Kirok

Welcome!

Hello, Kirok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

The Wookieepedian 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Archives

to 17 June 2006. Ideogram 14:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation to 18 June 2006. Ideogram 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Kirok, this page is getting rather long, do you mind if I archive it for you? This involves moving old text to another place in your user space and linking to it from here. Ideogram 13:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as you leave this thread intact from the start of "Mediation Cabal Intervention Requested" and a clickable link is given to the archive.--Kirok of L'Stok 13:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ideogram 14:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Xombie

You mentioned this animation in passing on an afd. I was wondering if you know about it and could make our article suck less? Its deletion was overturned by DRV, but the article was a copyright violation so all we have is a two line stub I wrote on it, which sucks to be honest. Kotepho 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They AfD'd Xombie? Your kidding! Its the cutting edge in Flash! In your case you should have no problems: it's an Indie not a Fan flash. I'm pretty tied up at the moment but i'll see what I can add in the short term.--Kirok of L'Stok 23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Before I hit the sack, I've been trying to figure out how we can go onward constructively from this point.

I'll make four comments.

Point #1: Allegations of dishonesty. Something that means a lot to you right now, Kirok, is your anger at being accused of dishonesty. I cannot give you entirely what you want, because in some ways I must be true to my own code of ethics. But this is where I can give on this issue: our disagreement arises from how I perceived the reasoning behind your defense of your essay including me as a subject. I perceived it as malice. I did not consider the possibility that it was something more benign, such as misinterpretation. In short, I first assumed malice on your part, and I should not have. I will admit that this was a mistake. I do not feel as if I owe you an apology, for the reasons that are now archived. But I will admit that immediately assuming your actions were malicious was a mistake I should not have made.

Apology accepted--Kirok of L'Stok 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Point of order — there was no apology there for you to accept. But there was regret. — Mike • 13:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Point #2: What Kirok desires from this mediation. In the archived debate, Kirok, you state that you are the only one making concessions. Let's see if we can change that. What are you seeking from me in this mediation? What, in short, do you desire to get out of this?

My initial thoughts can be found under "What would you like to change about that?"[1] However in the short term what I want to do is publish my essay. I would see it as a step towards good faith if you would highlight any paragraphs that you are adamant you want changed. I will take your thoughts into consideration and then publish a second draft in a secure location for you to look at. Discussion can go forward from that point the article will appear in my next issue.

There are four items you request on that page. Three are directed to me; one of those three, mentoring, is not a by-product of the mediation process. With regards to your first point, addressing questions, if you will specifically lay out what you would like answered, I will answer the questions. With regards to your second point, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of my actions as laid out there.

With regards to highlighting paragraphs I have difficulties with, Ideogram pasted in my point-by-point listing of problems with the essay even before I read your response, and I'll stand by that. I very much appreciate your willingness to compose a new draft of your essay. — Mike • 13:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Point #3: Conversely, restatement of what I desire. I perceive that essay as containing a number of personal attacks on me. I take offense to that because I had tried to make peace between Kirok and I, and, indeed, at the time we left things before his essay, I thought we had — we had exchanged multiple pleasantries before we left things. Thus, this very much felt as if it came out of nowhere. What I desire is that he either rewrite the essay to address the problems in Wikipedia that he feels this matter exposed in more general terms without characterizing my behavior, or that he remove the essay altogether.

Why does that sound familiar? Perhaps because it is much the same as I suggested when I asked "challenged" him to rewrite it in a fashion that would be acceptable to him? Who cares. I can't edit without precise information about which paragraphs are problematical. Do that and I'll see what I can do. My purpose, no matter what you say or believe, has never been to cause harm to you personally ... o(><;)(;><)o

Point #4: Procedural Suggestion: Right to call timeout. I suggest that we agree, as a starting point for this mediation, that any party whatsoever — Kirok, me, or Ideogram — has the right to call a 12-hour timeout if they feel as if tempers are getting too high, and that Kirok and I agree now in advance to shut things down for that period of time when a timeout is called. Ideogram would have a right to call a timeout for whatever length of time he feels appropriate (not just 12 hours).

