User talk:PKtm/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, PKtm/Archive 1, 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 (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Shauri 23:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Policy Proposal: "Wikipedia is not a fan site"

Hi, PKtm,

(Wow, I'm your first comment!)

I've just put in a proposal for an addition to "What Wikipedia is not" connected to the excessive non-encyclopedic material we've been getting on the LOST articles. Please look it over at Proposed addition: "Wikipedia is not a fan site" and offer your comments, if you are so inclined :)

Thanks, LeFlyman 00:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As promised for quite a while, I've cleaned up the proposal material, and put it up for pre-posting at: User_talk:Leflyman/Not_a_Fansite. Please take a look at the proposed wording; you may also want to review the comments when I first brought it up on the talk page for What Wikipedia is not in November, which I've copied to the bottom of my "sub-page". Let me know what you think! I've also included a reference, which I think you'll appreciate, to use of appropriate tone, as per the "Check your fiction" style guide. —LeFlyman 19:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I had to clarify that the sub-page was not the actual poll, but the pre-posting "work area" for the poll; I've moved your comments up to the "discussion" section. If you have some ideas as to more precise wording, please add them. Thanks, again. —LeFlyman 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


How the heck are you supposed to distinguish between what is applicable to a general audience and what is applicable to fans? So i'm guessing that general audience includes people that are not fans. I fail to see how anything else on the ENTIRE lost section, especially the bastardized "trivia" sections, applies to people that aren't fans. -- anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.156.28.7 (talk • contribs) February 6, 2006.

Barbara Bain

Well, our American Jews article speficially refers to the term Jewish American. As we do Italian American and Irish American. These are all common terms refering to ethnicity-nationality. We don't have Christian American because that's specifically a religion, not an ethnic background. I made this update a long time ago, since then me and anyone working on similar areas have stopped putting that kind of info into the first sentence, and instead it now goes under "Early Life" or something later down (the same for calling someone an Italian American). Ms. Schwartz' problem is clearly with the term itself, "Jewish American", and in that case it has nothing to do with Barbara Bain. Your complaint should go over to the long article titled American Jews. Vulturell 03:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, your point may well be true or it may well be untrue, but the reason that the person objected wasn't that her background was mentioned, but rather the term itself "Jewish American" (i.e. specifically using "Creep-American" to parody it). She claims it is an offensive term and she has never seen it used, but I've seen it here on Wikipedia and in other places, and I frankly can't think of a single reason why "Jewish American" would be an offensive term. Anyway, it IS a bad idea to call someone a "Jewish American actor" or whatever in the first sentence, but it's not distracting, just biographical, to mention her family's heritage under the appropriate section (i.e. Early life or something). Is it relevant to her career? No. But a person's ethnic background, religion, birth date, name, and place, and more such info are hardly ever relevant to their career, except for a few rare examples when it reflects in their work. Bain is also under the category "Jewish American actors", and it is silly to put people in categories without mentioning the same info in the article itself, so people aren't baffled. Vulturell 19:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, just forget about it. I don't have the time or the desire to get into a prolonged discussion here, I don't really care that much. Vulturell 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Tense on Lost Characters

Hi, PK!

I see you've been making a stab at standardising the tense for the Lost characters. I think that's a worthy effort; however, I'm not sure whether present tense is the appropriate one. As an ongoing series-- unlike a movie-- the time-element of events from past episodes to later ones needs to be differentiated. For instance, putting Boone Carlyle in present tense doesn't makes sense-- such as "Boone Carlyle is the chief operating officer of his mother's wedding business and the step-brother of Shannon"-- because as a character, he is dead, as is his step-sister, and thus now can only be referred to in the past on the show (if referred to at all any more). So it sounds particularly odd to read through his bio now. I think that the past tense for (at least some) character bios made significantly more sense, since series events progress over a period of time, rather than occuring simultaneously, as putting everything in present form makes them sound.—LeFlyman 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • 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). 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. Present tense is intended for ongoing or current events:

* Action at the present time
* A state of being
* A habitual action
* An occurrence in the near future
* An action that occurred in the past and continues up to the 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. 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.
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.-- LeFlyman 02:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent response. I'd suggest so that this becomes an understood policy, and that others have input, that you you make the proposal on the main Lost Talk Page-- or perhaps on the Episodes of Lost (Season 2). —LeFlyman 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi-- I've added my most recent thoughts on the change to present tense at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Present tense for character bios in Lost —LeFlyman 10:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I added some ideas to the above mentioned Talk page. hopefully we can work something out... SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

