This page 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.
If I'm wrong about this (I mean the edits to the talk page that I believe clearly misrepresent what I said), then I really need to know about it. Both Jayjg and SlimVirgin refuse to discuss the issue. (My apologies if you're not interested in this.) —Ashley Y 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the attack on my user talk page. It's actually kind of funny that after my (not very happy) response to Jimbo's handling of the Essjay situation, I then get attacked by a troll for being a cultish follower of Jimbo! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Permission
Permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless as far as we're concerned. If you can get the author to release the image under a free license then we can use the image. ed g2s • talk 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:So...you're saying that there's little point in bringing a month's old issue back up. If that's the case, why even bring it up? As I said, I'm not bothered by the fact you opposed me; that's a non-issue. Acalamari 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiThanks *Leflyman, I want to apologize to you over the entire thing; and that includes everything that happened in the old discussion. Per this edit, I hope the incident was resolved. I really hope that, in the future, we can work together over something as opposed to keep talking about Krune and AN/I. Acalamari 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you took my comments at your RfA as personal -- they were intended to point out a tendency towards over-reaction, which you may acknowledge can be problematic in an admin. I definitely see you an up-and-coming editor, who just needs a bit more seasoning and experience before aiming for adminship. Best wishes, --LeflymanTalk 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you that I was not offended by anything you said on the RfA. After all, it's just an RfA. I just wanted to avoid getting into another Krune mess, that's all. I accept your apology, but I want to say that you were not the one in the wrong: I was. :) Acalamari 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Correction
Hey - I corrected the dates for your archive 9 - hope you don't mind! Regards. Will(aka Wimt) 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm sure it would. I just saw it and thought I may as well fix it! Will(aka Wimt) 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of correction... is it really necessary to include typos in information if they were in the original source? It might be the same, but surely it doesn't help anyone reading it on Wikipedia... I'm talking about SSX 3 Where I corrected some typos in Rider Bio information... and you REVERTED it! ... I'll see when I'm remaking the whole SSX Rider Bio list (which I plan to do over the next two weeks, easter holiday). Surely it's not policy to include typos for being faithful... would you include typos when quoting from a bad version of... the bible? Or something... At0m1Ca 14 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry about that :) Didn't look very automatic, so I thought it was someone being funny. Thanks for the notice, will avoid excitement from now on, hehe At0m1Ca 14 08:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Leflyman. Can you tag specific sections of the article, rather than use a blanket tag? It would help discourage paranormal advocates from removing appropriately sourced content, such as in the criticism section. Thanks. -- LuckyLouie 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify...My comments above are regarding this article: Ghost hunting. - LuckyLouie 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. You may want to copy your comments to the articles talk page as they may be helpful to other editors who wish to improve the article. - LuckyLouie 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for the reply. However I won't move a Users comment on my Talk page to an article Talk page, such actions can be too easily misinterpreted. -- LuckyLouie 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
This really isn't necessary. I invite you to settle down and take your concerns to the talk page. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Your first edit had a misleading edit summary. Your second was a revert back to the first edit with no explanation. The rest included adding an item without a citation and removing a item that did have a citation (while claiming it didn't). I promise I have nothing against your content changes in principle; I just have no idea what it is that you're trying to do. My first instinct was that you were just a common vandal, but then I saw your extensive edit history. If you would please post something on the talk page, I'm sure it can be sorted out. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
...so do you intend on taking any of your concerns to the article's talk page? Simões (talk/contribs) 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My name
Dear leftyman,
As per your suggestion, I have requested for a username change on the concerned page. Please continue to advise me accordingly. Teabing-Leigh 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Reason: I am told, and I tend to agree as a lawyer, that my current name violates the Wikipedia username policy for not using names of famous fictional characters. There I request my name be changed from Teabing-Leigh only if it is held that my name does indeed violate the Wiki Username policy. Teabing-Leigh 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: April foolishness
Thanks for the minor entertainment on my user page. I've added your prank to the (more realistic) count. Maybe someday I'll get vandalised like the Wiki-stars. Best, --LeflymanTalk 23:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution works, doesn't it? I thought it would actually do the opposite. --wL<speak·check> 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Vandalism count on my user page
Haha, April Fools! Stupid really but, I had to do something besides this. Lame eh? -- Reaper X 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol what the hell? Well if Linca wasnt helping me with {{Extra tracklisting}} I would ask why he/she is watching my contribs. Geez...way to be discrete. -- Reaper X 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Lost Popular Culture Section
Hello, I noticed you removed my addition to the Lost (TV) page. I typed this up for the talk page, and figured I'd paste it over here.