I think this is an excellent idea. Ideogram 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this something you'll agree to, Kirok? — Mike • 13:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes--Kirok of L'Stok 18:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Point #5: Thanks. Ideogram, I just want to thank you for being willing to continue mediating this matter in light of the minor explosion that occurred during your absence. — Mike • 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Aw shucks, it's good to be needed. Ideogram 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Group hug!(((((((;^^)--Kirok of L'Stok 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Point-by-Point Rebuttal to Kirok's Essay

Over the past couple of months

My nominations for deletion began on June 5. This was not a couple of months.

we have endured a orchestrated campaign on Wikipedia that has, in one fell swoop, cast doubt over the standing of every Star Trek fan production article

I consider this perhaps one of the most aggrevious incidences of insulting hyperbole. Campaign: "a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result." Orchestrate: "to arrange or combine so as to achieve a desired or maximum effect." Orchestrated campaign: "a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result, arranged or combined so as to achieve a desired or maximum effect." An insulting, hyperbolic, untrue comment.

The User who initiated it has still not explained why he chose Star Trek instead any other fan genre such as Star Wars

I did not purposefully choose Star Trek. If I recall, the morning of June 5, I was monitoring and trying to stem the tides at Special:Newpages. New pages are constantly created — on the order of quite literally constantly — that people create about themselves or about their band that they made with their friends. Wikipedia isn't for those kind of articles, and, thus, a lot of them are speedily deleted under {{db-bio}}, {{db-band}}, etc. I saw an article about Star Trek: Mirror Wars created. I did not feel it met notability standards, and I nominated it for deletion. I still stand by that. Once I did that, I looked at the category in which it was listed, and saw other films that seemed to be not notable.

perhaps we were just at the top of his list and the rest were to come next, who knows?

To quote a response to that very question by Nick Cook, which was, again, on Kirok's talk page long before he ever decided to write this essay: "I'd have to be blippin' nuts to do that now. I've spent at this point hours responding to outraged Trekkers. You think that, right or wrong, I'd now engage every other bastion of fan film fans on Wikipedia? I value my mental health, thank you very much."

Sure, I'm prepared to assume that a User's motives were pure

This statement isn't supported by language and comments used later in the essay, nor is it supported by Kirok's behavior and his comments elsewhere in Wikipedia.

but does that mean that what he did was right? Many mistakes have been made "in good faith" and to correct those mistakes is a positive deed, NOT as some seem to assume, an assumption of bad faith or implying untrustworthyness.

This is dangerous wording. The use of the word "mistakes" here implies that there is an objective truth, and that acting to bring things to that objective truth is perfectly acceptable. An example of this is: I think that the creation of an incredible plethora of articles about fan productions is a mistake. I believe the creation of those articles was in good faith, but that to correct those mistakes is a positive deed, NOT as some seem to assume, an assumption of bad faith or implying untrustworthiness.

But Kirok believes that the deletion of those articles is a mistake, and to correct that mistake is a positive deed, NOT as some seem to assume, an assumption of bad faith or implying untrustworthiness.

You hopefully see the problem with that line of reasoning if extended to its logical conclusion. If someone is characterizing their actions as "correcting mistakes," they are not leaving themselves open to the possibility that, indeed, they're causing mistakes, not correcting them.

I did not delete those fourteen articles. I did not even directly cause their deletion — the community did. By their nomination, I was saying, "I believe that the question of whether this article belongs here needs to be opened up to a brief, five-day community review." This gives the community a chance to say en masse "yes, this belongs here" or "no, this doesn't belong here," or, sometimes, "we can't make up our minds, so let's err on the side of caution" (since no consensus votes result in a keep).

In eleven cases, the community clearly agreed with me. In five cases, they clearly disagreed with me. In three, they couldn't make up their mind. In one, I realized I had made a mistake and ended the process.

What I didn't know was that there was a specific board that AfDs are posted on and that there were Users who specialised in marking up articles as AfD and then voting on them en bloc! <irony>a noble endeavour indeed!</irony>.

This paragraph has three statements in it. Two are insulting and presented without proof: that users cast their votes in AfD in a monosingular voting bloc, and that those users who spend their time in AfD are participating in an ignoble endeavour.

The former is demonstrably untrue. The latter is a personal attack not only against me but against others.

These Wikipedia scholars know all the ins and outs of what is, to my plebian eyes, this vast system and even have their own language with arcane anagrams that when they invoke them justify all that they say.

The "arcane anagrams" to which Kirok refer are shortcut links to Wikipedia policies — and, often, the anagrams used are to Wikipedia's most basic policies, such as WP:NOR (no original research) and WP:V (verifiability). I consider it a positive thing for an editor casting a vote to be able to cite the policies he believes supports that vote. But, for those who do not want to spend the time to acquaint themselves with said policies, they remain "arcane anagrams."

