User talk:Leflyman/Archive5

Post replies to my main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Next archival selection is User_talk:Leflyman/Archive6.

Thanks!

Hi. Just a note to say thanks for the Lost Barnstar. It's a little tricky trying to stay spoiler-free (being in the UK), but I'll continue to monitor the main article. Chris 42 17:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A down moment...

Left this on Danflave's user page, too:

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 05:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An idle question

Did you find Valenzetti because I added links & a cat to it, or did you stumble across it from outside Wikipedia as I had? (And I'm very concerned that there's a perception amongst the ARG crowd that Wikipedia is fair game for use in their fictions.) -- llywrch 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope - sorry . . .

...not Javi, just a big fan. Hence the Middle Man stuff :) The name is an OSC ref though.

PS - was my Middle Man article okay? It was my first. - S

Thanks! Great advice! I don't have time right now, but when I do I might come crawling back for assistance. Because I'd like to make it more wikified.

I also have another article I'm working on that's not posted yet, so it'll help with that too. Thanks again! - S

Thanks! You rule. And you may assume, but I can't confirm. :) - S

Dude, that looks a LOT better - thanks! - S

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Leflyman/Archive5, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 05:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet/impersonator

Hey, Leflyman. Sorry for the late response — I was away for a couple of days dealing with real life stuff (sort of an unscheduled wikibreak). It does look to me like User:LeFIyman is an account intended to impersonate you, and could be blocked indefinitely. Would you like me to take care of it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. (Actually, I did it a while back but got distracted while leaving this message, and only just noticed that I hadn't posted it!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The LostNav template

Hey there Leflyman, 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 | ) 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please include your reasoning on AfD for Valenzetti

Hi Leflyman. First of all, I didn't perform a strict vote count. For this difficult AfD, I had to look at the comments and match them up the the article content at the time of the vote (some seemed to refer to an alternate version that referred to a theory of some sort). Second, I provided my reasoning in the AfD when I closed it (where the article underwent a significant change in topic from when it was first nominated, and some of the earlier delete votes were based on the original topic). Third, even if I were to perform a strict vote count according to your reasoning, 12 deletes to 5 keeps means a 70% consensus to delete, which is insufficient for delete. In order for an article to be deleted, there needs to be an 80% consensus to delete. Oh, and fourth, I removed the last trace of advertising from the article. All that's left is a stub. As someone more experience with Lost articles, perhaps you could find a good place to merge and redirect this content to, as that doesn't require an AfD to do. I've pretty much come as close to deleting this article as I can without actually deleting it, know what I mean? :-P --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a very good reason not for posting a number, and that is because this number isn't fixed. Some AfD closers have different standards, but even so, this number isn't fixed. When I say 80%, that actually isn't strictly true either, because I don't usually perform strict vote counts in contentious AfDs. Generally, I use the 80% figure as a guideline (this is a historical number for consensus), and look at the weight of the arguments. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I hope I've sufficiently answered your questions. Oh, and go ahead and merge the article to wherever you wish. This article is too stubby as it is anyway. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "historical" wasn't the exact word I'm looking for... :-P --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Troup

Gary Troup (Lost) was created and I suggest we merge Bad Twin (searches could be redirected) and Valenzetti into it. Could you please comment? Coffeeboy 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Han Solo of the Hanso Foundation

You had said in wiki talk on the Hanso Foundation page about the similarity between han solo and hanso. I put a connection between the two in the trivia section you might be interested in.

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.

Warning

This is your last warning. The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Leflyman, it's quite simple: no matter how much you disagree with the nomination of an article for deletion, it is quite thoroughly against policy for you to revert a notice out of existence. It is such basic policy that (a) it's put in the template itself and (b) they invented an entire class of warnings for the action. Furthermore, the idea of individual editors having the authority to decide on their own judgment whether another editor's nomination of an AfD is "proper" or "improper" is ... unwieldly at best, to put it as politely as I can, and most definitely not existing Wikipedia policy. — Mike 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See: Guide to deletion:

"The nomination, however, must be in good faith. Nominations that are clearly vandalism may be discarded."

