User talk:Danflave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WELCOME

Welcome!

Hello, Danflave, 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! karmafist 23:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Toukie Smith

The "Recent changes" page, m'friend.Bjones 19:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lost

Not entirely clear why discussion of the subliminal messages of lost is "crufty".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.241.243 (talk • contribs) Jan 14 2006

Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad to hear that my efforts have been worthwhile. Sometimes the most difficult thing is explaining why something should not be included in the articles. I've been promising to propose language for a "Wikipedia is not a fan site" addition to "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not-- and I'd be pleased to have your input on it once I get it posted.

Regards, and happy New Year! —LeFlyman 17:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of Lost

I forgot to check the talk page on Characters of Lost before removing Yemi again, but after reading your thoughts, I decided to re-include it. I've re-written the section intro to make it a bit more clear that we're emphasizing people who clearly made it to the island (compare Yemi with Jack's father, whose corpse was never found, as an example). Let me know if you have any other thoughts. Thanks for your continued efforts at the Lost pages, as well! Baryonyx 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Eko's page, definitely. Not sure how much I'll do tonight, but I'm sure we can get it cleaned up pretty quickly. Baryonyx 07:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dan. I just read your question on the Characters of Lost page about trimming down flashback characters. I agree that it's again getting away from it's original purpose, but I'm not certain how we should proceed ATM. There's certain characters in that list that are pivotal. I'll see if I can write up a group of whom I think we really need, and who can safely be axed. Just wanted to let you know I just saw the question, though. If you have any thoughts, I'll be posting on the Characters of Lost talk page, so there's a wider discussion. Baryonyx 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the Talk page. I'm no god though... just someone who checked his assertions when someone called for some evidence. I will say that if we had more of that on WP, it'd be a hell of a lot easier on everyone... but only a third as fun. :) Baryonyx 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lost - The Hunting Party

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep my eyes peeled. In case you haven't looked at the user's talk page, he was banned for 24 hours not too long ago for edits regarding a Lost talk page. If this keeps up we may have to have a talk with him about the difference between a fansite and an encyclopedia. Jtrost 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Heyer8472 I am only trying to keep the episode facts in order. I sometimes can use bad grammar because grammar is not my best thing. I was just trying to put the facts there. I wasn't trying to violate anything thanks Heyer8472

[edit] The Hunting Party

Mathwiz -- as a frequent contributor to the Lost pages (and active Wikipedia editor), I just wanted to make you aware that a user, Heyer8472, is continually making edits to the Lost Episode Guide that are contrary to the MoS in regards to tone and style, not to mention his (or her) numerous spelling mistakes. I have reverted much of the edits back to a grammatically correct version. He (or she) is also including slight examples of OR and is including multiple unnecessary details. Thanks! Danflave 17:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the problem. In fact, I previously blocked Heyer8472 (see the message at the top of his talk page). I am dealing with the problem, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. One more note - do not revert any one page more than three times within a 24-hour period, else you will be blocked under WP:3RR. I know you want to contribute to Wikipedia, but multiple reversions could indicate an edit war, and admins (such as me) are supposed to treat and punish all sides equally, even if one was just trying to better Wikipedia and the other was not. --M @th wiz 2020 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Barnstar

In recognition of excellence in editing Lost (TV series)

For your continued diligence in editing the Lost (TV series), I award you the "Lost Barnstar." Thank you for keeping watch over the articles! Please feel free to award this barnstar to those you believe deserving. —LeFlyman 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost

Perhaps, instead of deleting pertinent information that has been included on the Lost page for months, you could simply move the spoiler label. Thanx. Danflave 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it is "pertinent information". Firstly, the sentence suggests "examples", not an exhaustive list. Secondly, it is a fairly trivial piece of information with respect to an encyclopedic article. Thirdly, the fact is covered in all the subsequent places pages relating to that episode. The spoiler warning should remain where it is (or was - I haven't checked to see what has been editted yet) - introductory paragraphs should be spoiler-free. Deano (Talk) 12:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Thanks

Rillian -- wanted to thank you for being so thorough with the "Characters of Lost" page! I appreciate all your edits in keeping the page as accurate and free of OR as possible. Danflave 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind note. I should have replied earlier, but I appreciate your efforts as well. Thanks Rillian 14:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOST Episode List division