PK -- I just wanted to comment on your userboxes regarding the singular "they" and the serial comma. We need more people like you editing Wikipedia! :) I had a very strict Jesuit priest as my 9th grade grammar instructor. In fact, he wrote the textbook we used in class! I still have all of his lessons drilled into my head. Proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation are neglected so often these days -- thanks for all your hard work! --Danflave 04:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I notice you are a fan of Nanci Griffith. The song "Nobody's Angel" has a very personal meaning for me, going back to when I was a freshman in college. You have good taste! --Danflave 04:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost character edits

Wanted to give a preemptive thanks for trimming back the cruftified character bios. I've tried to wrangle in some of the excesses, but there are a couple of active editors (not to mention any names) who feel that a play-by-play is needed for every character. I much prefer the bios reflect the characters'... well, character, rather than an extensive he-did-she-did stuff that's been glommed onto by some lately.--LeflymanTalk 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a grand irony: Lost is sure to attract more and more "inexperienced" editors, in parallel to its continued rising popularity and the growth of Wikipedia. I think we're kind of stuck with some of the difficulties caused by poor editors, unless we can frighten them away... Seriously, I think that recent (and young) editors want to add new material, but sometimes are at a loss as to how to do so, or what's appropriate for inclusion. Perhaps if there are particular editors that are of concern (and I can think of a couple), you might message them and ask that they review some of the suggested "writing a great Wikipedia" articles; and that they seek to improve the quality, rather than the quantity of information on the Lost articles.--LeflymanTalk 01:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you removed my edit saying that Sayid was 23 during the Gulf War and listed it as "speculation". In "One of Them", Sayid says "I was 23 when the Americans first came to my country".- JustPhil 19:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

revert to Episodes of Lost (season 2)

I reverted your edit because the text cited is a direct quote from ABC's website. While simply changing "breech" to "breach" would be linguistically correct, it would also be a misquote.

The text is going to be replaced after the upcoming Wednesday anyway, so I suppose it's not a big deal either way. Bigtimeoperator 18:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Tell you what--you Lost regulars can decide. I disagree, but I'd rather not make an issue out of it. Bigtimeoperator 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Now see, PKtm, this (User talk:Leflyman) is just unnecessary. I happen to work in a profession where you would cite that way, and so I (mis)applied that experience here. Anyway, I wasn't a dick about the disagreement, so perhaps next time this happens you should reciprocate and remember that all of your asides are public. Bigtimeoperator 00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

On another revert topic, regarding the erroneous copyvio claim: I agree that the summary is long(er), but I'm of the opinion that there really isn't anything wrong with that. I suspect that eventually, we'll have to divvy up the episodes, as seems to be the case with every other series of significant fan interest. Desperate Housewives is already there, with a List of Desperate Housewives episodes leading to individual episode summaries-- and Lost (in my view) has much more detailed/nuanced material, such as the use of literary references, and most recently the symbolism of Verrocchio's The Baptism of Christ in Charlie's vision-- which I thought it important to include in the summary, as the episode pointedly starts with a pan over that painting.—LeflymanTalk 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

About my Walter Lloyd change on Lost Characters

I would just like to say that what I said was TRUE about Malcom, that he isn't able to have airtime this year because of that and I think there is nothing wrong with people knowing that. It's no rumor. And I don't see what your beef is with the "the Others" fan theories section I wrote up. They're all true. It seems like you're being a control freak with the Lsot media or something, so maybe you should give some people freedom. Another thing; How the heck does editing the Walt page interfere with Wikipedia's goals?! That's the biggest bunch of bull.

Thanks for your time. Really.

Video Game Master 04:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I understand now, PKtm. Thank you, and I'm sorry. I was simply trying to pass on information to other Lost fans. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VGMaster24 (talk • contribs) February 19, 2006.

Re: Lost character bio edits

In recognition of excellence in editing Lost (TV series)
In recognition of excellence in editing Lost (TV series)

Thanks and you're doing a great job as well, so here's a Lost barnstar! Feel free to give it to anyone else who you think is deserving. Hopefully soon we'll be able to promote Lost to a featured article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL

I fixed the warning message, wow, that was scary that I didn't notice that. -- Tawker 06:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Drafts

  • I sometimes miss errors. Thanks for correcting them. I also did the "The Other 48 Days" "Adrift" and "Maternity Leave". If you see anything wrong please fix it. I try to make the draft make the most sense as I possibly can. I would like to more drafts. I am trying to do my best to get into the readers head without all the massive detail. -- Heyer 19:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Danielle Rousseau

