as I worked through the various characters (not done yet), Boone was the first one I hit who is, well, no longer with us :). Not quite sure how to handle, and I agree that it seemed a bit awkward to say he "is" the president of the company, etc. Yet, the use of past tense, basically ever, to describe what happens in a literary or cultural work simply comes off as amateurish, and it detracts from Wikipedia's encyclopedic progress to have articles that do that. (Check out any movie review, any piece of literary criticism, etc.). When we're dealing with a flashback, the Pluperfect tense can be appropriate at times. I don't think I agree that because this is a current, ongoing series, that that makes much of a difference in this (else we slide down the slippery slope of fansite-ness), but I'll certainly give it some thought. Boone's been dead for a while now on the show; would you have a different reaction to Shannon being described in the present tense, since she only recently died? -- PKtm 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Good discussion, Leflyman, and I definitely respect your thoughtful responses on this. No time right now to respond, although I will later. Note that I did do a couple more edits to Locke, and just realized that I had been logged out, so it's not obvious it was me! Not trying to sockpuppet or anything, please know. Anyway, more to follow on all this... -- PKtm 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's more, after some reflection and some web surfing for comparables. You write,
I think the issue I'm having is that you're changing the tense of character biographies to match the episode summaries (which should be in the present tense).

Yes, that's indeed what I'm doing, and after reflection, I believe that it's the proper thing to do. In addition to relying on my own academic training in this (in literary analysis, that is), I've also surfed around to see if I'm missing anything. (Do a Google search on "literary present", for example.) I have found absolutely nothing that bolsters the idea that character biographies should be treated any differently. The material that is revealed in flashbacks is part of the literary work, and is thus part of what's often referred to, in this context, as "the eternal present."

The bios are not story retellings, per se, but are supposed to track the development/history of the characters, and thus should make sense in time-sequence. Because the show runs parallel story-lines of flashbacks-- which are set in the past-- trying to reference them in the present tense becomes inordinately problematic.

Difficult, perhaps, just like writing about any work that features multiple timelines, but not "inordinately problematic". Having descriptions and references make sense in time-sequence is a matter of proper organization, good transitions in the writing, etc.

Present tense is intended for ongoing or current events.

No, this is actually simply not true with respect to literary or cultural works. The Wikipedia article you cite is weak, in that it fails to mention what is known as the "literary present." (The first Google link on "literary present", for example, explains: "The basic rule is: You should use the past tense when discussing historical events, while you should use the literary present when discussing fictional events. Literary works, paintings, films, and other artistic creations are assumed to exist in an eternal present.")

It seems to me that "flattening" the time-sequence in the biographies by making everything, both on the Island and in flashbacks, occur in the present tense leads to more confusion and less professionalism.

Well, if you talk about "less professionalism", you should provide some "professional" examples of what you mean, and with all due respect, I don't believe you'll find any. Literary descriptions (including discussions of film, TV, etc.), as a convention, use the present tense to describe what happens, even if some parts of it happen twenty years earlier and other parts happen later. If I were writing about, say, Back to the Future with its contorted timeline, I'd still use present tense to describe what takes place in all the timelines--and indeed, the Wikipedia article (which I've never edited) correctly does so for that film.

For example, while you modified part of John Locke's "Prior" section to present form, you had to leave "Locke was a paraplegic— apparently for the preceding four years" because it would have been odd to say "Locke is a paraplegic." So now that article still has multiple mixed tenses throughout.

That's actually OK--it's similar to the Pluperfect tense situation I wrote about earlier. If I were to be writing about events that occur while he was a paraplegic, I'd use present tense. Now granted, my writing is as subject to flaws (and to others' editing to remove those flaws) as anyone's, but use of present tense should be the touchstone, parted from only rarely and in very specific "pluperfect"-like circumstances.

Thus, I would suggest using present tense for each episode summary, and past tense for each biography -- just as it would be if the characters were real people.

But they're not real people, they're part of a literary/cultural work, and that's simply not the professional standard.