I will acknowledge that there is a problem out there where people seem to attempt to compose policy on the spot, by one of two means — either referring to an essay as if it were policy, or by using the WP:NOT as a handy semantic beginning to negate something — "WP:NOT an encyclopedia, you know!" I wrote an essay on that myself at WP:NOTPOLICY, believing it causes great confusion, in AfD as well as elsewhere.

It must be a booming business for them too, since they rarely have the time to make pronouncements that reach one line in length

It's very often not always required, especially if you have nothing to add to the reasoning of the discussion. If another user has made your point for you already, you simply say, "Per username." If you agree with the nominator's reasoning, it's "Per nom." Conciseness of speech is a virtue, not a fault.

it is peppered with abreviations

Or, rather, references to policies — and citing policies, as I said above, is a good thing.

and they even have their own specialised software to speed up their work called 'monobook.js'."

Let me interrupt here to say that I don't have a problem with Kirok not knowing the facts. I have a problem with him being willing to cast allegations such as this without being willing to research the facts. Do you think someone sat me down and explained monobook.js to me? No, I learned it about myself by looking at Wikipedia webpages.

That having been said -- Monobook is the "look" of Wikipedia. Monobook.js are JavaScript scripts that interact with that particular look to add functions. There is the AFD Helper, as I explained to you at 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC), as well as tons of other scripts that make Wikipedia easier to use or tasks on Wikipedia easier to accomplish.

This makes it possible for a person to nominate as many as three articles in a minute, generating the three notices that are required for each

This statement is inaccurate in both implication and fact. Factually, There's no real limit on how much you could nominate in a minute; I imagine it's dependent on your typing speed, how quickly the JavaScript runs, and how quickly Wikipedia is responding. But the statement implies that speed is what those who participate at AfD want: to be able to nominate articles in great amounts, quickly.

This amounts to every Star Trek fan production except the Star Trek Fan Production page which was hit by a copycat AfDer shortly afterwards.

A page for which I voted: "Strong keep. Given my other votes, you'd think I'd be in favor of this removing this article. I'm not. I think there's far too much Trek fancruft on Wikipedia, and by my AfD votes noms am attempting to prune it down considerably (to the great outrage of the Trek fan community), but that doesn't mean every single trace of Trek fan films has to be stamped out, especially a useful article like this that can absorb some of the contents of the articles that do pass AfD. The phenomenon is definitely worthy of coverage in an article, even if every single item is not worth its own."

It is the scope of the mass action that I take issue with, since marking every ST fan production for Afd at the same time made it impossible for me to address them all and thus I was effectively denied the opportunity help defend them.

No matter how much "good faith" there was in this mass motion for deletion the outcome was that due consideration could not be given to all of them and some of them would, inevitably be voted off when they hadn't been given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

Normally, articles for deletion are open for five days. That in and of itself is sufficient enough time to respond — yes, writing 23 responses at one time (assuming you felt that all should be saved) might be exhausting, but casting four or six votes a day isn't, even if you feel, per above, that one-liners aren't sufficient and you need to write a paragraph or two to adequately present your point. And, because administrators let things back up, some of those votes were open for even a few days more than that.

Furthermore, looking at the voted-upon articles, I see no article supporting Kirok's allegation. Which articles does he feel weren't given a proper defense? Does he contend that any deleted Trek fan production article wouldn't have been deleted if it got a "fair opportunity to defend [itself]"?

Yes, mark my words, this is the Napoleonic code in practise here.

I'm not familiar with the reference, and looking at Wikipedia's article on the Napoleonic code, I still don't get where he was going with this comment.

The Users working on these articles are being put on notice that they need to justify their work, justify their article's existence.

Yes. The question is whether that's a bad thing. Not every article has a place on Wikipedia, and, yes, you may be asked to defend why your article belongs on Wikipedia. That's just a fact of life here. And it's a very common debate on Wikipedia: inclusionism vs. delitionism, and those in the middle of the road. I place myself in the latter of the three categories.

There are other tried and true labels that have been used to gag dissenters.

A very insulting and hyperbolic melodramatic phrase.

"Incivility" is another one that is regularly trotted to avoid addressing questions, when we aren't being nice and asking them to awkward questions.

Yeah, but "being nice" is what you're supposed to do here. WP:CIVIL: "Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly." And, of special note: "Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment [...] Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another."

When every Star Trek article was marked for deletion by a single user

Every Star Trek article wasn't marked for deletion by a single user. Not even every Star Trek fandom article was nominated. For example, I wouldn't have thought of even touching Bjo Trimble, or Kirk/Spock, or Paula Smith.

he seemed surprised, shocked, even stunned at the strength of the response that he got to his actions.

