User talk:PKtm/Archive 2

I looked through the keeps and deletes, and found that there were some Keeps from wikipedia. I think that consensus should be over majority, and I did not find that. There is not enough reason for its delete or keep, I will propose to try another AfD tonight. WikieZach| talk 20:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You wrote the following:

"there was an external campaign mounted on a fan site to get people to come and vote, so nearly all the "Keep" votes that were cast were done so by people who'd basically never been to Wikipedia before, and who had no clue about how it differs from a fan site."

Is this against wikipedia policy? I know of one case were a user was booted for "AfD vote-stacking" (AKA "spamming") users. [1]

He was quickly unbooted by another user for the stated reason: "mispresentation of WP policy by blocker". Please see the debate about this unblock here: User_talk:Cyde/Archive005#On_that_matter.

Further at: Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette this entry states it is "okay" to message other users to share their opinion.

I think that wikipolicy allows others to encourage others to share their opinion (i.e. vote) on AfDs. If this is incorrect, can you please state the wikipolicy? Travb (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem, you deserve it! SergeantBolt 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, I've been giving a lot of thought to the consensus issue, truly. I still disagree with you about whether or not consensus exists, but I've been trying to think of how else we might test this, since we haven't had any luck getting a mediator. What I was thinking was this: In your view, the season articles should stay, and the episode articles should get deleted, right? So about how we submit one of the episode articles for deletion via AfD, and get opinions that way? It'll be a good way to get other opinions, to have a community debate, and get a clear admin ruling. I'd be willing to abide by whatever the decision was, and apply it to the other episodes as well. Would you be willing to agree with that? If so, we could post the suggestion on the mediation page, and if the others sign off as well, we'd have a way out of this logjam.  :) --Elonka 20:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the creative suggestion, but I'm very opposed. We don't need "other opinions" on a very narrow slice of the issue here, as in "how about we delete this one episode". You'll get tons of people, justifiably, simply wondering why we'd want to delete a perfectly good article, and hardly any of them will read the already overwhelming discussion that exists about the underlying issues here. This would be an excellent way of bolstering your side, especially with respect to your view that majority opinion should prevail, but a) I can predict the outcome; and b) I don't think it would further any of the season article people's sense that it's the correct outcome.

We need a mediator. Why the heck can't we seem to get one? -- PKtm 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, if it would help, I'd be willing to submit *all* the episodes for deletion, all at once? It's a roll of the dice, but I'm willing to risk it, to try and move forward. --Elonka 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW, does this mean that Thatcher is not acceptable to you as a mediator? --Elonka 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey there... I noticed the vandalism warning you placed on the talk page of User:Tomshatto, while I was checking to see if any such warnings had been made. The reason I was checking was because I had come across another incidence of his vandalism, on the Black People article, and I thought you'd be the person to report it to. I have reverted his offensive edit, however a look at his edit history seems to suggest he could be problematic in the future... Just so you know anyway!

All the best,

Aidan

NaLaochra 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yep, he's quite a charmer indeed, isn't he? I bet he's quite a hit with the ladies... they can't resist his racist, homophobic and (no doubt) sexist remarks, so they're all over him... once they get their money, that is! Haha. Cheers for the heads up about the warnings messages! All the best NaLaochra 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi I was wondering why you deleted the constellation info in the Lost mythos article. It was cited from an official Lost website. Journeyman 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, the fan stuff wasn't mine. The Yahoo7 site is the official site for the Australian broadcast of LOST. I assume they get their content straight from ABC. Journeyman 00:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

PKtm, I wanted to say thank you for your participation in the mediation. I am glad that we came to a resolution, and I look forward to working together with you in the future, towards our common goal of high quality Lost articles.  :) --Elonka 06:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Reply

Are you on Lostpedia? --Iron Chef 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, you just share a name with another memeber of Lostpedia. Namaste --Iron Chef 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

As discussed widely, it's a DualDisc. Pepso 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it hasn't been discussed here on Wikipedia Lost talk pages, and my view is that that's Original Research. The specifics of the disc are not evident to the casual viewer. The key thing is that it's a CD, not a vinyl record as it was for the opening of the second season. -- PKtm 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you reconsider your confrontational approach at Elonka's RfA, or at least make a greater effort to do the research before erroneously calling statements "unfactual". Her contributions to the two FAs mentioned by her nominator were minimal, yet people were citing the FAs as reasons for support. If you think it is inappropriate to point out the simple and verifiable fact that her contributions to those FAs were small, then I don't think you understand how RfA should work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, do you use MSN Messenger/Windows Live Messenger :-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, just realised i typed "reply." in the summary I type it to much :P! — Anyway i've added you if you'd like to talk (from MSN: matthew@derwafflehaus.net) ;-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your strong support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful, but I was very touched by your comments. They meant even more to me, knowing how far we've come from our earlier interactions at the Lost articles. I am honored to be a co-member of the Wikipedia team with you, and look forward to future cooperation in our common goal of improving Wikipedia. --Elonka 09:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

PKtm,

I've decided that my pointed talk page comments, while carefully crafted to avoid technically violating WP:NPA, have outlived any constructive purpose they might have served. I must say, on October 27, I was tempted to write an actual snotty personal attack, just so it could be correctly identified as such. But I thought better of that idea, and wrote the path-wandering line instead.