--PKtm 23:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, per your excellent suggestion, I've posted this discussion, essentially intact, on Talk:Lost (TV series). It'll be interesting to see the responses. -- PKtm 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for all that you and I may have strong feelings on this issue, it seems to have hit with nothing but a dull thud on the Talk:Lost (TV series) discussion page. Only one other editor has chimed in, and that was in support (I think) of my position. But basically, no one else seems to be nearly as passionate on this as they are on, say, separating the episode descriptions. -- PKtm 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Geronimo Jackson

1. I don't understand how this is a case of no original research. NOR applies when facts are used to provide an unusually new or original conclusion from facts, verified or not. The only issue is whether these facts exist, & we'd be deleting a large number of articles if that were to become a criteria for deletion.
2. As for whether Verifiability applies, whatever happened to assume good faith? I would think that we would look pretty silly if this article is deleted & someone looks beyond Google (say to printed sources) & finds ample proof of this band's existence. Regardless of this, what is the harm of leaving this article alone for a while until proof of a search in off-line sources is done?
3. Being an Admin is no special thing, according to Jimbo: that is why I emphasized my tenure on Wikipedia, not whether or not I was an Admin. -- llywrch 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(In response to posts on my Talk page) You wrote:

It's clearly a case of Original Research, as it creates a "primary source" where none existed before ("Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed") -- there is no verifiable information or sources provided in the article (except that the album appeared in an episode of LOST.) I'd suggest you review the "Original Research" policy which states,

"It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources"

I think you are reading NOR differently than it is meant to be understood. Making a statement without providing references does not create a primary source in itself, otherwise there would be (my estimate) tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are primary sources; standards for articles have changed over time. There is another paragraph from WP:NOR that better expresses the point of the guideline:

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Note that most of the cases listed in this paragraph refer to conclusions drawn from material, & only one instance refers to the material itself. And from the context, it is clear that "data" here is meant to apply to the results of new experiments or observations made by the contributor -- & in these cases the material is likely fabricated. While the lack of a source often is a clue that the material is original research, common sense requires us to find more evidence before we can confidently identify unattributed material as "original research".

As a result, I assume good faith with unattributed information, unless I can show (or be shown) that it is a hoax or conflicts with published, verifiable research; I'm eager to savage a newbie for a mistake out of ignroance. It's best to apply this guideline only to unattributed conclusions than to unattributed facts (which can be corrected to removed with further research of published sources).

I'm confused as to why you can't believe this is a hoax. The originator of the article had his only previous entry (Christopher Thomasson) deleted as a vanity hoax article earlier today. Why would you imagine that this material is authentic? The harm in leaving up hoaxes is that it reduces the reputation of WP, and provides ammunition for those who want to contend that this isn't an encyclopedia, but a fan site of dubious quality.

Well, this is the first time anyone mentioned the source of this information -- as I write, it doesn't appear on the AfD nomination. Had someone mentioned it before I saw the nomination, I would have not started this effort to save the article. (And, BTW, since I started this crusade, I've become less fervent in saving this article from deletion.) However, my concern with keeping the article now is that should it be deleted, & we discover later that this subject is worthy of an article that some literal-minded people will not permit the article to be re-created. If that concern can be addressed, then I'll reconsider further my stance.

I'd suggest that this information about the creator of the article should be added to the nomination -- but the current content of this article has changed even further from when I made my changes. -- llywrch 00:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Claudio Soto

Copied from Tvaughn05's Talk Page
No prob. The Special:Wantedpages doesn't appear to accurately reflect the actual most "wanted pages". --LeFlyman 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the "speed delete" template, after I google-searched and found additional publications that reference the researcher. Looks like it should be ok!--LeFlyman
  • Okay, Thank you! Tvaughn05 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost

From what I have seen in the talk pages there has been no consensus either way, yet many users still think the season articles are too long. In answer to your questions

• Why individual episode articles versus brief summaries?

It is standard practice to have episode articles. Just look in the Category:Lists of television series episodes the majority have list pages, with the major series like buffy, desperate housewives, south park, star trek etc... all have episode articles. Lost should not be an exception.

• How will quality be maintained on that many new pages? 25 pages would need to be created for Season 1 alone, which some editors feel would be a lot of work to monitor.

Many editors deal with far more pages, South Park has 140 episode pages, The Star Trek project looks after 100s of star trek episodes.