I'll tell you what I was surprised, shocked, and even stunned about: I was surprised, shocked, and even stunned that such a large number of people were here on Wikipedia and purposefully would ignore Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, civility, and assuming good faith. What I was "surprised, shocked, even stunned" about was that so many people would instantly take it so personally that they would personally attack anyone who dare touch their cherished article, despite the multiple policies out there asking people to, quite simply, be kind to each other, assume the other person isn't out to get you unless they very definitively prove that they are, and not to attack someone personally, but to express your disagreement with their actions. Furthermore, I was "surprised, shocked, and even stunned" that there is far less of a support structure than I expected present among administrators and noticeboards and such for getting people to knock it off. It makes me think that Wikipedia's far more of an anarchy than I thought.

The people who had been creating those articles were writing about something they cared about - that's why they are called fans!

Yes, but they're writing about something they care about on Wikipedia. That requires them to be subject to the rules Wikipedia lays down. And just because you care about something doesn't exempt you from conducting yourself without outright attacking the other side. I don't know the contrasting political parties in Australia, Kirok, but in America, I would use the analogy that the most honorable Democrats and Republicans in our country are those who can conduct themselves and defend their parties and their beliefs with respectful aplomb and without ripping the other side to pieces.

In some cases he was confronting the people who were producing the films themselves.

I believe that was in one case. And removing a Wikipedia article on a film hardly damages the film itself, especially if it's covered elsewhere in Wikipedia (thus my 'strong keep' vote for the fan-made productions article itself).

Labels? Here's another good one that is used to hamstring effective debate: 'ballot stuffing'. [Ballot stuffing] is the illegal act of one person submitting multiple ballots during a vote in which only one ballot per person is permitted. Now, the operative part here is that it only works when it is a head count ballot, an AfD is not such a vote."

Semantically, you're correct: ballot-stuffing is not possible with Wikipedia, as it's not a vote. Perhaps it should instead be "attempting to misrepresent the state of existing community consensus by asking a disproportionately large special interest group to make its presence known in an ongoing process whose purpose is to survey editors' opinions about whether an article does or does not belong on Wikipedia."

If it cannot have any effect on the result of the "vote" why are Users gagged from bringing this to the attention of other users?

Because by doing so, they alter the sense of the community's consensus on the issue displayed in the vote, resulting in the true makeup of the community's opinion on the issue being misrepresented. I cross-reference ongoing discussions about the idea of "noticeboards" going on here and here.

However this is used as an excuse for telling me that I should not even mention it on my Talk page in case someone sees it and is drawn to the discussion!

This is blatantly not what happened. You posted to Talk:Star Trek (Fan made productions) "I have just found out from my Watchlist that there appears to be some sort of concerted action against Star Trek Fan Films. On further investigation I have found some strange things going on that I would like a Wikipedia admin or at least someone versed in the ways of Wikipedia to check out. If I am correct, it casts grave doubts about the action that is being taken. Since this matter concerns so many articles I am posting it on my talk page." There, you spoke of a "class action against Star Trek Fan productions" and specifically referenced "Articles for deletion."

No matter how much "good faith" I assume is behind these exceptionally aggressive threats

Exceptional aggressiveness and good faith are mutually exclusive, and, again, another example of insulting hyperbole.

I beg to differ, good faith describes motives, exceptional aggressiveness refers to the vigour with which forward or attacking actions are taken. Attacking in this case is in the sense of debate - you are either attacking or defending. Your section "Canvassing for votes" was a first strike action, it was by definition an aggressive move. The material in there, talking about executive action and blocking, was meant to intimidate me into doing your bidding, it was extremely strong stuff.--Kirok of L'Stok 18:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of the reasoning behind my use of Wikipedia's canvassing template as intimidation or a "first strike" — and the template is boilerplate, and wasn't written just for that instance. It's true one of the things I've done as an editor is to work on trying to refine the wording of that particular warning, but I didn't create it in the first place, and a lot of my work on that particular warning template was before I even met you. And lately, actually, I've tried to reword it so it more accurately reflects Wikipedia's policy. — Mike • 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

since ballot stuffing cannot, by Wikipedia's own admission, have any effect on the outcome then unless the whole thing is a big mistake then logic dictates that the most likely reason is to limit opposition to the deleters.

See my response to your statement beginning "If it cannot have any effect ... ".