I added in sentence to the section regarding the Lost RiffTrax. I thought it was an appropriate addition to the Popular Culture section, but it was removed and i was advised against "spamming". Can someone explain to me why this link does not fit in to this section or how to rephrase it so that it becomes appropriate? Mcgonigle 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, I've had a chance to review your comments regarding the Lost Popular Culture section. Obviously you have more experience with wikipedia policy than I do, but I would like to follow up on your points.
1. "Rifftrax is a not particularly notable Web site/podcast; there are countless other web sites/blogs/podcasts that poke fun at movies/tv shows." I would disagree. RiffTrax is run by the former head writer/host of Mystery Science Theater 3000, and features the former cast of the show on many riffs. It is by far the most notable commentary download website out there, and the history of its participants alone makes it pretty notable. None of the other websites that you suggest poke fun at movies/tv shows have as near a claim to notability.
2. Rifftrax is a commercial venture I think you would find that most "popular culture" is a commercial venture. Pretty much any TV show, comic strip or band which references Lost is a commercial venture. It seems that in order to be widley recognized "Popular" Culture, your product would have to be commercial of some nature. (There are undoubtedly exceptions to this rule, but I think you would agree that most things that comprise Pop Culture, are commercial in their nature.) My link was not to the RiffTrax page, but to the wikipedia entry for RiffTrax and the sourcing was attributed to a fan blog.
3. "you appear to have only edited articles dealing with RiffTrax, or promoting it; giving the appearance of a Conflict of Interest" I'm sorry that I appear to have a conflict of interest. Though I am a fan of RiffTrax, I have no afflliation with them other than purchasing their products. The fact that I have chosen to edit mainly their page and the pages of products affiliated with them is nothing more than a reflection of my current online interests. If it makes my edits look more "legitimate", I can go fix punctuation on the site of various state capitals, but I will only do so if I am required to have a varied source of edits in my history.
I'm not sure I can "convince" people that this edit is legitimate, but is there another way to go about this other than me adding it and someone else taking it back? Is there a way to put it to a vote on the Lost talk page? Mcgonigle 18:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I still continue to have questions regarding your comments. "a link to specific Rifftrax items for sale is still not acceptable under Wikipedia WP:SPAM guidelines." A specific RiffTrax item for sale was never linked to. The user before me linked to a forum announcement that Lost would be riffed, and I linked to a blog. I can understand that blogs can be unreliable, but I was merely trying to provide a citation. Many of the items in the popular culture section of Lost appear to be uncited, the references to Veronica Mars, The Office, Family Guy, Catwoman, The Thing, Monty, Over the Hedge, as well as all of the bands. (All of these "commercial" entities. The Penny Arcade citation links directly to the Comic Strip that mentions Lost, as does Piled Higher and Deeper.
It seems as if several of these could be subject to a notability argument, I don't want to get into that. But would it be acceptable to add in a link without sourcing, since this RiffTrax has been released for a few weeks now and its existence is confirmed fact? If not, should the article be cleaned up to eliminate all unsourced material? How would one source the fact that Family Guy mentioned Lost, as it seems like all sources that would mention this fact would be of the blog/vanity press nature or copyright violations?
Let me stress that I'm not trying to be contrary or argumentative, it just seems like there is quite a bit of grey area in the distinctions that are being drawn regarding the edit I tried to make. Mcgonigle 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: To summarize, I guess my main question is, is this an appropriate addition without a link. And if not, why are the other mentions of Popular Culture appropriate without links? Mcgonigle 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Any Ideas? Or should I take this to the Lost Talk page?
