User talk:Leflyman/Archive9

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.

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/Archive10

LOST lead

This is article is great on the whole... but the lead paragraph is quite clearly written from a director's perspective, or that of an avid fan for whom every minute detail is colossal. Most of the original contributors of tis article where avid fans who know all the details behind the scenes whereas most articles on dramas simply depict the plot. The current lead immediately delves into the whos'e-who in the directorship and which, what how many brass pieces they where awarded with. We need to see more about the plot in the lead. Please discuss. frummer 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with WP:LEAD and WP:GTL. Let me reiterate without and copying and pasting anything. The lead simply delves into details of the production of the drama which does not conform to these guidelines. PP and FAC doesn't warrant locking the page. PP and FAC simply means the article gained recognition. I make a valid point and it stands to improve. Cheers. frummer 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Lost (TV series)#LEAD

Thank you for your participation

Hi Leflyman, Thank you for participating in my RfA. I also thank you for your comment on my talk page. You mention that you opposed primarily because of the ArbCom case. I first want to say that I didn't take your oppose personally. However, since you brought it up, I thought I would answer you here. I didn't make a statement in the ArbCom case (at least not yet) because I really don't have much to say, and I'm not sure in what way my statement would be beneficial to the community. I hope it is not interpretted as a snub to the ArbCom, because it in not intended as such. I have made statements on the evidence page, that I think are useful. I think they are useful because (imho) they add balance to what are otherwise very adversarial, and consequently one sided, allegations. I think I am assisting ArbCom by providing what little concise, balanced information I can provide. In accepting the case, one of the arbitrators suggested that we should continue to try to resolve the issues outside of ArbCom, and I have been attempting to do that. (I would be happy to provide you diffs). Adding (in my opinion unnecessary) allegations in a statement would not help that effort. With regard to the stalking allegation made against me, I did respond to that allegation in a statement in the RfA [1]. I haven't responded in the ArbCom case, because the party who raised that allegation has not yet provided any evidence. I hope that helps you to understand the choices I have made so far in this matter. If you have concerns that are still unsettled, I would be more than happy to discuss this with you further. I wish you well. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I normally respond to notes on my talk to notes left there, but I think that you may be getting more than one of these so here it is:

I'm not stalking you or anything, but I notice that you've responded to both of the people who had contributed to the RfC so far. Your responses are all appropiate, and I'm in agreement with much of what you say. But the point of a forum is to keep discussion in one place. I' recomend you summarie your last couple of talk page notes and add them to the RfC.

In fact the forum is intended as a "last resort" and I don't see that the other, err, resorts have been used up: You least are plenty ready to talk. This can be handled at a "lower level," as it were.

brenneman 05:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've violated my normal talk-page routine I'm totally at a loss... but anyway, press ahead. I've added a non-standard section to the page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nandesuka#Desired_outcome_of_the_request_for_comment. Put the things you said on my and A's talk here, compressed down a bit. That will help a lot actually. - brenneman 05:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

~~you may want to speak to User:Justforasecond. Nandesuka blocked him for a month for 'disruption', G e o. 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)~~ he left wikipedia. G e o. 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, another dazzling victory for Team Jayg. Are you next, Leflyman? 19:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alienus again

Don't you find it odd that there are several IP's editing the Patrecia Scott article, and none of them has more than a few other edits? It has been confirmed that User:Alienus is using Tor to bypass his ban by generating new IP addresses, and that he uses these to undo edits from users he dislikes (primarily me). LaszloWalrus 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag on Responsibility assumption

I have added references as requested by user Crosbiesmith via the "who" flag in the "Total responsiblity" section of this article. Does this revision meet your concerns, as expressed by the "Original research|article" flag you placed on the article? WikiLen 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will leave the flag on and work to source the other stuff... WikiLen 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Outcome of the Request for Comment

A request for comment is intended to give feedback to various users concerning their actions. This particular RfC did not have enough community input for anyone to draw strong conclusions. That being said, I think you should take something away from the somewhat tepid community response to your accusations.

The editing pattern of the anonymous contributor of the Objectivism articles (and let's be clear, I think it's obvious to all involved parties that he is singular) was and is unacceptable. Defending Wikipedia against this sort of behavior is absolutely within the purview of any administrator, and indeed of any logged in editor. Looking back at the history of the Ayn Rand Institute article, I see that in nearly every case I was reverting the anonymous user, who I and a number of other admins believe in good faith to be Alienus; even if he is not Alienus, he is still an anonymous user who is using Tor to hide his edit history to make the exact same edits that Alienus made when he was a user, and thus is subject to be treated in the same way. I do see at least one edit where I rolled back Buridan (who rolled back Laszlo, who was rolling back the sockpuppet). That's the one edit I saw that I made that was questionable, and I'd avoid doing that again.

