User talk:Leflyman/Archive6

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/Archive7.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clandestine (mud)

Hi.

I thought about this a lot before deleting. I'm happy to analyse it. Here's my reasoning:

1. Weight of 'votes'. The following users voted to 'delete'.

• • Travelbird (nominated the article)
  • Bugwit
  • Nick Y.
  • GassyGuy
  • WinHunter

• • Windflare, who has never edited anything except this AfD
  • OneThousandYears, who has only made one edit outside this AfD

Total: 7, 5 experienced voters amongst the 7.

The following users voted to 'keep':

• • Aguerriero, a strong contributor
  • Leflyman, a strong contributor

• • Blackrazer, who claims authorship [1]. He has never edited any article on wikipedia other than the subject article and its AfD.
  • Ascarislepis, who has never edited anything except this AfD.
  • JaquesDeMolay, who has never edited anything except this AfD.
  • Anon IP 71.197.57.236, who has never contributed anything other than this vote
  • Anon IP 71.86.197.108, who has never edited anything except this AfD.
  • Anon IP 69.170.2.76 (who voted twice). This IP has never edited anything except Clandestine and this AfD. The IP appears to belong to Donathin [2]

Total: 8, with 2 experienced users among the voters

If I may be allowed to weigh the opinion of the broadly experienced users, it's clear that the consensus is 'delete'. Those who are voting 'keep' are those who are associated with the article.

2. The article was rewritten. The original version was too much like an advertisement. The user who claims authorship originally stated that the article is, or should have been, the product of the subject's advertising staff.

After the rewrite, GassyGuy still questions its inclusion. [3] The basis for deletion is, ultimately, notability. Originally it read a little too much like an advertisement, but I believe that the final version is much better.

I'm happy for it to be taken to a deletion review if you disagree. - Richardcavell 06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

check user is your friend

FYI, I filed WP:RCU. Next time you can do it too :)). Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

hello, hello!

Hi,

I just got your message on Collins. Thanx hugely for letting the discussion comment stand.

Oh, and I'm embarrassed. You mentioned an email on my book. I either didn't get, or more likely, misplaced your email. What did you ask?

Sorry. Brain death comes early in my family.

cheers

mjt

List of Star Wars ships/Star Wars ship names

Hello, Leflyman. I've noticed your comments on the crushing landslide on the AfD for Star Wars ship names. I have promptly moved all of it to List of Star Wars ships, and have added a redirect from the deleted page to the newer page. I am working very hard to try to make it a good article. I'm adding context for EVERY ship and SOURCES! I hope you'll be glad to hear that!

I'm not sure if you're a Star Wars fan, but if you are, please contribute!

Cheers!!

RelentlessRouge 20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper

Your application has been approved. Please let me know it you have problems getting it running. --Chris (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Userfication of My Essays

Leflyman, please do not userify my essays. If you feel such an action is appropriate, I suggest you place my essays into the MfD process with your initial vote being one of "userfy." If you are doing so because you have observed the dialogue between PT and I with regards to his personal essays, I would ask that you note that he userfied his essays by his own choice, prior to engaging in a mediation process he initiated and I am voluntarily participating in. — Mike (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• {snipped} Reply at 'User talk:WCityMike#Personal essay userfication

I have done some searching for appropriate policy that governs the two issues of (a) when essays belong in Wikipedia namespace and when they belong in userspace and (b) nonconsensual userification. I was not able to turn up appropriate policy to cite with regard to the first item, so I have posted an inquiry with the administrators, without naming your name or the articles involved or seeking their intervention in our disagreement. My inquiry has been posted here. I'm more than willing to see if we can clarify whether there exists policy or consensus about essays not belonging in the Wikipedia namespace, and I'm willing to voluntarily comply with said policy or consensus. As it stands, with all due respect, I don't believe your opinion currently reflects the state of community opinion on the subject.