Hi, Dan,

I've placed a note on User talk: Discordance's page regarding his division of the episode summaries. I think he definitely needs to put a proposal up for polling first before proceeding. —LeFlyman 17:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my forceful manner (bad day), I did'nt realise the depth of the discussion orginally, but I do think this is the right way forward, and I would rather convince people in discussion rather than immediately set up a straw poll Discordance 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I am slightly concerned now, Futurama seems to be operating both, It has an episode list along with individual episode articles and it has season break-downs like lost. Smallville and a few others also have season break-downs, while the majority still do seem to use episode articles the use of season break-downs seems fairly widespread. I think now a straw poll is probably appropiate to set up some guidelines as to which is more suitable, probably with the options:

use both (see futurama)
use a list and episode articles
use season break-downs
leave it to the regular editors to decide

Discordance 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

use a list page but have it link to the episode headers in the season breakdown as my list page for lost currently does

Discordance 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my user page made my day, especially given the current struggle I'm in to "prove" the basic literary norm of using present tense to describe fictional events. Thanks, Danflave. --PKtm 04:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Wikipedia is not a fan site

Hi, Dan,

Thanks for the reminder. Due to your prodding, 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". I'll also add a note about this to the usual suspects, PKtm, Baryonyx, Mathwiz, etc. Let me know what you think! —LeFlyman 19:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Work on Lost

Thanks for the note. Hopefully with some more work we'll see Lost as a featured article :) Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreaks

Dan, while your comment was perhaps not phrased properly, I have a thicker skin than that. I can see what you were trying to say, even if it wasn't said in the best way. :) The impetus for my Wikibreak is part disillusionment with Wikipedia (the whole userbox deletion fiasco is but one example), part current life situation, and part simply wanting a break from the Lost pages (mainly because I think I've been missing out on enjoying Lost the way I used to before I joined The Fuselage and started the pages here), which are about 90% of my Wikibutions anyway. Was I somewhat surprised by the tone of the general responses to my proposal? Sure, but taking it too personally is just a recipe for disaster. I'll be back eventually, can't say when, but I wanted to come on when I saw your message, so it's not gnawing at you or anything. Good luck with your continued edits. Baryonyx 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Rousseau

Saw your "bold" move on redirecting the Rousseau page. And, while I agree with your stance, I do think you should add your commentary to the Talk:Danielle Rousseau page. It'd help to get another editor chiming in with a voice of reason instead of condescension. --PKtm 18:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lost episodes

Hey. A lot has happened in the past couple weeks. Please do 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 | _#) 20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiya; yes, looks like the predicted split of episodes into articles has come to pass. I think getting them properly organized and in order will be a necessity, before they grow out of control, which was why I supported Baryonyx's proposal to get a Lost Wikiproject together. I'd suggest that Josiah Rowe would be knowledgeable in that regard, as he's been involved with the Doctor Who Wikiproject for a while. Lost (TV series) and the associated articles have come a long way in the past year, and it would be a shame if some relatively new editors came along and overturned all the efforts we've made to keep them within Wikipedia policy. The notion that Jtrost has claimed "ownership" of articles is rather silly; anyone who invests a great deal of time and thought in a particular Wikipedia area is naturally going to have a vested interest in seeing their work maintained and kept up. That's not "ownership" but responsibility. Recent editors to the Lost articles may feel they are up against an editorial establishment that they weren't a part of, and are trying to carve out their own "dominion" over certain sections, by creating parallel work. It's sure to come to a head if a compromise solution isn't reached. —Leflyman^Talk 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I've been reading through some of your comments on the discussion pages dealing with the new set of articles. While I agree that the sudden explosion of articles without a comment or notice for any long-time Lost editors was inconsiderate, I do think it would reduce the level of antagonism if we avoid profanities and incivilities about editors we might disagree with. Referring to others as "bullies" or to certain articles as variations of fecal matter probably doesn't win arguments :) Please take a look at the policy on "Civility", and consider going back to refactor some of your comments to reduce the confrontational stance that some might perceive you to be taking. Thanks! —Leflyman^Talk 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 04:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll on Lost articles

This probably has or will come to your attention already, but incase it hasn't, there is a straw poll at Talk: List of Lost episodes to decide the fate of the Lost articles. It is critical that you vote on this. I trust you will make the right choice. --Kahlfin 15:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting edit of your comments