I understand that you think I have an axe to grind, or am supporting a particular POV, but all I can do is assure you that I do not: I find the vagaries of such political pettiness to be boring beyond tolerance. I will continue to revert sockpuppet edits on these and other articles, and I will continue to semi-protect on articles where this user continues to, in his own words, "go vigilante".

You've made quite a show of demanding that I assume good faith of someone who, through his actions, has demonstrated egregious bad faith. Now it's your turn to assume good faith of the longtime contributors and administrators who have a track record of working hard to act in the encyclopedia's best interests.

I did not and will not criticize you for filing a request for comments. You got your comments. Now I would like to see you internalize them and accept that, in this particular matter, your judgment was mistaken. I urge you to join us, put aside the short-sighted legal positivism, and help defend Wikipedia from those who would use us as a soapbox, be they logged in users or anonymous. That would be a truly happy outcome from this RfC. Nandesuka 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Response at User_talk:Nandesuka#Re:_Your_comments

I was one of those who told you so. Your RFC never stood a chance and now you're on Nandesuka's enemy list and can expect preferentially negative treatment at his hands. You heard him: the official policy is that anyone who opposes LazsloWalrus is guilty until proven innocent of being Alienus, even though it's impossible to prove innocence without losing anonymity. You see, Nandesuka has a crystal ball and magically knows these things. Likewise, using Wikipedia as a soapbox is strictly limited to Objectivists, and will not be permitted for those who want articles to be uncensored. At this point, the best you can do is make more request for page unprotects, since he has no legitimate basis for those. He's kept some pages on ice for months at a time, making a mockery of the claim that anyone can edit Wikipedia and, not so coincidentally, making things easier for LazsloWalrus and other Objectivist zealots. Well, now you know why we "anons" have chosen to remain anonymous. The system is rotten, so we work outside the system to do what will not. 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.183.71 (talk • contribs)

To be honest, I'm really not interested in hearing your "I told you so" or insistence that you are being mistreated as a sockpuppet. My position was neutral as to whether you are or aren't the banned editor formerly-known-as Alienus -- I asked for evidence of such a claim. My primary concerns are that over-diligence in "protecting" Wikipedia from perceived anonymous troublemakers such as yourself, very quickly becomes oppressive to other editors. My closing comments to the long tirade you left in the now deleted RfC were that I frankly couldn't see any positive reason why you haven't registered-- since having a visible IP is just asking for a traceroute and identification as a Tor-user. I think you might rather enjoy the disruptive reversion war that you and LaszloWalrus generate. --Leflyman^Talk 19:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even one of the people who reverts LazsloWalrus. There are enough of those already, and I'm content to let them do their work without my help. Rather, my goal is to watch and document admim abuses by some of the very worst. If I did this while logged in, I would surely be abused into quitting Wikipedia, just like Alienus and Justforasecond, among many, many others. The nature of Wikipedia is that, once you're identified as a troublemaker, none of the rules apply, and admins will use any excuse to make your life miserable until editing becomes pointless. As you've probably seen, the key is to keep blocking such users for extended periods on trumped up charges, stalking them until they finally give up. In Nandesuka's mind, all of his actions are justified under the banner of stalking what he believes to be Alienus, even when it means breaking the rules by sprotecting pages for weeks everytime LazsloWalrus is having trouble successfully censoring all the Rand articles. The intended goal here is to have a chilling effect on free speech, and it works. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt, but this is the simple truth, stated plainly. When free speech is outlawed, only we outlaws have free speech. 70.225.161.193 20:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My feelings aren't hurt; I'm just finding you increasingly annoying-- which is apparently the effect you have on multiple editors. I think you can give up on the pretense of being more than one person -- unless you suffer from dissociative identity disorder. From the textual pattern, it's fairly clear that the numerous IPs are a singular individual. Whether you are or aren't Alienus is of no interest to me. If you were to have a registered account, you would have already had enough substantial edits to be given the benefits of trust; however, you choose to continue naked IP editing, which immediately leads to the suspicions of sockpuppetry by already suspicious individuals. There's no "intended goal" here -- it's a gut reaction to being faced with repeat actions by anonymous IPs who edit the same article. Consider this: your aim of getting particular points across would have already been solved had you merely provided the sources for content you felt should be included. The persecution complex you seem to exhibit is unbecoming.--Leflyman^Talk 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon me for sticking with my first-hand knowledge over your brilliant detective work (or were you just sharing Nandesuka's crystal ball?). If you want to play detective, dig a bit in the right place. Start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justforasecond&oldid=76534315