With regard to nonconsensual userfication, I refer you to WP:MM#Cross-namespace moves, which states: "Generally speaking, other types of cross-namespace moves will be controversial and worth discussing with other editors. Wikipedia:Requested moves is the proper place for this. However, when proposing to move what appears to be an article out of the main namespace, it is strongly recommended that some form of Wikipedia:Deletion process should be used, preferably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion don't build consensus. This is because the redirect that is created by such a move is subject to speedy deletion, which would effectively cause the article to be deleted from the main encyclopedia."

Going back to whether personal essays on Wikipedia policy belong in Wikipedia namespace, I believe my essays express beliefs that actually bring together relevant Wikipedia policy on a particular subject. I think, unless the administrators can provide any substantial policy regarding this, it's an issue best decided in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which, if my essays result in a 'deletion' or a 'userfy' vote, can then be moved into my userspace.

Finally, I'm really at a loss as to how to say this last bit, but I'm at a loss as to how to say this in a more diplomatic fashion. I am beginning to feel as if you're always seeming to appear wherever I'm editing, taking whatever side opposes the one I've taken. I acknowledge this may be entirely in my head. I still wish to assume good faith of you, but I'm beginning to wonder exactly how many times in the future you will coincidentally stumble across my path, or across a dispute I'm having with someone else and take action to support them.

So I propose this: if you feel there exists some remaining issue to be worked out between you and I — or if, on a wider scale, you think I'm doing a greater harm to Wikipedia through some personality or behavioral deficit or approach — then I suggest we avail ourselves of Wikipedia's dispute resolution forums to handle it in an aboveboard fashion.

If not, I hope we'll find ourselves on the same side of the fence more often in the future. After all, I think you've written a rather intelligent proposal, and we both appreciate Lost a great deal, so we can't be massively unalike. — Mike (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, someone on the admin board will come across with a clearer supportive policy, but I will leave things before I hit the hay with this reference from Wikipedia:Project namespace, describing the Wikipedia namespace — after listing categories for official policy, guidelines, policy thinktank, and rejected proposals, it goes on to say, "Many pages in Wikipedia namespace have nothing to do with rules, and thus do not belong in these categories." Thus, the existence of non-rule articles in Wikipedia namespace is acknowledged. — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Extended reply at: User talk:WCityMike#Personal essay userfication

I understand that administrators aren't the arbiters of policy, but as the wikimop and bucket puts them in a position to enforce them every day, my experience is that they're often more familiar with it, and, indeed, being familiar with policy is often an element tested at requests for adminship. The policy village pump might indeed have been a more fruitful place to inquire, however, I agree, but I question how frequently it is visited.

You need nominate my essays for MfD only if you feel they must not belong in Wikipedia namespace and you really feel that individual MfDs are the best way to remove them. I still believe that were I in your shoes, I could best clarify the policy by achieving consensus via a Request for comment. How you are handling this matter seems to be your opinion on where essays belong, and one of Wikipedia's most important requirements is consensus-building, requiring us not to impose our opinion upon others. With all due respect, I don't feel that your opinion reflects the current opinion of the community.

Furthermore, I personally disagree with you regarding the usefulness of "rule essays"; I think in certain situations they can fulfill the same function as legal briefs, concatenating several policy citations in one arena in order to adequately address a common situation that may not have been a problem when the rules themselves were drafted. With regards to your moves, again, I feel they violate the WP:MM guideline, and not just where it comes to me. Yes, guidelines aren't policy, but they're still "actionable" and "authorized by consensus," and guidelines are usually common practice on Wikipedia.

As for the remainder of your commentary, I very much appreciate it, although I have no specific response to it. — Mike (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I saw this on WP:AN. While admins are not the arbiters of policy, you need a good reason to ignore rules, you don't just do it whenever you feel like it. Controversial moves should be done via WP:RM. There is no reason you couldn't have gone that route for these moves, you have valid points and could succeed, but maybe you should leave that decision open to the community? Mangojuice^talk 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Snowclones

Hi,

I noticed a snowclone that I added got zapped by you a while back. I think it was just a slip as the change log says:

Sub-divided list to ease editing, ordered additions by chronology, minor corrections, added commented-out note

The original text is below. Is it OK to add it back? Would you prefer to?