Hey. Would you mind stopping by Talk:Danielle Rousseau and help resolve a conflict on what to do with Rousseau's article? The talk page has my opinion and the opinion of another editor, and I'd appreciate anything you can add to the discussion. Thanks. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to, I'd like for you to voice your opinion in Talk:List of Lost episodes. I've stepped back from participating in that discussion because I feel like I've been talking in circles, and when I do try to voice my opinion I'm accused of thinking I "own" the articles. It's quite a mess in my opinion. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am really getting tired of reverting this page. I hate to get into an edit war, but this user doesn't seem to be very negotiable. The way he sees it is that he is right regardless of the rules. I have tried reasoning with him (see his talk page), and his replies have been quite hostile (see every message he's left on my talk page). The only other option I am seeing is catching him with the 3RR rule, but he's been quite careful about that, and most the times misses the 24 hour period by just one hour. If you have any ideas please let me know. Thanks. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that all of my messages on JTrost's talkpage have been 'quite hostile', I apologise if he has taken them that way, I did not believe that an editor of his level could be that sensitive to criticism. With regards to the current Danielle discussions, I believe that the current solution should be followed, with regards to a small amount of info. on the list with a link to a main article. This way, users can find information on that list but if they wish to read on about her, then that page would be ideal.

This would make the current discussions/arguments academic. Obviously we would need the current copyright issue (which was raised somewhat unfairly I feel) on that page to be sorted out, but one of that pages authors has contacted me on the lostpedia Danielle Rousseau discussion page & said there shouldn't be a problem. The problem that does exist currently seems to be with the Copyright info on Lostpedia...it's non-existent. However, there are links to the Wikipedia guidelines, thus making it appear okay. Let's carry on talking nicely & I'm sure we can get it sorted out :)- Shaft121 19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oceanic Flight 581 website

Hi there, I noticed that you have nominated this article for deletion. I was hoping that instead of that, we could merge it into an article of Official Websites for Lost. There are quite a few, eg hansofoundation.org, which contain fun backstories, Easter Eggs, resources (eg the orientation film) & I feel it would be a good resource, especially as a comment upon the synergy of Lost. I feel this could be important as the current syllabus I am teaching deals with synergy & I am helping at least 5 students who are working as Lost & have wikipedia astheir main internet resource. Please message me & let me know if we can do this. Maybe me, you & JTrost can work on it together? - Shaft121 19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation: Danielle Rousseau

Heya, I have a placed a request for medation for the discussion of wether Danielle Rousseau should be an individual article on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. If you would like to participate please place visit that page for further instructions. —Joseph | Talk 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The Real Life of Sebastian Knight

Just wanted to know what your reasoning was on restoring the bit about the "bidet" and the "shortish novel" phrasology to the article on the aforementioned book (the spelling out of Nabokov's full name in Cyrillic was also a little baffling). Is it a reference to the book I'm not getting? If so, could it be clarified? Is it just a mistake? My disclaimer is that I haven't read TRLOSK, but my concern is more with the article being written in an encyclopedic way, and the version you reverted to didn't really meet those standards. What information did I delete aside from that bidet thing, which, if it is indeed relevant, doesn't really tell us much about the book or its composition?

Also, you reverted to an edit that didn't conform to Wikipedia style (no bolded article name, the "shortish novel" thing...). I'm not trying to be anal, I'm just puzzled. BTW, I changed "novella" to "novel", as I assume that's a more accurate representation of its genre.

Confusedly,

Yossarian 13:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply! I incorporated the bit with the bidet in a way that I think will make sense to the casual reader. Actually, the anon-user (who keeps restoring this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Life_of_Sebastian_Knight&oldid=32835353) had beat me to the punch, but I made sense out of his, shall we say, Nabokovian prose. I suspect he's simply not aware of Wikipedia style rules (or something) and that his heart is in the right place. I'd like to give him a talkin' to, though, as the "shortish novel" thing simply won't do. But I'm not sure how I'd do that with an unregistered user...
Anyway, I think I've made things much clearer, and hopefully my changes will pacify our anonymous Nabokovian.
Cheers,
Yossarian 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: Death to underliners!


question for you

If you remove links to articles under afd, how are editors that don't know about the page supposed to know about it if they dont go looking specifically for it? just curious, because that way of thinking allows only people that had previous knowledge of it to post on the afd. ArgentiumOutlaw 02:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost Trivia revert (computer trivia)