On October 24, when I was stumbling over my own keyboard with grammar and spelling, I happened to notice that you quietly stepped in, to unobtrusively repair one of my spelling errors that I had missed. [2] My text that you fixed was an admonition of conduct you were involved in that I found objectionable. I remember feeling pleasantly surprised by this. I choose to see it as a small act of goodwill, however subtle it may have been.

I am now ready to up the ante. I am amending my path-wandering comment, which was itself a snarkily-amended version of the accusatory ravings comment. Here is the final version:

I sometimes get a little itchy when I see a discussion turn bitter.

PKtm, I apologize for the tone of both earlier versions of that comment. --Loqi T. 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here is the conversation, before [3], and after [4]. --Loqi T. 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear PKtm,

On October 30, in the Lostpedia AfD2, a comment by 195.173.23.111 was edited by Elonka. [5] This passage was removed by her, on ground that it was a personal attack: "Matthew Fenton has been shown as a bad faith editor who, having been blocked on Lostpedia for his behavior, appears to be looking for vengeance through Wikipedia."

Contrast that passage with your October 24 statement: "On the very same day that he voted for a Strong Keep here, he submitted 30+ AfD nominations, all of which, coincidentally, were for articles initiated by MatthewFenton. Clearly retaliatory, not to mention an example of WP:POINT."

The principal difference between these two passages (aside from who they're directed at) seems to be 111's language about Mr. Fenton's "having been shown" to be a bad faith editor, while your passage says Yaksha has been "clearly" engaging in bad-faith activities. 111 seems to be alluding (accurately) to Mr. Fenton's having been disciplined at Lostpedia, while you seem to be asserting your own interpretation about Yaksha's recent edit history.

I hope you can think of something constructive to do with this.

Loqi T. 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Reply

Dear PKtm,

Over the past months we have had a long series of contentious dialogue together. That is in the past. I will try to avoid bringing those days up again. If I perceive new abuses, I will respond appropriately, which might include talking about the past. Otherwise, I hope we can move ahead in a better direction.

It's understandable that when you first encountered me, you might have dealt with me as a garden variety link spammer. I fit the profile perfectly, as you alluded to here. That was then, this is now. In the future, you might be well served by Hanlon's Razor.

With regard to your provocative statements of the past, I have noticed several patterns. You have tended to be quick with the personal attack accusation. Paradoxically, you have also been quick to attack the character or standing of others. You might want to look into that. If you notice a trail of prickly relations, it might be time to re-evaluate your style. If you find that the style of the past doesn't fit well with the culture around you, please consider being bold by experimenting with new ways of relating. If you feel safe enough to say something nasty, you probably feel safe enough to experiment with new, more constructive ways of saying it. Be bold, but don't bite the newbies. Your first message to me was to the kind of newbie who hits the ground running. Not everyone is as tough as I am. Please take reasonable precautions against breaking people.

When I speak, I try to imagine it could be the last thing i'll ever say: it might be, especially in a setting like this. Even today, I'm not making assumptions about your motivations, when I say that intentionally misquoting someone else's words is almost never okay. Only you can say why you did what you did, but if you choose to say nothing about your motivations, we are left to our own assumptions.

I must say I am disappointed that the two of us haven't reached an amicable resolution (yet), but I have said all I need to. I am now explicitly taking off the pressure for you to address the problems of the past. I won't bring those problems up again. I am fairly content with where things are between us at this moment. But I do hope you'll try to patch up any problems you might have with others. Even if they say they aren't personally hurt, harm might have been done to the community we're trying to build here.

Most of all, I hope neither of us has to flinch when we see the other coming. I look forward to productively working beside you in any area of common interest. If you'd like to talk, publicly or privately, my door is open to you.

Sincerely,

Loqi T. 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to let you know that I pointed the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination) to your comments calling the validity of that AfD and his judgement in closing it into question. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I didn't notify him as a substitute for debating the issue. I just feel it's dishonest to make accusations behind someone's back. I have reviewed them, in detail, and seen the evidence. I'll be following up with specific diffs. And I'm glad you've finally admitted that you don't assume AGF, I haven't seen evidence that you ever have. And I disagree with calling it "my" site, I'm only one of thousands who use it, including yourself, right? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you don't want to see the diffs I won't post them (nice touch labling them "pointless" before you've seen them, good to see you're open minded as ever). But your last reply is a good example of what's wrong with your point of view - you lump together everyone who has supported the inclusion of Lostpedia as if all those people have secretly organized behind the scenes as part of some great conspiracy. There are definitely individuals who have reached a point where AGF is out of the question. But just because someone happens to share one opinion with a 'bad" user isn't reason to assume that every person with that opinion shares the same motives. "Filibustering" and "wearing people down" is just a negative spin on a disagreement lasting a long time. If a dispute last months, then both sides are guilty of making that happen. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply