User talk:PKtm

Welcome!

Hello, PKtm, 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:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Shauri 23:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Proposal: "Wikipedia is not a fan site"

Hi, PKtm,

(Wow, I'm your first comment!)

I've just put in a proposal for an addition to "What Wikipedia is not" connected to the excessive non-encyclopedic material we've been getting on the LOST articles. Please look it over at Proposed addition: "Wikipedia is not a fan site" and offer your comments, if you are so inclined :)

Thanks, LeFlyman 00:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As promised for quite a while, I've cleaned up the proposal material, and put it up for pre-posting at: User_talk:Leflyman/Not_a_Fansite. Please take a look at the proposed wording; you may also want to review the comments when I first brought it up on the talk page for What Wikipedia is not in November, which I've copied to the bottom of my "sub-page". Let me know what you think! I've also included a reference, which I think you'll appreciate, to use of appropriate tone, as per the "Check your fiction" style guide. —LeFlyman 19:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to clarify that the sub-page was not the actual poll, but the pre-posting "work area" for the poll; I've moved your comments up to the "discussion" section. If you have some ideas as to more precise wording, please add them. Thanks, again. —LeFlyman 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck are you supposed to distinguish between what is applicable to a general audience and what is applicable to fans? So i'm guessing that general audience includes people that are not fans. I fail to see how anything else on the ENTIRE lost section, especially the bastardized "trivia" sections, applies to people that aren't fans. -- anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.156.28.7 (talk • contribs) February 6, 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Bain

Well, our American Jews article speficially refers to the term Jewish American. As we do Italian American and Irish American. These are all common terms refering to ethnicity-nationality. We don't have Christian American because that's specifically a religion, not an ethnic background. I made this update a long time ago, since then me and anyone working on similar areas have stopped putting that kind of info into the first sentence, and instead it now goes under "Early Life" or something later down (the same for calling someone an Italian American). Ms. Schwartz' problem is clearly with the term itself, "Jewish American", and in that case it has nothing to do with Barbara Bain. Your complaint should go over to the long article titled American Jews. Vulturell 03:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your point may well be true or it may well be untrue, but the reason that the person objected wasn't that her background was mentioned, but rather the term itself "Jewish American" (i.e. specifically using "Creep-American" to parody it). She claims it is an offensive term and she has never seen it used, but I've seen it here on Wikipedia and in other places, and I frankly can't think of a single reason why "Jewish American" would be an offensive term. Anyway, it IS a bad idea to call someone a "Jewish American actor" or whatever in the first sentence, but it's not distracting, just biographical, to mention her family's heritage under the appropriate section (i.e. Early life or something). Is it relevant to her career? No. But a person's ethnic background, religion, birth date, name, and place, and more such info are hardly ever relevant to their career, except for a few rare examples when it reflects in their work. Bain is also under the category "Jewish American actors", and it is silly to put people in categories without mentioning the same info in the article itself, so people aren't baffled. Vulturell 19:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, just forget about it. I don't have the time or the desire to get into a prolonged discussion here, I don't really care that much. Vulturell 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tense on Lost Characters

Hi, PK!

I see you've been making a stab at standardising the tense for the Lost characters. I think that's a worthy effort; however, I'm not sure whether present tense is the appropriate one. As an ongoing series-- unlike a movie-- the time-element of events from past episodes to later ones needs to be differentiated. For instance, putting Boone Carlyle in present tense doesn't makes sense-- such as "Boone Carlyle is the chief operating officer of his mother's wedding business and the step-brother of Shannon"-- because as a character, he is dead, as is his step-sister, and thus now can only be referred to in the past on the show (if referred to at all any more). So it sounds particularly odd to read through his bio now. I think that the past tense for (at least some) character bios made significantly more sense, since series events progress over a period of time, rather than occuring simultaneously, as putting everything in present form makes them sound.—LeFlyman 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue I'm having is that you're changing the tense of character biographies to match the episode summaries (which should be in the present tense). The bios are not story retellings, per se, but are supposed to track the development/history of the characters, and thus should make sense in time-sequence. Because the show runs parallel story-lines of flashbacks-- which are set in the past-- trying to reference them in the present tense becomes inordinately problematic. Present tense is intended for ongoing or current events:

* Action at the present time

* A state of being
* A habitual action
* An occurrence in the near future

* An action that occurred in the past and continues up to the present

It seems to me that "flattening" the time-sequence in the biographies by making everything, both on the Island and in flashbacks, occur in the present tense leads to more confusion and less professionalism. For example, while you modified part of John Locke's "Prior" section to present form, you had to leave "Locke was a paraplegic— apparently for the preceding four years" because it would have been odd to say "Locke is a paraplegic." So now that article still has multiple mixed tenses throughout.

Thus, I would suggest using present tense for each episode summary, and past tense for each biography -- just as it would be if the characters were real people.-- LeFlyman 02:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent response. I'd suggest so that this becomes an understood policy, and that others have input, that you you make the proposal on the main Lost Talk Page-- or perhaps on the Episodes of Lost (Season 2). —LeFlyman 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-- I've added my most recent thoughts on the change to present tense at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Present tense for character bios in Lost —LeFlyman 10:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PK -- I just wanted to comment on your userboxes regarding the singular "they" and the serial comma. We need more people like you editing Wikipedia! :) I had a very strict Jesuit priest as my 9th grade grammar instructor. In fact, he wrote the textbook we used in class! I still have all of his lessons drilled into my head. Proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation are neglected so often these days -- thanks for all your hard work! --Danflave 04:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are a fan of Nanci Griffith. The song "Nobody's Angel" has a very personal meaning for me, going back to when I was a freshman in college. You have good taste! --Danflave 04:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost character edits

Wanted to give a preemptive thanks for trimming back the cruftified character bios. I've tried to wrangle in some of the excesses, but there are a couple of active editors (not to mention any names) who feel that a play-by-play is needed for every character. I much prefer the bios reflect the characters'... well, character, rather than an extensive he-did-she-did stuff that's been glommed onto by some lately.--Leflyman^Talk 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a grand irony: Lost is sure to attract more and more "inexperienced" editors, in parallel to its continued rising popularity and the growth of Wikipedia. I think we're kind of stuck with some of the difficulties caused by poor editors, unless we can frighten them away... Seriously, I think that recent (and young) editors want to add new material, but sometimes are at a loss as to how to do so, or what's appropriate for inclusion. Perhaps if there are particular editors that are of concern (and I can think of a couple), you might message them and ask that they review some of the suggested "writing a great Wikipedia" articles; and that they seek to improve the quality, rather than the quantity of information on the Lost articles.--Leflyman^Talk 01:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you removed my edit saying that Sayid was 23 during the Gulf War and listed it as "speculation". In "One of Them", Sayid says "I was 23 when the Americans first came to my country".- JustPhil 19:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert to Episodes of Lost (season 2)

I reverted your edit because the text cited is a direct quote from ABC's website. While simply changing "breech" to "breach" would be linguistically correct, it would also be a misquote.

The text is going to be replaced after the upcoming Wednesday anyway, so I suppose it's not a big deal either way. Bigtimeoperator 18:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what--you Lost regulars can decide. I disagree, but I'd rather not make an issue out of it. Bigtimeoperator 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Now see, PKtm, this (User talk:Leflyman) is just unnecessary. I happen to work in a profession where you would cite that way, and so I (mis)applied that experience here. Anyway, I wasn't a dick about the disagreement, so perhaps next time this happens you should reciprocate and remember that all of your asides are public. Bigtimeoperator 00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I've pointed out the pertinent sections from the Chicago Manual of Style on Bigtimeoperator's talk page, which if he works in a profession dealing with editorial matters he would be familiar.—Leflyman^Talk 00:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another revert topic, regarding the erroneous copyvio claim: I agree that the summary is long(er), but I'm of the opinion that there really isn't anything wrong with that. I suspect that eventually, we'll have to divvy up the episodes, as seems to be the case with every other series of significant fan interest. Desperate Housewives is already there, with a List of Desperate Housewives episodes leading to individual episode summaries-- and Lost (in my view) has much more detailed/nuanced material, such as the use of literary references, and most recently the symbolism of Verrocchio's The Baptism of Christ in Charlie's vision-- which I thought it important to include in the summary, as the episode pointedly starts with a pan over that painting.—Leflyman^Talk 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About my Walter Lloyd change on Lost Characters

I would just like to say that what I said was TRUE about Malcom, that he isn't able to have airtime this year because of that and I think there is nothing wrong with people knowing that. It's no rumor. And I don't see what your beef is with the "the Others" fan theories section I wrote up. They're all true. It seems like you're being a control freak with the Lsot media or something, so maybe you should give some people freedom. Another thing; How the heck does editing the Walt page interfere with Wikipedia's goals?! That's the biggest bunch of bull.