Hi! I'm hoping this is a polite way to enter into this discussion, rather than baiting you by reverting your revert (again). I made a request on the Talk Page that you distinguish why noting that the computer is an Apple II is any more original research than many of the other close-examinations commonly found in episode descriptions or Trivia. Please comment? Bldxyz 18:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I kinda stepped into that one; my fault for getting all quotey with the policy stuff. I should remember that fancrufters don't go in for reasoning. I'm gonna try to avoid getting up on my No Original Research soapbox (or high horse, or other pedantic platform). I think that some folks really, really, really want Wikipedia to be the same as Lostpedia. And as much as I enjoy the entertainment value of Lostpedia speculation, it seems hard to get through why it doesn't belong here. Perhaps my approach comes off wrong; so like I said, I'm gonna lay low on such matters for a while :) Keep fightin' the good fight —LeflymanTalk 04:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't mean I'd stop contributing; rather, I'm going to try to stop jumping in on policy discussions with editors who haven't actually read the Wikipedia policy, and claim that asking them to do so is authoritarian. As you note, it's a bit frustrating. —LeflymanTalk 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

PKtm: per these Rfc guidelines, I have created an issue summary, and I am striving to make it brief, complete, and neutral. I would appreciate it if you would give a looksee to the issue summary, fill in the gap I have left and/or revise as appropriate in order to allow as neutral a stance as possible. I believe we have an honest difference of opinion here. Thank you for your time and thoughts. Bldxyz 03:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(Responding to your comment to me.) I agree that User:ArgentiumOutlaw went too far, but I hoped to avoid getting involved in the personal attack side, forgetting for the moment the wikipedia etiquette to rise to the defense of others. I was torn because he had a point I did agree with, that some responses were to point to policy without thorough explanation as to why the policy applied. And I felt it was distracting from the real conversation. I apologize for my silence and hope we can find agreement in the future. Bldxyz 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I gave it further consideration and posted a comment on the aforementioned user's argumentative style, seeking to curb it. Bldxyz 22:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

PKtm: So I don't think I understand RFC. Isn't it supposed to generate comments from other parties, not those who do not disagree? I'm not sure how it is supposed to work. You and Leflyman have both mentioned a lack of energy, but at this point I don't know what there is to respond to, since no one has joined the conversation. Maybe I don't understand the process. [By the way, I can understand not wanting to mix it up with AO again, and I am regretful for not curbing his invective earlier. My presumption is that I'll take the mantel, and if he(?) pops up, I'll seek to make sure the discussion stays more level headed this time.] Bldxyz 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I am glad we ultimately came to a mutual agreement, which I hope those who participated earlier in the discussion are willing to stand by. I think I learned more about where the "experienced editors" are coming from. I feel like there are some issues we raised in this discussion that could be made broader, and applied to more examples (how to define "notability" a bit more precisely to this context, for example). Thanks for sticking with the discussion! Bldxyz 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Vote on Ultraviolet map

Hi I was thinking about taking this whole merge discussion in an entirely different direction. Instead of merging the info on the poorly named Ultraviolet map into the unfocused The DHARMA Initiative. How about we expand on Silentplanet's idea and create sub sections on known Hatches?

Remember the "The DHARMA Initiative" article is supposed to focus on what it is. Adding more information to "the Swan" only shows that this hatch should be expanded upon in another article. The title of this article after all is not "The DHARMA Hatches." To me it looks like we should put in some information about what exactly the DHARMA Initiative is. We should give some history on it maybe include the information on the film and then some brief information about the hatches and what they are. Hatches that we know more about like "The Swan" should have its own page that would then contain information such as "the Map", "The Timer", etc... I think that this is a more reasonable solution and would also make it a more logical solution as an encyclopedia article. Please let me know what you think (in your talk page)! And if you do agree please note that on your merge vote! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 04:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Hi thank you for joining the WikiProject. There is still plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. We are about establishing standards for Novel based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on Fiction books, otherwise called Novels. If you have any questions, do ask. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!

I didn't notice the discussion on the Lost Template for Rose and Bernard. Once Again Sorry Empty2005 06:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Sorry, thought I was on my alternative account. Great work chief! Keep it up!