I'm sorry I only see two choices, either it is a mistake in the system (in which case it should be corrected) or it is a convenient way of limiting discussion.

This concluding statement rests upon the idea that ballot-stuffing can't alter the outcome of a vote. That's not, I believe, the case, and thus this statement falls apart, too. — Mike • 15:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you work with that Kirok? Ideogram 11:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a start, but much of it is opinion that I cannot support although I can use it as the establishment's viewpoint perhaps. Now it's 0416hrs and I have a wasted day to make up for so if you don't mind I'll make use of one of those 24hr timeout's.--Kirok of L'Stok 18:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

*eyebrow raise* As the "establishment's viewpoint"? And the proposal was to use 24-hour timeouts when tempers were running out of control. That doesn't appear to be the case at the moment. — Mike • 19:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to get a rise out of me aren't you? You are in effect saying that the only way I can get any peace from you is to loose my temper. You are trying to escalate the hostilities once more. No. You are not going to devour another day of my time. What happened to "take as much time as you want"? Talk to the hand Mike, I'm writing--Kirok of L'Stok 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All we need to do, Kirok, is to start sniping at each other in order to escalate things into a big shouting match once more. Take as much time as you need. But please don't escalate the hostilities yourself by insulting me, either, as you've done above ("talk to the hand", "devour another day", etc.). — Mike • 22:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Which part of leave-me-alone didn't you understand? [sigh] I'll try again.

I most respectfully request and submit, gentlemen, that you will grace me with the a days hiatus in the otherwise inestimable pleasure of your posts on this subject. Since this has previously been discussed (viz: "take as much time as you like") I feel that this is surely not too much to ask of ornaments to the nobility of Wikipedia such as yourselves who have shown unfathomable patience and charity in your concessions to date? I shall sirs be eternally grateful.

Your Ob'd Servant

Sir Kirok of L'Stok, VB and Bar (twice removed from)

[Genuflexion with flourish, exuent stage right]--Kirok of L'Stok 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

   WITHDRAWAL    — I withdraw from this mediation. Kirok, keep whatever you like posted. Mediation is for two parties to come together in the middle, and looking over the pre-Ideogram's-explosion dialogue and even the stuff that's happened post-explosion, that's just not going to happen here. There's no willingness on Kirok's part to meet in the middle, and I'm not about to give myself a coronary trying to make it happen. I just realized: why the hell do I care about this guy's opinion? Let him espouse whatever little rantings he wants to make about me. He's welcome to them.

And, by the way, since I'm not trying to mediate this anymore, to give myself some delicious release — Kirok, to put this in a language you'll understand, you're a dishonorable Qovpatlh of a Wikipedia editor not worth my time anymore. And the correct template you'll want to drop on my page to retaliate is {{Npa}}.

Ideogram, thanks for your services as mediator. This time 'round, it was truly a lost cause, but you made the most valiant of efforts. — Mike • 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. I still do not know why you perceived what I wrote as a personal attack, however I do not desire to continue this confontation. My word is my bond, I will use your points as input for my essay, whether it is to your satisfaction, [shrugs] that's for you to decide. What is more important to me is if it makes the message, the essay stronger, more accurate and balanced.

You have shown that you have grown by this exchange. Without indulging in too much gratuitous psychoanalysis, you have grown a thicker skin. To admit to yourself that you, your sense of self, the core values that make you an individual, cannot be diminished by the actions of others is an armour stronger than any other.

What you have now is chi - the strength, the force that comes from anger and forceful action. Its an old saying (I remember it best from Mr T) but "use it, don't loose it!" Do something creative. Write, draw, program - do whatever you have a talent for - but do it boldly! Use broad strokes, yes, even hyperbole! I'm not encouraging you to be aggressive but forceful.

Using chi for creative purposes restores balance and bleeds off the frustration that can come if it is bottled up inside.

pe'vIl mu'qaDmeymey tIbach! vay' DaneHbogh yIchargh!

Curse well! Conquer what you desire!

--Kirok of L'Stok 09:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pendant Productions

I have moved Pendant Productions to User_talk:Kirok/Pendant Productions. You'll notice it's in talk_space... this is so it doesn't show up on a number of statistics. Tis no problem, you can still edit it like normal.

I encourage you to rewrite the article with the goal of showing how it's notable... I think it's very close to the line and how you write the article will determine what side of the fence people will fall on it's next AFD. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll contribute what I can. I think Jeff recently mentioned on the e-group that Pendant got another shout-out somewhere. I'll look into it and add it to teh article.