Mcgonigle 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Warning
As per this ANI report and the evidence it gives, I am requesting you to not make personal attacks and incivil comments about other users - comment on content, not on contributor(s). Please respect all other Wikipedians. Further violation of these policies can lead to you being blocked from editing. Thanks, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Your response about QuackGuru's own behavior is OK, but "Tit for tat" is never an excuse, for established editors or otherwise. Your comments were insulting of QuackGuru and consequently unacceptable. And as you are an "established user," I suggest you pursue dispute resolution over QuackGuru's behavior, instead of retaliation. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My point of criticism was over this edit summary. This was an abuse of edit summaries as well as a borderline personal attack. I also don't know how justified you were in bringing QuackGuru's editing history into question on the article talk page. Your discussion of the possibility that QuackGuru may be a troll is largely OK, so long as you don't let accusations fly. Just be careful, that's all I'm trying to say. Cheers, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 04:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
List of pubs
As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
quackguru
open an rfc against him. --wL<speak·check> 20:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I admit that I misunderstood the talk... I saw it on WP:CN first and thought that a general community ban was being proposed and that talk applied to it... I understand better now. Still I must admit that I find the idea of utilizing an article's talk page for an announcement concerning sanctioning a user's conduct a bit uncouth. (→Netscott) 21:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I know that User:QuackGuru has been a bit disagreeable in terms of his involvement on the Essjay controversy article but still it just seems odd to me to use article talk space to discuss user conduct. I suppose it is arguable that utilizing an article's talk page towards limiting a disruptive user's conduct on the article coincides with trying to improve the article (per WP:TPG) but still it might be a good idea for such a thing to be spelled out. (→Netscott) 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw you added a fact template in Jimmy Wales on an edit I made, so I added a source and changed the "weasel wording" to something more precise. I'm not sure on how to format footnotes and whatnot, so any help you could provide -- on both whether or not I should add more sourcing and how to format the footnote -- would be much appreciated. --Dookama 10:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So... what better source than Wikipedia would there be for what Wikipedians claim? Just because something is said on Wikipedia does not mean it can't be cited elsewhere as relevant. Even taking the self-reference rules in mind (which, I admit, I'm not terribly familiar with), I think it would be a nice WP:IAR application to ignore self-reference when talking about things that Wikipedians have said -- and I think it's obvious what Wikipedians said when you go far enough [1]. --Dookama 23:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a thought: Let's be constructive with our criticism and suggest alternatives instead of throwing around what I consider to be a belittling term. --Dookama 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't find the fact that you're pointing it out belittling, I just find your terminology (weasel wording) to be belittling. I would concede that I may have been unclear, but belittling was clearly used as a qualifier for term -- I figure that should be clear enough. Combined with the fact that you're not trying to be helpful at all, I find your conduct... less than desirable. You're saying that I'm doing things wrong but won't suggest a different wording. You're saying that I'm using "weasel words" but won't help me find a way around it. Sure, maybe you're a proud proponent of individuality, but you can look at my edits and tell that I'm still new here if you cared enough to, but from your conduct thus far you seem to only care about tearing me down for the argument I put forth. --Dookama 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because something is longstanding doesn't mean it isn't belittling. I've noticed that experienced members tend to alienate new members by, say, skirting the issue when someone obviously asks for a little bit of help. I can think of at least one glaring example of that. --Dookama 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
How about something along the lines of "When confronted with the opinion that Bomis supplied soft-core pornography, he opined that blah blah blah"? With Wired News as a source for it [2]. --Dookama 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
So first I'm wording things wrong and now it just "doesn't need to be in there"? Sounds like you're just trying to push a POV. I think it should be included since the wording that was used in the article when I first got here was Wales' wording -- but wasn't attributed to Wales. I think it's misleading to include one POV in one part, then go on in another part to say that there's controversy around the subject. You simply shouldn't state something as fact in one place and state it as refuted in another -- it's uneven and sloppy and repeating yourself is better. --Dookama 16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see any correlation between wanting agreement between two parts of an article and being new (or at least relatively inexperienced -- I think I've been here long enough for new to not apply, but I'm far too casual to be anything but inexperienced). The way that Bomis was handled in the article was awful when I first looked at it -- Wales' words were used but weren't attributed to him (I've tried putting a citation for those quotes in in the past, but that was taken out -- I know very little about formatting citations, so I assume format was the issue since the quotes were in what I cited, at least secondarily), things were stated as fact under Career but were refuted under Controversy (or whatever the section's called) -- so I'm trying to get it fixed. --Dookama 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I ask for a little input instead of just reverting my edit. --Dookama 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I put something on the talk page for Jimmy Wales. Please provide your input there. --Dookama 01:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
One more time, I ask that you comment on removal and try to compromise instead being immovable with regards to Bomis and Jimmy Wales. Here's a compromise — we could remove any description of Bomis from the Careers section and I could work on the Bomis section under Controversy. How does that sound?