  • Actually, as an update to this, please see sense & stop checking up on my account. It is rather a puerile action to do seeing as I am not disturbing manyone. Any thanks! - Shaft121 19:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia's no c******h editing policy. Stick to content, not harassing the user pages of contributors; such c******h action can damage the community and deter users. Note that continued c******h editing may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you - Shaft121 07:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Excuse me, but you have no reason to state that I was making a personal attackk upon you at that time. Maybe if you were willing to enter into a mature discussion rather than beguilingly handing out warning upon warning (as your warnings suggest is done) then your personal attacks upon my private space & actions would be stopped. So if you do wish to discuss this matter appropriately, I suggest you do that instead of handing out another warning - Shaft121 08:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Still waiting to talk about this PKtm, having followed your requests to the letter.... - Shaft121 07:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The DHARMA Initiative Split vote

I hope you don't mind a general reply to what most if not all of those opposed to the split on The DHARMA Initiative have said "we don't really have enough information on just the stations to justify an entire article just for the stations." I would like to point out that it is exactly the opposite, there is very little information about "The DHARMA Initiative" since everything seams to be about the stations. I decided that I'd see exactly how much of the article actually talked about the Initiative compared to the Stations. So I grabbed the sections that talk specifically about those subjects and I used the word counter found inside of MS Word to judge the content. Here is what I found:

Initiative focus on the page : These sections were the "intro" "History and purpose" & "Dr. Marvin Candle"
  • Pages - 1
  • Words - 242
  • Characters (no spaces) - 1,309
  • Characters (with spaces) - 1,544
  • Paragraphs - 7
  • Lines - 23
Stations focus on the page : Everything not in the Initiative focus, except for "Trivia" "References" & "External links" were included in the Stations.
  • Pages - 4
  • Words - 1,476
  • Characters (no spaces) - 7,143
  • Characters (with spaces) - 8,574
  • Paragraphs - 46
  • Lines - 132

The judgment that this page doesn't have a lot of info about the stations seams to be incorrect... the problem is that going by word count only (and almost exactly) 1/7th of the page actually talks about the Initiative while the rest of that 6/7th talks about the stations... This page is heavily focused on the stations and it should be acknowledged as such. So we have a choice to create a new article about the stations or re-name this article to reflect its focus!

I hope that this helps and Please put your reply in the comments section of the Initiative talk page. -- UKPhoenix79 02:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility Warning

It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try and be civil. Thanks! Computerjoe's talk 16:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This edit Computerjoe's talk 19:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for your civility responding to this. Computerjoe's talk 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My response to Computerjoe:

On your response: that edit is not a personal attack. It was a bona fide and politely phrased warning to a user who persists (see his history) in blanking his user talk page and removing warnings that have been left there in good faith by multiple users. The user responded immediately by (appropriately) restoring the deleted content, so it's a non-issue. I must say I am greatly puzzled as to why you're getting involved, especially at this point and without there being a dispute. Please refer to WP:VAND, particularly the part on talk page vandalism. -- PKtm 19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The way you said it was very rude. The vandal was at the time following Wikipedia policy, and I and another user assisted him archiving his warnings. He has not removed or received warnings since. WP:VAND says warnings may be removed, if I'm not mistaken, in archiving. Computerjoe's talk 19:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And oh yes, it's the civility warning. It's broader than the NPA templates. Computerjoe's talk 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, but with all due respect, I have to reject it. I was not rude, and in fact I make every due effort to never be rude on Wikipedia. The person archived his warnings, then a week later deleted the reference to the archive. Please reread WP:VAND, where it says (my bolding added): "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.
Again, I'm still very puzzled as to why you're pursuing this, when there is already resolution and there is no dispute. The user, in fact, left me a friendly note (albeit unsigned) in response to my comment. -- PKtm 19:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
When the warnings he removed were given, WP:VAND contradicted itself. However, he shouldn't have removed the reference. IMO, your response was uncivil, but if both parties don't really care that's fine. You have the right to remove this warning, as it is informal. Computerjoe's talk 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I will probably leave your "warning" (and the subsequent rational discussion) in place, and let whomever might read it decide whether it was appropriate. Obviously, I myself consider your warning to be very misplaced, as well as out of the blue. I would gently (and civilly) point out to you that there are so many pages/debates in Wikipedia where we should actively police civility; I think we should all focus on clearcut examples and patterns, not jump into the fray in the case of a single (at best very mild) instance. -- PKtm 22:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Evan Thomas Article

Thanks for pointing out that whoever expanded the Evan Thomas article copied the Newsweek page to do it. I was thinking, ti's kind of dumb what that person did. What woudl you say about just going back to my stub that preceded the exxpansion? Afterall, anyone who wants to read Newsweek's bio of Evan Thomas can just follow the hyperlink anyway, right? I wanted an opinion before I jumped in and did it though. Zongalt 08:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost character articles and User:SergeantBolt

You may want to check his contributions. He's created 4 or 5 other Lost character articles that are nn. -Whomp 04:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And now he created Flashback Characters of Lost and Template:Lostflashback. The template is a copy of the table there. Meanwhile, he commented on the AFD for the Desmond article that "we'll be adding it shortly anyway!", so you may want to keep a further eye on him. -Whomp 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning on User talk:Shaft121