Thanks for your time. Really.

Video Game Master 04:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I understand now, PKtm. Thank you, and I'm sorry. I was simply trying to pass on information to other Lost fans. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by VGMaster24 (talk • contribs) February 19, 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lost character bio edits

In recognition of excellence in editing Lost (TV series)

Thanks and you're doing a great job as well, so here's a Lost barnstar! Feel free to give it to anyone else who you think is deserving. Hopefully soon we'll be able to promote Lost to a featured article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

I fixed the warning message, wow, that was scary that I didn't notice that. -- Tawker 06:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts

I sometimes miss errors. Thanks for correcting them. I also did the "The Other 48 Days" "Adrift" and "Maternity Leave". If you see anything wrong please fix it. I try to make the draft make the most sense as I possibly can. I would like to more drafts. I am trying to do my best to get into the readers head without all the massive detail. -- Heyer 19:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Rousseau

Hey. Would you mind stopping by Talk:Danielle Rousseau and help resolve a conflict on what to do with Rousseau's article? The talk page has my opinion and the opinion of another editor, and I'd appreciate anything you can add to the discussion. Thanks. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, I'd like for you to voice your opinion in Talk:List of Lost episodes. I've stepped back from participating in that discussion because I feel like I've been talking in circles, and when I do try to voice my opinion I'm accused of thinking I "own" the articles. It's quite a mess in my opinion. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really getting tired of reverting this page. I hate to get into an edit war, but this user doesn't seem to be very negotiable. The way he sees it is that he is right regardless of the rules. I have tried reasoning with him (see his talk page), and his replies have been quite hostile (see every message he's left on my talk page). The only other option I am seeing is catching him with the 3RR rule, but he's been quite careful about that, and most the times misses the 24 hour period by just one hour. If you have any ideas please let me know. Thanks. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that all of my messages on JTrost's talkpage have been 'quite hostile', I apologise if he has taken them that way, I did not believe that an editor of his level could be that sensitive to criticism. With regards to the current Danielle discussions, I believe that the current solution should be followed, with regards to a small amount of info. on the list with a link to a main article. This way, users can find information on that list but if they wish to read on about her, then that page would be ideal.

This would make the current discussions/arguments academic. Obviously we would need the current copyright issue (which was raised somewhat unfairly I feel) on that page to be sorted out, but one of that pages authors has contacted me on the lostpedia Danielle Rousseau discussion page & said there shouldn't be a problem. The problem that does exist currently seems to be with the Copyright info on Lostpedia...it's non-existent. However, there are links to the Wikipedia guidelines, thus making it appear okay. Let's carry on talking nicely & I'm sure we can get it sorted out :)- Shaft121 19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic Flight 581 website

Hi there, I noticed that you have nominated this article for deletion. I was hoping that instead of that, we could merge it into an article of Official Websites for Lost. There are quite a few, eg hansofoundation.org, which contain fun backstories, Easter Eggs, resources (eg the orientation film) & I feel it would be a good resource, especially as a comment upon the synergy of Lost. I feel this could be important as the current syllabus I am teaching deals with synergy & I am helping at least 5 students who are working as Lost & have wikipedia astheir main internet resource. Please message me & let me know if we can do this. Maybe me, you & JTrost can work on it together? - Shaft121 19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation: Danielle Rousseau

Heya, I have a placed a request for medation for the discussion of wether Danielle Rousseau should be an individual article on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. If you would like to participate please place visit that page for further instructions. —Joseph | Talk 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Life of Sebastian Knight

Just wanted to know what your reasoning was on restoring the bit about the "bidet" and the "shortish novel" phrasology to the article on the aforementioned book (the spelling out of Nabokov's full name in Cyrillic was also a little baffling). Is it a reference to the book I'm not getting? If so, could it be clarified? Is it just a mistake? My disclaimer is that I haven't read TRLOSK, but my concern is more with the article being written in an encyclopedic way, and the version you reverted to didn't really meet those standards. What information did I delete aside from that bidet thing, which, if it is indeed relevant, doesn't really tell us much about the book or its composition?