International broadcasters

Hello Leflyman, I was hoping you'd be willing to comment at Talk:Lost (TV series)#International broadcasters concerning this consensus issue. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrary.

I have been told that messages like them were to be removed. Some of my early messages have been removed, and I accept that. When I see racist or sexist comments, they have to be removed. I have read in the help pages, and also have been told that messages like them must be removed. I didn't remove them because I hate Krune, I removed them simply because of their offensive content. I urge you to read them before this situation gets out of hand. Acalamari 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, check the history of the pages I edited. Acalamari 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism if the messages are rude. I've read that. However, I recently wrote on Mr. ChrisGriswold's talk page that I will revert my removals if asked to. If I'm told not to revert them, then someone else can. I didn't vandalize, or intend to vandalize. Acalamari 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Please understand that this is not ChrisGriswold's fault, no matter what he said. It's my fault: I was the one who removed the messages because of their content. ChrisGriswold should not have any punishment for this at all. It is my fault, not his. I was removing some of the messages before I asked him about them. Don't take this out on him: it is my fault. Acalamari 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the edits you mentioned on the noticeboard, Krune's edit to Talk: Elizabeth (film), you say was fine. The last time I looked commenting on what the film is about does not belong on talk pages. No one should care what someone thinks of a film: talk pages are to discuss the article, not the subject. Also, do not accuse me of bad faith. I'm not giving out any accusations here. Acalamari 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed that comment, but at the time I was scouting for Krune's messages. I was going to take another look at that one later to review it...but I haven't had that chance because you've already brought the topic up. For that, I thank you. Acalamari 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't revert my mistake. I just had to go and do it. Acalamari 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Acalamari 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It was an urgent revert: I made a serious mistake and I had to correct it. Acalamari 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. The reason I used that edit summary was because I wanted anyone who saw edit to know that I had made a mistake. Acalamari 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Things seemed to have paused for some reason. This hasn't been settled yet. Acalamari 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You might have already seen it, but I have offered to use my talk page as a place to discuss this issue. The trouble with the noticeboard is that it is a long page, and takes times to load. Others users (including other administrators) can still link to my talk page to discuss this. My talk page is also a much smaller page compared to the noticeboard. Acalamari 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nothing seems to be going on at that discussion at the moment, which was another reason why I suggested my talk page. However, I understand what you said; but I will leave the option there, just in case. After all, it's because of me we're in this mess. Acalamari 21:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the dicussion on the noticeboard has been archived, and it hadn't brought much attention anyway. What is going to happen now? Acalamari 19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Your really ought to begin a discussion for your Khamaseen/Hamsin merge. Another editor is liable to remove the merge templates because it is not being discussed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It didn't take "wikistalking" to see that you hadn't actually conducted a merge discussion despite tagging two articles. I only saw your recent talk page comment, which was in an old section, because Acalamari responded to it. I checked your contribs to see if you had carried the talk to his talk page again, and there were your two merge edits with no related talk page edit. It was pretty simple. But seriously, editors frequently delete these tags when the editor who added them neglected to start a discussion.

As for deleting user pages, you might find Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#User pages informative. I have not been able to find anything against the practice. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your query

User talk pages should not be deleted except in rare circumstances, such as the right to disappear, if the user is definitely leaving and not returning (although even that is disputed by several admins); serious harassment; legal threats; posting of personal details and similar. The presumption is always in favor of retaining talk pages because they mostly contain posts from other users, not posts from the user whose page it is — unlike the user page, which will have been edited mostly by the user himself. I would say that, while an admin might delete his own user page, he probably shouldn't delete his own talk page, unless there is very serious abuse on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what the criticism was about or who it was from, so I can read it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you post a query about it on AN/I. He deleted 1614 edits from his talk page after archiving it, but it's unlikely there were that number of edits sufficiently abusive. If it's posted to AN/I, he'll be able to explain why he did it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)