Hi. Repeatedly reverting another users talk page (User talk:Shaft121) isn't very productive. One or two R is enough; then give up William M. Connolley 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right: you used npa 123. Apologies for my carelessness; consider the warning removed. Whether or not the NPA warnings were justified, I have no opinion William M. Connolley 20:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


S's

re:your edit to Don Haskins you point me to wikipedia style saying "rv, please see Wikipedia:Style#Punctuation as well as the AP Manual of Style)" However the page actually says this: "Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Achilles' heel" and "Jesus' tears"." It also says this:"when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." As to the referece to AP, AP style is not accepted as wikipedia rules, and it differs from Chicago style on this issue. So really, neither of us should be editing this, but your edit was at best unnecessary. 216.207.246.230 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

NawlinWiki actually made the initial change (my edit before yours was changing a "/" into "and") but I didn't notice that yours was a revert not an original edit, my bad. W/e. Funny how deep into we can get on trivial issues.216.207.246.230 06:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethan Rom

PKtm -- I am about at my wit's end with all this "Lost" stuff on Wikipedia. It's like an uphill battle. I'm afraid that I am just sort of giving up on it all - it's just causing me way too much stress. And it's silly, because with all the *real* stress in my life (work, relationships, world events, etc), I shouldn't be letting an online encyclopedia about a TV show cause me so much grief. LeFlyman and Baryonyx, who were the original (and most diligent) "Lost" editors pretty much gave up a while back. And with the stupid new episode articles and the character articles, etc, it's just too much. I will still keep an eye on stuff and make edits here and there (and I'll definitely support you on any votes), but I think I'm going to throw in the towel. I hate doing this to you and JTrost, but I hope you understand. Danflave 22:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

PKtm -- this is my theory: right now, the "Lost" page is flooded with so many rogue editors all clammoring to enter crufty sh*t about The Lost Experience, the Hanso Foundation, etc. Lost is a cultural zeitgeist that appeals very strongly to nerds (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, since I am such a huge fan!) Naturally, its Wikipedia page will be overrun by these fans. I am just sitting back and letting them get it out of their system and later this summer, when there are no new episodes, and the Lost Experience winds down, I will go back and do some major editing. Like you said, it is a firehose right now. But it will trickle down in a month or two. Danflave 17:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

I have blocked User:Shaft121 for ignoring personal attack warnings and gaming the restriction. Demi T/C 06:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello there

Hello there, my name is Charlie Marrow & I am a new user. I notice that you appear to be one of the main guys with regards to the Lost (TV series) articles on Wikipedia. I would like to get heavily involved in this as I am such a huge fan of Lost. I was wondering if you could give me some help by telling what I need to write & what I need to avoid with regards to the Lost articles when I make my contributions. Many thanks - Charlie Marrow 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Down and out in Wikipedia

I hear you; it seems to be a constant battle between those who really turn Wikipedia into be a theory-laden fan site, and those who want the articles to be neutral and verifiable. I feel like a broken record when I keep repeating that on talk pages. It's why I am now suggesting redirecting such individuals to other Lost-oriented wikis that they can edit to their heart's content. The Hanso/Lost Experience stuff I've been leaving alone because I expect it will eventually die down and get removed-- so long as it doesn't creep into the main Lost let them have their editing fun there. --LeflymanTalk 05:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I went ahead and reverted that Evan Thomas article. Thanks for your input. I was glad to get a second opinion before doing it. Zongalt 15:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The LostNav template

Hey there PKtm, I am thinking of expanding the LostNav template to have more space to put stuff in, it's not a vote or anything, the contents can be discussed, we are just talking about the template it's self, we'd love to hear your opinion. --mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

  • If you don't like my edit summaries, feel free to cry about it. But don't revert my edits, because I'm right. Putting the dictionary defenition of "Bohemian" and "Rhapsody" is a stupid (and unneccessary) idea, as is listing "Personnel". TheImpossibleMan 17:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of Lost Episodes, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Hey, I chose you because I felt that you are very active in this subject. Who else would you suggest I ask to help out with this? -- Wikipedical 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no I totally see what you're saying and agree to it. This is why I invited you in the first place. -- Wikipedical 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Another user suggested that I include the image contraversy as a part of this mediation. After all, List of Lost episodes is locked largely because of confusion with the image policy. I do think it would be worthwhile to give it a shot, but yeah on the mediation page you're right, greatly not phrased it is. If you can think of a better phrasing, please let me know. And again, thank you for helping me out with this. -- Wikipedical 02:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