The mass nominations for deletion by the user above are a form of vandlism.--Leflyman^Talk 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, which seems to be assuming bad faith. — Mike 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

From Assume good faith:

"Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith."

—Leflyman^Talk 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I had addressed your comment a day or two ago in greater detail where you first brought it, on my talk page, in more detail. Or, we could just drop it and agree to disagree. — Mike •  10:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of "prior"

Apologies, I didn't spot that it was you who amended my edit. I may be wrong on this, but as far as I can see, "prior" can only be used when followed by either a noun (as in "a prior condition"), or "to" (as in "prior to current events"). I've checked on this dictionary website, and those are the only uses stated. If not, then I've learnt something! :-) Chris 42 16:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: The MediaWiki/Wikimedia Edits in the AfDs

I appreciate the edits in that they made me look more sensible, but you may not want to adopt it as a common practice. See WP:TPG: "As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning." As I said, I don't mind in this case, but in such situations it's probably better to post a comment follow-up directly beneath the item containing the error. — Mike •  00:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

I am fully aware of the fact that they have been discussed though the article is still missing citations in order to achieve the GA status therefore I was intending to help you guys find the places to add the citations next in order to gain time in the GA promotion. Plus other comments were added to the talk page, on the account of the GA nomination. Hope these easily modifiable things can be taken care of so the article gets its GA status. Lincher 00:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let your compass guide you

Thanx for the redirected merge. I like I said, I know nothing about the show. Since the other page you linked to seems to have all the info, I'd recommend speedydelete tag. I don't want to do it myself, because like I said I am not involved in the show in any way... -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

It's always gratifying when I see someone jump in to remind people about Wikipedia civility, in cases where they've stepped over the line. And when those people are in the process of being uncivil to me (as in "what the hell is your problem?" <grin>), I'm extra gratified. Thank you! -- PKtm 05:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

ah-ha! The other Collins scholar!

Hello, hello!

I just saw that you added a photo to the Seward Collins page. Are the mysterious indidivdual who did the entry in the first place and then keeps adding material?

I'd love to compare notes with you. I'm the Michael Tucker who did the book on Collins and somehow got mentioned in the Wik-piece on him. Give me a shout when you get a chance.

Delighted to meet what may be the only other person in America with an interest in the SC!

cheers

Michael Jay Tucker mjt57@verizon.net

3RR warning on Zionist political violence

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Zionist political violence. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

Youre the one who is reverting my change without any discussion whatseoever. Anyway, be well. Ulritz 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reversions of repeated content vandalism are not counted. --Leflyman^Talk 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I see you've received warnings before. As a reminder, please accustom youself with the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:NPOV policies before you accuse me of vandalism again. Please stop trolling my talk page with invalid warnings, which will be removed. In good faith I will give you the benefit of the doubt and inform you that I am on my 2nd revert of a completely unsubstantiated revert, without any attempt at discussion. Ulritz 20:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• User is Edit warring at multiple articles --Leflyman^Talk 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost spoiler tags?

excess repeated spoiler-tags; already noted at top

Where? — Mike • 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Office Space

I've posted a reply about the trivia at Office Space, and rereverted accordingly. Don't shoot me, I'm just the janitor. Deizio talk 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused. This is an offical policy. Deizio talk 23:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Closing of AfD

You are correct. In my mind I was thinking "no consensus between the keeps and the merges" and it was silly of me to type it out as "no consensus" (between keeps and deletes) on multiple pages. I have changed the closing accordingly. Kimchi.sg 16:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

hello, hello, and Seward Collins

Hello, hello!

I'm the Michael Jay Tucker that you communicated with on the discussion page of the Seward Collins.

Thanx hugely for the remarks and I see your points about original research, etc. Well said and well put. Do you think I ought to remove the comment completely? I wouldn't mind editing it out of existence so long as that, in turn, didn't violate some other point Wikpedia protocol.

cheers

Michael Jay Tucker mtucker57@yahoo.com