User talk:Bldxyz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Lost and the Apple II 2 No comments left on your RfC: why 3 Nice edit 4 Yikes!

[edit] Lost and the Apple II

Thanks for your note, Bldxyz. I'll try to work up the energy to contribute to your RfC. Frankly, though, and with all due respect, I'd feel a little more sanguine about continuing this dialog if I had seen you actually stepping up to help defuse the personal attacks engaged in by the person (User:ArgentiumOutlaw) who agrees with your stance. You should consider (and maybe you have) that by remaining silent about such tactics, you become complicit in them. I meant it when I said that the personal attacks don't "make me or others inclined to participate more." Just my two cents for your consideration; take it as it comes. -- PKtm 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Bld, I appreciate your efforts in trying to work out a reasonable approach to the speculative content in the LOST episodes article. I can tell that you are aiming to understand and comply with Wikipedia standards. However, like PKtm above, I'm finding it difficult to rouse the energy to get involved in the RfC. Repeatedly discussing with new editors why certain things are appropriate to Wikipedia and other things are not can be draining, in particular when dealing with fan-oriented content; there's definitely a sort of "art" to it figuring out Original Research and Verifiability, and perhaps my explanations aren't as clear as they could be. Such considerations are at the heart of why I floated a proposal a while back that "Wikipedia is not a fan site" be added to "What Wikipedia is not" policy. Please take a look at the extensive discussion, if you are interested in commenting. I'd suggest, perhaps, that what fans like you are looking for in Wikipedia is what Lostpedia is specifically intended for -- which may be a good fit for what you would like to see included in the WP articles. —Leflyman^Talk 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• We've actually discussed organizing the pages into what's called a Wikiproject, which does specify those things you've mentioned, as has been done with other fan-active television series. See, for info Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television and an excellent example, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who. However, being as it appeared to be a gosh-darned lot of work for just a few participants, no one stepped up to the plate to get it kicked off. You can read some of that discussion on the main Lost talk page: "Quite a Lot to Do" and "Moving Forward".—Leflyman^Talk 01:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Certainly, suggest away :) --Leflyman^Talk 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I'm sorry that you took my comments as derogatory, which is not as they were intended; I was trying to suggest that "newbie" editors tend to have the same reactions to Wikipedia-- which is likewise pointed out in Assume Good Faith: "It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere." Many new editors initially treat Wikipedia, particularly the articles on pop culture, as just another "fansite" where anything can be added. That's not the case, and substantial thought has gone into developing the extensive content policies. Each policy section has a short "nutshell" version at the top, and its own discussion page, to further develop/improve their understanding. If you will be a regular contributor to Wikipedia, beyond the scope of Lost, it's definitely recommended to learn about the core policies, In short, I again apologise that I've come across as "biting the newbies", which was hardly the intention. I expect that you'll likely find the same sort of policy-based discussions going on about every active article-- so chalk the experience down as a sort of introduction to the mores of Wikipedia culture. :) Regards, Leflyman^Talk 01:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No comments left on your RfC: why

Saw your note about the Lost Apple II trivia RfC not generating any comments, Bldxyz. As mentioned before, I've tried to work up the energy, but the ongoing bitter and personal attacks from one specific user in this debate are both disheartening and make all of us (i.e., those who have been targeted or who would be targeted) very disinclined to participate. Those attacks have continued even after your comment to that individual, and that individual has even deleted related comments left on his user talk page, which indicates (to me) that they're unlikely to participate in meaningful dialog on the issue. I'm just sayin'.... -- PKtm 01:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice edit

On the whole Apple II issue: I think this worked out to be a good compromise, and really a model of the consensus process. Hope you felt good about it too. Thanks for hanging in there during the debate. -- PKtm 00:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yikes!

Hi - re. the Apple II mention I entered and that you warned me about...YIKES! The words 'can' and 'worms' spring to mind. I had no idea there was all that back story and previous contention over what seems such a trifling matter. It very obviously IS an Apple II with one of the keys changed. Anyway, thanks for letting me know - a very interesting debate! --paulwesterman 13:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)