• How would such hypothetical new pages be named to prevent encyclopedic confusion?

there is currently a straw poll on disambiguating tv series underway, for now Star Trek and others set precendent. Episodes would be named Tabula Rasa (Lost episode)
From what I have read in previous talk pages there has been little progress in reaching a compromise and I cannot see another solution, someone has to do something and I am quite happy to do it. I will try to adress some concerns before I do this but I do not intend to take a straw poll against the common standard: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Discordance 18:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted my answers to the talk page as well. Discordance 19:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Original research

How was the information in the previous "Similar references" speculative original research? De Groot was in fact mentioned in the Dharma Initiative's orientation video, and it is fact that it is a shared name with a memory researcher of the same name. No one was saying that it was a factual part of the storyline, just that the similarity existed and thought it should be notable. I'd like to hear your reasoning. Thanks. Eluchil 00:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, however the only real issue is that there is no official source to confirm this outside of the facts presented. By verifiable sources I assume you mean directly from the show's staff or representatives and not the fanbase, which is still considered an inclusive criteria given appropriate evidence, and those are in abundance. I'll go ahead and leave it out for now until I know more about the subject. Eluchil

Actually, that's exactly what I said. You just repeated it in a couple different ways. Without a "reliable source" it can't be cited. Atleast not in the way you're advocating. The condition is that if there is no verifiable source, which in this case means there is no "official" source, as you put it, then it can't be included. What I was saying, though, is that there are plenty of sources, they are just not in the scope of speaking for the creators, writers, or producers of the television show. And, as I said, this has interested me and I will keep an eye out for more information. I hope this clears up some confusion for you. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to message me anytime. Eluchil 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fan site

LeFlyman, I am really eager to see your proposed "What Wikipedia is not" section. You had mentioned it a while back, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'd love to read it, as I think it is a great idea! --Danflave 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee elections

Thanks for your kind words, and for your support. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to relieve OrphanBot

If OrphanBot automatically targets images tagged with "unknown copyright", then that option should be removed from image upload, as it is unclear what purpose it serves. I uploaded such an image (image:Golden Driller Sm.jpg), found via a Google search [1], choosing one that is reused on multiple Web site. Thus, the likelihood is that it's a fair-use image or promo photo, however, since I could not find such a statement as to its ownership on any Web site, I listed it with "found it on an unconfirmed website." I might have tagged it {{Fairusein}} or {{Promophoto}} but that would have been an assumption. Thus, if unknown/uncomfirmed=prohibited, then such images should not be uploadable.—LeFlyman 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Don't know}} is supposed to be a placeholder tag while the uploader asks for assistance from a more experienced Wikipedian. Unfortunately, most of the uses have been "upload and forget", and the category's become overgrown with such forgotten images. --Carnildo 07:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomination

Well, you're the third person to suggest that I should be an admin, so I suppose I can't keep declining indefinitely. (The previous two were Mindspillage and Sean Black.) I was previously reluctant to become an administrator because I didn't want the added responsibility, and wanted to remain on an equal footing with other editors. However, I've recently grown more comfortable with the notion that adminship should be "no big deal" (a quote which I am surprised to see has just been removed from WP:ADMIN), and would be willing to pick up the proverbial mop and bucket. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just read (or re-read) all the pages on Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. I'll accept the nomination and answer the questions tomorrow — too tired to make sufficiently thoughtful/sensible responses tonight. Again, thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know why I haven't responded to the nomination yet — my dog Worf was sick last week and died Saturday night. I wasn't ready to present my best face to the Wikipedia community. I'm heading over to the nomination page now and will put it up tonight. Thought you deserved to know the reason for the delay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding. You're absolutely right that it's like losing a family member. I've finally finished the questions, and the nomination is up now. Again, thanks for nominating me! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

I want to thank you one more time for nominating me for adminship. The RfA was quite successful, with a final vote of 54/2/1. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise and blocked a vandal (after I said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am humbled and honored to be the first recipient of the Golden Plunger. I will use it with care, and always remember to clean it thoroughly after use. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost Season 2