Brendan 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Afd notice

Yes, I removed the afd notice from one of your subpages. Afd (articles for deletion) notices should only be on pages in the mainspace. --- RockMFR 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! There should be movement on this over the next week so I'm keeping tabs on what is happening with it.--Kirok of L'Stok 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Guidance please

Being as 'ow you removed the Star Trek: Eras logo from the Talk page where I am re-habilitating the Trek Audio dramas article perhaps you can tell us what needs to be done to make sure that images put on Wikipedia stay there. The image in question was placed on there by Continuity Cop - the executive producer of "Star Trek: Eras", el Jefe Del Mondo of things to do with that production ... including of course his Logo. Does he need to lodge a "permission to use image form" in triplicate somewhere? Your guidance on this matter would be greately apreciated since we will be doing the same thing for all the groups. Cheers --Kirok of L'Stok 12:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The image in question was marked as being licensed for non-commercial or educational use only. For a few years, non-commercial images have been prohibited from being used on Wikipedia ([2] [3]). It was brought up here that the assertion that was made later was invalid because it was derivative of works copyrighted by Paramount Pictures. Any images you or anyone else upload need to be free of any material that is copyrighted (no screenshots of films etc) unless you can provide a suitable fair use rationale (and then only in limited cases is this allowed). Fair use images are only allowed in the article namespace. I also hope that you do take advice from the Articles for Deletion nomination for Pendant_Productions and that you provide reliable third-party sources. Harryboyles 14:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm This is going to be a significant problem since all the groups involved are fan productions, which means that they are unauthorised derivative works based on existing copyrights, you're conversant with the genre? I assume that "Star Trek: New Voyages" were able to use this fair use rationale of which you speak to retionalise their use of the Enterprise arrowhead on the graphic on their article page - Could I impose upon you to show me how to access this rationale? I assume there is a page that covers all the neccessary background information to do with this image? Perhaps my questions might be better asked here?

As regards the AFD for the Pendant_Productions article, it was brought under under profoundly erronious grounds - it was opposed because it was seen as some form of advertising for a company, "Pendant Productions". The article that i hope to release to a waiting world will be an expansion of the listings that have been on the Star trek Fan Productions article for some time now. I see my major hurdle being to whittle it down to a manageable size without too much extraneous information, for example I'm not sure about the cast lists although I believe the episode lists are germaine.

Am I to assume that when you say "Fair use images are only allowed in the article namespace." you mean that I cannot set them up in the rehabilitation space that I am working in? Sort of defeats the purpose don't you think? Thanks --Kirok of L'Stok 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The link I was meaning to lead you to was this one, which contains ideas for the types of reasons that can be used in a rationale (and the ones that can't). This question on the talk page will probably help explain it.

As to fair use images being only allowed in the article namespace, you can have a link to the image by placing a colon before the Image:filename eg [[:Image:Example.jpg]]. But you can only display a fair use image in the article namespace as mandated at Wikipedia:Non-free content (Criterion 9). Harryboyles 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, the fair use rationale template will help immensely. I worked out that you just click on the image to go to its definition page (I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box sometimes) so that the rationale for the New Voyages image is here. With a template and an example I should be able to get all this together. Still a little hazy about the actual mechanics of uploading but i'll muster my resources first before I do them all at once. Thanks again for the help--Kirok of L'Stok 00:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:ST-NewVoyages.jpg

Hello Kirok, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:ST-NewVoyages.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Kirok/Pendant Productions. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tone

I appreciate that you have a substantial interest in Star Trek fan productions. However, please assume good faith and try to avoid a sense of ownership with this article. Fredrick day (talk · contribs) may be terse and not particularly cordial in his Talk page comments, but responding with sarcasm is not the solution. I appreciate that you haven't entered into an edit war over the stuff that's been trimmed, and think the page can best be spruced up by finding real-world media references to these projects. Would you mind taking a look at some of the stuff and seeing whether, say, the BBC or Sci-Fi Channel have bits on their website that refer back to their coverage of some of these projects? --EEMeltonIV 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, EEMeltonIV, I might agree in principle with the idea of pruning to make a the garden stronger and better, but I disagree vehemently with the aggressive way in which it has been carried out. I always assume good faith when first I meet anyone, both on Wikipedia and in real life ... and then from that point judge them by their actions. WCityMike tied us up in pretzels by insisting on assume good faith and we all know what a thorough going bounder he turned out to be! This is from his Blog shortly after our exchange - Yes i remember what you said about the reliability of Blogs but this a Talkspace and it wasn't so much a Blog an act of Catharsis ...