PKtm- I added your name to the involved parties, as someone seems to have removed Leflyman's, and you are a very involved party. I hope you will agree. --Kahlfin 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries

I noticed that we were monitoring the same pages. Seeing that the discussion had gotten a bit personal, I figured it might help to add a third-party neutral comment. Regards, --LeflymanTalk 05:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006

Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Allianz
Deutsche Börse
Lost City, West Virginia
Make Your Own Kind of Music
David Bradley (actor)
HypoVereinsbank
Lost World (genre)
Lost to Apathy
RWE
The Lost Sea
Brain Licker
Lost Blues and Other Songs
Carlton Cuse
Deutsche Post
E.ON
Harold Perrineau Jr.
Kevin Tighe
William Mapother
Munich Re
Cleanup
Record label
CW Television Network
Ancient (Stargate)
Merge
Network (U) DTCs
Ted Scott Flying Stories
Vor'na'tu
Add Sources
Record producer
Lockdown
Mervyn King (darts)
Wikify
Heat energy
Marcin
Bill Connors
Expand
Brooklyn College
Masters of Disaster
Trivial Pursuit

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Request for Mediation

Hello, PKtm

My name is ^demon, and I am going to mediate the case that you requested concerning the episodes of Lost. Right now, before we continue, I would like to know if you prefer public or private mediation. If you could just let me know over at your request for mediation, I would be most grateful. Have a pleasant evening.

Regards,
^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:

I have only made 2 reverts, thanks. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The 12:30 edit was not a revert. It was a seperate edit adding the screenshots for s01 then i added s02 which i did manually and typed the text in, if it was a revert i would of added them all at once, you see? Also its a quote from Stargate Atlantis when there about to go into battle also in Star Trek rail guns are not used, they use directed energy weapons and torpedoes. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. (cur) (last) 17:00, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (rv - 2nd) (My 2nd rv)
  2. (cur) (last) 15:11, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (add s2 screenshots -- unless you can provide a valid reason why there not fair use then they stay! (Shields at full. Ready main rail guns. Ready all missile batteries.)) (Not an rv, i hadnt added the s02 screenshots at this time yet)
  3. (cur) (last) 15:06, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (rv -- unless you can provide a valid reason why there not fair use then they stay! (Shields at full. Ready main rail guns. Ready all missile batteries.) (My first rv)
  4. (cur) (last) 14:20, 27 June 2006 Ed g2s (Talk | contribs) (rv, per discussion)
  5. (cur) (last) 13:30, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (readd screenies s01 -- unless you can provide a valid reason why there not fair use then they stay! (Shields at full. Ready main rail guns. Ready all missile batteries.)) (not an rv i added them my self)
  6. (cur) (last) 12:10, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (add dvd covers -- unless you can provide a valid reason why there not fair use then they stay! (Shields at full. Ready main rail guns. Ready all missile batteries.)) (not an rv i added them my self)
See, I did not make 3 reverts. Thank you. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Matthew, you're not getting my point. Please see WP:3RR, where it states,
Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.
"I added them my self" is not an excuse. They were reverts. -- PKtm 23:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh well then, okay. I'll have to make sure i dont add things seperate in the future. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats not the point Matthew. You need to respect that other editors have other points of view, and an edit war is not a good way of settling disputes. See WP:POINT.
Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work.
Moitio (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: my userbox

Very well, i have removed it. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


RE: Lost episode "Tale of Two Cities"

I understand now that my source wasn't official. I am making all attempts to revert the edits that the current vandalists are making on that page. I apologise :D . SergeantBolt 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Beginning Mediation

Dear PKtm,

After requesting the preference of mediation, the consensus appears to be public, with one person not responding (and has appeared to have left the project for the time being), and one person abstaining due to being away for the summer. This being decided, let us begin. I figure the easiest place to centralize all discussion can be the talk page of the RfM. Thanks for your time, and if you'll go there now, you'll see that I've begun a discussion on the topic. Thanks very much.

-^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

it wasn't personal.