Wow... the season 2 episode summaries have gotten insanely out of control. As of this moment (12:30 MST, 2/8), the Season 2 listing is only 6KB less than the Season 1 listing, with half the number of episodes. I think we need to move on Season 2 even more aggressively than we're moving on Season 1. Speaking of which, I should have Exodus done by the weekend, so I'm up for tackling some more. Think we should finish Season 1 before moving on to Season 2? Baryonyx 07:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I am against splitting apart into individual episodes. As I've said more than a few times, I consider it just about the most inappropriate thing I've seen on Wikipedia, since, more often than not, unless an episode is "major", it gets forgotten. Add to that the cruft magnets such pages would become if they were major episodes or regularly edited, and the fact that this "policy" for handling of episodes is merely inertia at work, and I'm just flat out against it. However, if we do find some way to get a concensus about splitting up the episodes, I'd like to propose a WikiProject for Lost. At the rate pages seem to grow and multiply, and the fact that the show will be up to 50 episodes (or very near it) by the end of this season, we do need to do something to get more organized, and if we split episodes up, we'd need to corral that hydra immediately... a project seems a good way to do that. Also... what's the status on the WWIN proposal? Baryonyx 17:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK... I'll look into the procedures for creating a WikiProject, but I'd really like to hold off on actually doing it until we get a vote on splitting episodes up. As I said, I'd defer to concensus on this issue, and it'd give us a stronger reason to get the project going. Thanks for the updates on the WWIN proposal... I'll look at it again later today. Baryonyx 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What to do about really bad edits

We've been getting a wave of truly bad edits to Lost pages--poor grammar, punctuation, spelling, sentence construction, etc. Not to mention horrendous judgment on what's appropriate to the pages in question (e.g., the character bios). Do you have any insights on how to deal with this? --PKtm 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Leflyman, for jumping in on the "right side" (<grin>) of the breech/breach issue. You'd think that people would have common sense! But no. Anyway, appreciated the support. -- PKtm 23:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research Fix

Thanks. I was having the same issue, but hadn't looked at alternatives to correcting that text box overlap problem. Nice easy solution. —Leflyman^Talk 21:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm amazed that I was able to edit a policy and have it acceptable!! :) Cheers --JimmyT 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio on Episodes of Lost (season 2)

You reverted to copyvio text for which I had previously added a copyvio template.

Don't do that unless you re-add the copyvio template. I reverted your edits.

The site owner of the copyvio content has already complained so this isn't just for drill.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Response at User talk:UninvitedCompany#Copyvio claim on Episodes of Lost (Season 2)
• This copyvio claim was weird to begin with. A lot of sites (Lost sites even) take their text from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around, and it takes some solid investigation to figure out the chronology. Text-wise, it's usually easy to tell the difference, and it certainly is in this case. The only issue I have with (your) reverted text is that the episode summary is way too long. But it's clearly better.--PKtm 03:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Call for Assistance

I have recently found myself in a dispute with a user; who in my opinion has no interest in improving Wikipedia, but rather strives to annoy. From reading the user's talk page, I noticed that he has been critized before by you for his misconducts. The user's name is Tcsh and his misconducts then concerned the article on Moral Responsibility. This time he is active on the Chomsky talk page, specifically the discussion concerning a picture of Chomsky and Castro. I am writing to ask for advice. Is there an effective way of excluding him from the discussion? If you have the time to read the discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noam_Chomsky), I would appreciate that. In that case, do not hesitate to be frank, even if your opinion is unfavorable to me. Thanks! PJ 09:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and The Church of the SubGenius

You may think the Church of the Subgenius is a parody religion, just as I think Christianity is bullshit. But I keep my opinions out of articles, and stick to the facts. I suggest you do the same. Al-Kadafi 23:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Extensive response at User talk:Al-Kadafi

I could come up with an equal number of links saying that Christianity is bullshit. But that wouldn't make it permissible to put "Christianity is a bullshit religion..." on the Christianity page, now would it!? Al-Kadafi 00:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems that your sources aren't very neutral, save the Yahoo Groups one. But basically, you're telling me that if I can come up with enough links saying Christianity is made up, you'll let me say that Christianity is a fake religion on the Christianity page? Al-Kadafi 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)