There’s really two areas in which you can focus your efforts on Wikipedia: the articles and the bureaucracy. People who simply slog away trying to make the encyclopedia articles themselves better are referred to as exopedians, and are, undoubtedly, the cream of the crop. Although I think Wikipedia’s policy of anarchic rule (”anyone can edit! consensus will magically transform errors to truth!”) dooms their efforts to failure, I think it is their efforts that gives Wikipedia whatever paltry quality it actually has.

There are also metapedians — the pencil-pushers, the paper-lovers, the “fill out Form 123 in triplicate” lovers. Metapedians love the bureaucracy — the policies, the essays, the processes. Actually contributing to articles? Ehhhhhhh.

Because I had little to contribute as an exopedian aside from “wikignomish” grammar, punctuation, and spelling fixes, my efforts were primarily metapedian in nature … and, oh, let me tell you, Wikipedia’s bureaucracy has continued to expand in a positively fractal fashion. And, since anyone can create new Wikipedia pages, new sections of bureaucracies spring up there like the worst species of parasitic growth imaginable.

I had become involved in the “articles for deletion” venue, where I began becoming the target of immense hatred, as I would go through and nominate numerous articles covering aspects of incredibly tiny and unimportant minutiae written by drooling fanboys of Star Wars, Star Trek, Lost, and any other fanbase large enough to accumulate a good enough gathering and enough of an encrustation of “fancruft.” I would attempt to eradicate the more pernicious extreme end of the fandom articles (list of foodstuffs mentioned in Harry Potter! list of companies mentioned in the Star Wars extended canon! list of plants in Star Wars! sexual compliments made to James T. Kirk! and only one of those was made-up!), and severely socially retarded drooling fanboys would promptly spring out of the woodwork, spattering me with acidic bile for daring to touch their creation. I swear, I think I heard one of them frothing, “Worst. Editor. Ever.”

All the while, I wondered why the hell I was doing it. I began to realize that, for me, the nasty truth was that much of it was a power trip. Oh, don’t get me wrong: my actions were taken because, in part, I did truly believe that the articles I nominated didn’t belong. But it was indeed a manifestation of a darker side of me — I enjoyed the fact that I could hurt someone — make them angry and mad and defensive. Because in my real life, that’s not something I do. I’m Mister Friendly with nearly everyone I meet, and I’m actually a really nice guy in about 99% of circumstances. But something about the process brought out the worst in me — aggression and adrenaline, all funneled through a keyboard without danger of being punched in the face. Resisting the temptation to say “fuck you, fanboy,” and instead turning it into a passive-aggressive “I truly believe that your article is not notable, and would remind you that Wikipedia has policies regarding not attacking your fellow editors and being civil to them” (ah, did I have a gift for the bull-lingo) … I got a dark thrill out of seeing people froth and rage and turn into drooling rabid ready-for-heart-attack messes because they weren’t getting the fight they wanted out of me. [Emphasis mine - K] And another side of me looked at that dark thrill and went, “What the fuck are you doing, Mike?”

The deletion work petered down after a while, mostly because of my self-realization regarding the dark joy involved in the process.

I didn't EditWar because the essense of the Roddenberry dream is cooperation rather than confrontation, consensus rather than conquest, evolution rather than revolution. However by the same token you guys have given me so much material that it would be remiss of me not to publish the findings. This is my first draft ...

Kirok On Fan Productions

July, 2007

WikiWars

I've invested a lot of time and effort into creating and helping to establish an article on Wikipedia about Star Trek fan productions. I've taken a fair amount of pride and satisfaction in it, particularly the section on copyright and fan films. I'm human (Trekie fantasies aside) and pride is one of my main sins.

An inability to suffer officious twits is another.

We've recently had a couple of WikiSuits turn up and start "improving" the article. This pair of WikiScholars have played "good-cop/bad-cop" with us whilst they have ripped through the article, deleting entries wholesale, ostensibly because of the unsuitability of the sources and their non-notability.

Needless to say I did not react in my normal cuddly-wuddly fashion.

I'll be the first to admit that at times the garden needs to be pruned for it to stay healthy and looking its best. There were a some entries on there that I thought were either tombstones or cringe-worthy. The size of some of the entries was out of proportion to their importance whilst others were relegated to mere mentions. However I dislike editing other peoples work unless they ask me too.