David.

• It's X Jim, but not as we know it!

- :Original X: "life"; the original was based on Star Trek and made well-known by the novelty song Star Trekkin' in 1987.

Hi, Thanks for the reply. I'd be inclined to say that "It's X Jim, but not as we know it" would be the most common Star Trek snow clone on this side of the Atlantic, and seems to beat "jim, I'm a * not a *" on google. There are already many Snowclones listed that are quite local (MIT of X, This is my X), ones with far smaller coverage ("I love my big gay *" only gets about 50 real hits - "I love my dead gay *" does much better) and ones with a much shorter lifetime. so I think this one deserves some coverage?

Request made for protection of Template:LostNav

See [4]

Figured you'd want to know, given that you've been helping out in the reverts. -- PKtm 21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well: see [5] -- PKtm 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the reply. I'd be inclined to say that "It's X Jim, but not as we know it" would be the most common Star Trek snow clone on this side of the Atlantic, and seems to beat "jim, I'm a * not a *" on google. There are already many Snowclones listed that are quite local (MIT of X, This is my X), ones with far smaller coverage ("I love my big gay *" only gets about 50 real hits - "I love my dead gay *" does much better) and ones with a much shorter lifetime. so I think this one deserves some coverage?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WCityMike

I thought that I should explain to you personally my meaning. In your original comment, you stated that "Those who do not see the incivility in his blog entry perhaps aren't reading closely enough." It's totally fair to ask that people read the linked material more closely. But you then proceeded to quote sections selectively with interpretation - that's basically viewed as trying to assign special meaning to WCM's words, and state a side in a debate on WCM's past conduct. Those are interpretations and arguments which can only be answered by WCM, so you ought to direct them to him via his user e-mail link or possibly via his blog.

For what it's worth, I only consider it a weak Keep because it has little bearing on building the encyclopedia, but deference is usually given to User pages. Regards, KWH 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting vandalism

On my userpage. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Images without source information

Unspecified source for Image:Thelostnumbers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thelostnumbers.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Opark 77 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Pilot2backgammon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pilot2backgammon.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Opark 77 11:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

These images also require a fair use rationale to remain in Lost (TV series). For an example of a fair use rationale see Image:Lost ep210 12 360x240.jpg--Opark 77 11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello: please re-examine the information for the image you tagged. The image is clearly listed under the Screenshot fairuse template ("This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program...") and provides the source in the description: "John Locke (played by Terry O'Quinn) holds up the two opposing colors of backgammon checkers in part two of the pilot episode of Lost." This is used in the Lost article to illustrate the thematic element of the colors "black and white", and thus the image falls well within the realm of critical commentary. --Leflyman^Talk 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello to you too. I have re-examined the image pages as you asked. I hope I am not being a pain but it is important that all of the images used in Lost (TV series) are done so appropriately for the article to be recognised as high quality and hopefully receive featured article status. I used the suggested template from the {{nosource}} tag to make my initial posts as required when using the tag, I understand how the standardised message can be misleading.

It is appropriate that you have tagged the image as a TV-screenshot and this is one stage in justifying fair use. However, the tag you used explicitly states "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Please follow this link for guidance in creating the required fair use rationale. The point you made about the image being accompanied by critical commentary about black and white is an excellent one and should definitely be included in the fair use rationale.

You have described the episode the image appears in but you have not stated your source for the file. Did you find it on a website and if so what is the URL? Or did you create it yourself using a DVD or video file of the episode in question? Currently the image does not have a source and that's why I tagged it. You need to state where the image file came from not just what episode the still appears in. You also need to state who holds the copyright, probably ABC.

I hope this makes it clearer what is required for the image to stay in the article, please let me know if I can be of any help. I've also tagged Image:Thelostnumbers.jpg for the same reason and this will require the same measures to meet wikipedia's fair use image requirements.--Opark 77 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)