I wasn't making a personal attack. I was simply asking a question. I suppose you should assume good faith before you judge me. dposse 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing. I was being very calm. My language was not mean or angry in any way. I was simply asking a question. Now, please leave my post alone. dposse 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, i expect him to explain to me why it is that even though i showed him evidence that wikipedia allows Lostpedia that he is still harshly against it. My tone and my words are not angry or accusing in any way. I will explain myself further in the discussion. However, if you touch it again, then i will report you as a vandal. Only fair, isn't it? dposse 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just let it go man. --Peephole 01:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Cool off on the strikeouts - it's not accomplishing anything. --Reverend Loki 05:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As posted on Reverend Loki's user talk page in reply:

I regret that we disagree on this (the comments on Talk:Lost Experience). The energy that you're spending worrying about me "editing" someone's comments (when I strike through an obvious personal attack) should be going into stopping people from issuing personal attacks. I'll continue to fight against people who attack others and who refuse to remove those attacks or tone them down. Again, sorry you don't see things the same way, but I'll live with that. If you feel so strongly, take it to WP:ANI. -- PKtm 05:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Further comments from the user above, which subsequent to the above message descended into vicious, personal attacks against me, have been removed from this talk page, and will continue to be removed. I refuse to tolerate personal attacks. -- PKtm 16:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of Lost episodes

Hi. Spoilerfix is generally a reliable and verifable source. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The warning will not be remoeved as you have in fact violated the 3RR so it should be left in place. Getting you and sergentbolt mixed up, youve made 3rvs, template:3rr is designed to help you stop from making a 4th rv. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Secondly; If you visit that website you will not it is not a fansite and also sources its own info as well.
Thirdly; Please dont assume i support editors, i however support the fact that he has cited a verifiable and generally reliable source and thus his edits where all in good faith they should not be removed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Bogus warning on 3RR, left by User:MatthewFenton, has been removed here by me, PKtm 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC), since it was ruled by an admin as being reverts pertaining to vandalism. I have left in the subsequent discussion.

Your forgeting the fact that your revers are part of a content dispute (re: sergentb) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it's vandalism, when multiple anon editors (possibly the same person) keep inserting the same info from an unreliable source. 3RR does not apply to vandalism. To call it a content dispute, Matthew, is Wikilawyering. -- PKtm 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Care to backup your claims im solictoring? Also, you may believe its vandalism but its a content dispute as some believe it should be there some do not. Thus content dispute. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss this further with you any longer, you are not getting my good faith message that i am trying to stop you from violating WP:3RR.

I tried to help you but you do not wish to know. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PKtm, I have now been reported for apparantly breaking the 3RR rule. I find this stupendous, because it was clearly vandalism and the page in question has been protected due to the vandalism. I also find Matthew Fenton biased as he contributed to the vandalism too. Could you possibly leave a comment supporting this because Matthew does not understand the 3RR rule?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:SergeantBolt_reported_by_User:Matthew_Fenton_.28Talk_.7C_Contribs.29_.28Result:.29

SergeantBolt 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, PKtm! SergeantBolt 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • sigh* You are forgeting the fact that i am not talking about that page! Furthermore i have read tha page and it is not policy or a guideline. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I added my comments to the Rfc, PKtm. SergeantBolt 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Anyway, it fell through, just like you said. I consider it 'case closed' - until he does it again :S. SergeantBolt 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: protection for Template:LostNav

As I said at the admin noticeboard, because these changes are made by anonymous editors, if protection is deemed appropriate, I think semi-protection would be a good idea. -- Wikipedical 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Lost fandom in, out, then in

I'm glad that the despite the disagreement about linking to fansites, that there is enough common ground to having a section about the show's fandom community. Cheers. -- Tomlouie | talk 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive comments about the fandom section. I do think that the section would be greatly improved by mentioning notable fansites, as it seems a bit odd to point out a phenomenon without providing examples. I understand that linking to sites suggests an "endorsement" by Wikipedia, but I think they could be clearly labelled as examples, not references. --Jajasoon 02:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering what your response is to my list of TV pages with fansites on the Lost talk page - I hope you can see that I (and other Lostpedians) are not making an unreasonable edit by adding a link to the page, but following precedent and at least one reading of the guidelines. Your responses are typically thoughtful & level-headed, so I'm curious what your thoughts are. --Jajasoon 03:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Article

It wasn't there, someone was nice enough to undelete it for us. That link on the RfC was red, then it became blue after I posted the request on AMIBs talk page.--Crossmr 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Spookeh

I think you need to get savvy to the situation, i was updating redirects. Eventually a bot would of done it anyway. Much nicer to have a human do it. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Yes, it is not the first time I try to get through his thick skull. I'm starting to fear seeing his name in an edit summary. Thanks! --Andromeda 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont attack me like that again, thanks. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment wasnt intended for you, maybe i should of clarified it clearer and quoted the guy "I try to get through his thick skull"; Calling me thick is rude and mean. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not attacking you, just stating the fact can it's not posible to reason with you, unfortunately. --Andromeda 19:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/k/t/User_talk%7EPKtm_Archive_1_1087.html"