However, I do ask that you leave the removal up to me so that the article does shift into its former POV state. --Dookama 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I made some minor changes to Jimmy Wales in a sandbox. I'm asking for your input and QuackGuru's input before implementing. You can make changes to the sandbox as you see fit or leave comments on my talk page. I think it's a decent compromise. --Dookama 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I once again ask you to review some changes I've made in a sandbox and tell me if you think it's a good compromise. I also invite you to make whatever changes you think are appropriate to the sandbox. I'm trying to get a feel for what you think would be NPOV — you have more experience than I do and interpret it differently, so I'm hoping for input. --Dookama 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of it. I'm taking a bit of time to formulate my thoughts for that, though I do intend to participate. Risker 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind note. Really, criticism of Wikipedia is all too easy to find in the media, so third-party sources are available for almost anything in the article. Some self-referential stuff is unavoidable, such as diffs to show how a particular Wikipedia article changed over time. The blockquotes don't bother me. I really like that gem about Larry King, for instance. Casey Abell 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Your consistent reversion of QuackGuru's edit there is only harmful to the community if you don't provide a reason for your reversion somewhere (and just calling it spam won't fly — show me why it's spam). Instead of labeling it as spam and removing it, why not comment on it and try to sway the consensus away from QuackGuru's side, if the consensus was even on his side to begin with? Maybe move it to where you think it goes and leave a note where it is now forwarding people to where you put it? --Dookama 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It is spam -- spewing a duplicate reposting of all the links he's been collecting on his talk page isn't a discussion. You'll have to pardon me if I don't find your claims of "harmful to the community" particularly convincing when it comes to Quack's nonsense. --LeflymanTalk 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Since they're no longer on his talk page, I think it's best to assume he used his talk page as a sandbox while compiling links for his argument. --Dookama 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
He'd been gathering those links since the beginning of the month to support an ongoing POV campaign; they don't belong at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. --LeflymanTalk 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying that you should at least make a remark on his user talk page when you remove something like that after you've been having problems with QuackGuru for a while -- especially when someone other than QuackGuru reverts your edit. If you don't think that what he's saying belongs where he put it, either move it yourself or remove it and tell him on his talk page, "Hey, that might be better off in Talk:Jimmy Wales or Talk:Larry Sanger. I removed it from Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia because I don't think it belongs there — please don't put it back there. It would be seen by more people who would care at another article where it's more relevant." Or something. Say aaaaaanything at all to him. I don't care if you say, "I think you're a waste of server space. Keep that out of my Wikipedia." At least then you'd be communicating — something I've found you to be wary to do in my dealings with you regarding Jimmy Wales. --Dookama 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, but I'm making it a policy not to further feed trollish behaviour. I've been more than adequately responsive on this, as well as your continuing interest in editing Wales's bio. As for the "someone other than QuackGuru" who reverted my edit -- the tendentious C.m.jones (talk·contribs·logs) is not exactly one whose familiarity with Wikipedia norms is highly regarded.--LeflymanTalk 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess I can understand where you're coming from, I just don't see not working on a compromise — but that's what you want to do and you're doing it, so I have to respect that. And I haven't dealt with C.m.jones, so I don't know anything about what their behavior would show. --Dookama 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
IRC cloak request
I am leflyman on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Leflyman. Thanks. --LeflymanTalk 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
3RR
My comment was mainly in respect to the staleness of the report (i.e. over a day). Yes I agree with BLP and the invalidation of 3RR and probably wouldn't have taken action had it been an active edit war. John Reaves(talk) 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