Hey Danflave. Wanted to make you aware of this: [1]. I responded to the user's talk page, making him aware that it was unacceptable in Wikipedia to edit someone else's talk page comments under some weird "POV" stance. -- PKtm 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Rom article

Unfortunately, the AfD for the Ethan Rom article failed (thanks for submitting it, though!). Now that Ethan has an article (with of course next to no real content), I'm afraid the door is pretty wide open to the argument that lots of other minor characters should have articles, such as Danielle. I'm feeling inundated by lostcruft, so I'm just venting here... Any ideas on what to do? PKtm 08:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Danflave, I hear you. I guess I'd like to believe that the lostcrufters (at least the energetic persistent ones) will ultimately either wise up or go away, but I have to admit I haven't seen any signs of that yet. Sheer numbers seem to be overwhelming the instilling of Wikipedia philosophy/tenets. I'm going to keep at it, at least a bit. But I'm definitely receding in involvement, as is Jtrost, it seems... -- PKtm 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dan (and PK!) I can completely understand the frustration. The Lost articles have had a sudden influx of new editors, a couple of whom have been a bit hard-headed in not understanding/following Wikipedia policy. I know it can be stressful to have to repeatedly deal with the same annoyance of neophyte editors inserting fancruft, who then having to argue over every justified deletion— which was why I took a bit of a Wikibreak a while back, and why Baryonyx is still on one. (I keep claiming that I'm on a semi-Wikibreak, although my output is pretty high!) So I'd suggest, likewise, if you're finding that you're under so much Wikistress factor that you're losing interest, take a step away from the Lost articles; perhaps try editing other areas, or just a vacation from Wiki-land for a week or so. (But please don't leave entirely, we need you both!)

I did have a bit of an epiphany; maybe we're dealing with the new "Lost-crufters" the wrong way. They certainly have an interest in improving/adding to the articles— but because they aren't familiar with how Wikipedia is different from general fan sites, and as the major parts of Lost are already built-out, they are left with only a couple of options: inserting theories/fancruft into the existing articles, or creating new articles that they can write as they please. Many have taken the first option, while a couple of more enterprising others have taken the second. I'd like to recommend that perhaps what is needed is to 1) re-direct them to more fan-oriented Wiki-sites such as Lostpedia and the Wikia Lost; and 2) (re)focus the more eager editors' energies in directions that can be more productive. In effect, as Baryonoyx had suggested previously, the only solution at this point may be the creation of a Lost Wikiproject. Take a look at what the folks who put on the Wikiproject Stargate have done. I know that it will be a bit of work to get off the ground. Rather than monitoring/reverting the same couple of pages repeatedly, however, it would mean creating a central location with directions as to what should/shouldn't be done with the whole Lost-related set of articles. Right now, we've had repeated, similar discussions going on multiple Talk pages, dealing with consensus for editors, etc. These should be centralized.

What do you think? —Leflyman^Talk 18:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, guys, in the last several days, I think I've had even more of a decline in Lost-related energy. Seeing the increasing output of the fancrufters is like staring into a fire hose. I just discovered the Lost Experience page, not to mention things like The Hanso Foundation. Some of the most energetic new editors are unfortunately also the ones with poor English skills AND really faulty judgment on what they include/insert, apparently with the attitude that someone else will clean it up so anything goes. I think we need a higher critical mass of people to be able to combat this, meaning at least 6-8 of us actively engaged every single day, dozens of edits apiece, getting rid of unencyclopedic content. And that doesn't seem like it's going to happen, with people tending to fall away as the fire hose overwhelms them/us.... Anyway, a down moment, here in Lostland... -- PKtm 05:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

The request has been restored, please list your agreement to mediate.

[edit] Your Request for Mediation

Hello, Danflave

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]} /02:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you had time to consider whether you would prefer public or private mediation. Your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks, and have a nice day. -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /13:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I'll remove you from the mediation pages. -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject South Park

I have thought of creating a WikiProject for South Park since it is now near its' 10th anniversary and has more articles than ever. I feel we could all do the following things through this project:

Cleanup any short/poorly written/unformatted articles
Merge/lengthen the many character articles
Improve the South Park main page

I have seen your South Park fan template and wondered if you were interested in joining. If so reply to my talk page and I'll get back to you as quick as I can. Thanks, Mr. Garrison

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ConnieSchultz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ConnieSchultz.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)