However there are ways of doing things that are constructive and ways that are destructive and frankly these two were not the constructive type. If they were pruning, it was with a bulldozer rather than secateurs! I found the whole action to be orchestrated to be aggressive and cloaked in jargon that they refused to explain.

So much for the injunction "be nice to the users". These guys were elitist WikiSnobs who started the action with a threat that if it wasn't cleaned up it would be reduced to a stub. This was followed by snide comments about "cruftopedians" and that they had no responsibility to explain their actions. They were like the Men In Black of Wikipedia - a law unto themselves! I almost expected one to ask me to "look at this pen".

If I agree with the principle of "pruning" weak links in an article, what's my problem with them then? Wow! Where do I start?

* It was too fast. It was easy for them to delete material and set stipulations for its return - five minutes each, tops! - bloody hard for the creative team to fix it though: I would assume an entry a day. Why couldn't they set a schedule of work, say an entry a day, that would give the users a chance to keep up with them? Slows them down? Not if they are doing the same thing on 3-4 other articles at the same time

* They were confrontationist right from the start. There was no "Let me help you ... This is because ... You can fix this by ..." Nope. The Slave To Duty set the tone right at the start by complaining, like some weary veteran of a hundred WikiWars, that he was "fed up of cruftopedians..."

* There was too much WikiJargon. Entries were deleted because of "no sources" when there were in fact links to sources in the article. What he meant was they were unsuitable in some way but more on that later. "nn" which turns out to be "not notable". And the elusive "OR" which after two futile requests for clarification I ended up guessing was Original Research even though it did not appear on the Wikipedia disambiguation page - that's the WikiPage that is supposed to list all meanings of the word.

I'll post a this now and then post a possible solution to the situation.--Kirok of L'Stok 08:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"I've taken a fair amount of pride and satisfaction in it" - I think to the point of having ownership issues. For all the criticisms of the article's recent edits, do you honestly not see anything substantially positive, e.g. more precise in-line citations, trimming unnecessary plot, and basic grammar and spelling? Frederick day's most recent comment on the talk page was to suggest restoring material that I'd cut, which I've done.

"An inability to suffer officious twits is another." - please keep in mind Wikipedia's civility policy, which applies as much to talk pages as anywhere else.

I hope the pride you take in the article allows you to recognize the need to add reliable sources to establish the content's notability. I have a visceral belief that fan productions -- if simply by sheer numbers and the involvement of bona fide Trek personalities -- are worth covering and that the resources are there. Finding them is something everyone who has an eye on this article can contribute toward. --EEMeltonIV 09:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility? True, i had never meant to post that draft on Wikipedia - my own external sources of disemmination are much better, but I thought it easier to use what I had written than duplicate it. To be fair, it goes against the archivist in me to bowdlerise sources and it is not a patch on the foul fulminations coming from such as WCityMike.

Ownership? To a certain extent, yes. I created it and have added any of the entries. I sweat tears of blood on the research into that copyright article that you slurred with such cavlier disregard. I will gladly accept critque but slovenly, off-hand, disparaging comments? Forgive me if I don't blow you kisses, sunshine.

I am looking at two options ...

• Having a main article that covers the material as text rather than a list of entries as we have them now. The text would focus on the reasons for notability of Trek fan production in general and give examples from the various production groups. This would be partnered by a list page that has only the names and links of all Trek fan productions that qualify as in production or produced without regard for notability. I believe this type of thing has been done before.

• I am seriously thinking about starting a periodical for sale on LULU.com specifically for Trek fan productions. As an independant commentator on Trek productions it would probably do well. The question is though - does Wikipedia classify LULU.com as self-publishing or as Print-on-demand as it really is. I prefer to have my work stand on its merits rather than be pigionholed into some lazy WikiStereotype thankyou very much, but I thoroughly expect that the entrenched lines that have been "drawn in the sand" will not allow the WikiBureucracy the flexibility to reflect reality. Prove me wrong and I will give praise where it is due, prove me right and everybody, most especially the public, loses.

I'm certainly not going to attempt to do any editing until I get a clear plan of what to do. The current article has proven itself far to open to ScholarCruft - it's time for a new approach.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit

With regards to your comments on Talk:Star Trek (Fan made productions): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --EEMeltonIV 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Fredrick day 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Trek

Hello, Kirok, this message is being sent to inform you that, due to over two years editing inactivity, your username has been taken off of the list of Wikipedia Project Star Trek active conributers. If you have returned to active editing Wikipedia, please re add your name to the list of active contributers. Thank you, -- Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)