Also, you reverted to an edit that didn't conform to Wikipedia style (no bolded article name, the "shortish novel" thing...). I'm not trying to be anal, I'm just puzzled. BTW, I changed "novella" to "novel", as I assume that's a more accurate representation of its genre.

Confusedly,

Yossarian 13:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply! I incorporated the bit with the bidet in a way that I think will make sense to the casual reader. Actually, the anon-user (who keeps restoring this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Life_of_Sebastian_Knight&oldid=32835353) had beat me to the punch, but I made sense out of his, shall we say, Nabokovian prose. I suspect he's simply not aware of Wikipedia style rules (or something) and that his heart is in the right place. I'd like to give him a talkin' to, though, as the "shortish novel" thing simply won't do. But I'm not sure how I'd do that with an unregistered user...

Anyway, I think I've made things much clearer, and hopefully my changes will pacify our anonymous Nabokovian.

Cheers,

Yossarian

23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Death to underliners!

question for you

If you remove links to articles under afd, how are editors that don't know about the page supposed to know about it if they dont go looking specifically for it? just curious, because that way of thinking allows only people that had previous knowledge of it to post on the afd. ArgentiumOutlaw 02:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Trivia revert (computer trivia)

Hi! I'm hoping this is a polite way to enter into this discussion, rather than baiting you by reverting your revert (again). I made a request on the Talk Page that you distinguish why noting that the computer is an Apple II is any more original research than many of the other close-examinations commonly found in episode descriptions or Trivia. Please comment? Bldxyz 18:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I kinda stepped into that one; my fault for getting all quotey with the policy stuff. I should remember that fancrufters don't go in for reasoning. I'm gonna try to avoid getting up on my No Original Research soapbox (or high horse, or other pedantic platform). I think that some folks really, really, really want Wikipedia to be the same as Lostpedia. And as much as I enjoy the entertainment value of Lostpedia speculation, it seems hard to get through why it doesn't belong here. Perhaps my approach comes off wrong; so like I said, I'm gonna lay low on such matters for a while :) Keep fightin' the good fight —Leflyman^Talk 04:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean I'd stop contributing; rather, I'm going to try to stop jumping in on policy discussions with editors who haven't actually read the Wikipedia policy, and claim that asking them to do so is authoritarian. As you note, it's a bit frustrating. —Leflyman^Talk 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PKtm: per these Rfc guidelines, I have created an issue summary, and I am striving to make it brief, complete, and neutral. I would appreciate it if you would give a looksee to the issue summary, fill in the gap I have left and/or revise as appropriate in order to allow as neutral a stance as possible. I believe we have an honest difference of opinion here. Thank you for your time and thoughts. Bldxyz 03:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to your comment to me.) I agree that User:ArgentiumOutlaw went too far, but I hoped to avoid getting involved in the personal attack side, forgetting for the moment the wikipedia etiquette to rise to the defense of others. I was torn because he had a point I did agree with, that some responses were to point to policy without thorough explanation as to why the policy applied. And I felt it was distracting from the real conversation. I apologize for my silence and hope we can find agreement in the future. Bldxyz 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I gave it further consideration and posted a comment on the aforementioned user's argumentative style, seeking to curb it. Bldxyz 22:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PKtm: So I don't think I understand RFC. Isn't it supposed to generate comments from other parties, not those who do not disagree? I'm not sure how it is supposed to work. You and Leflyman have both mentioned a lack of energy, but at this point I don't know what there is to respond to, since no one has joined the conversation. Maybe I don't understand the process. [By the way, I can understand not wanting to mix it up with AO again, and I am regretful for not curbing his invective earlier. My presumption is that I'll take the mantel, and if he(?) pops up, I'll seek to make sure the discussion stays more level headed this time.] Bldxyz 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! I am glad we ultimately came to a mutual agreement, which I hope those who participated earlier in the discussion are willing to stand by. I think I learned more about where the "experienced editors" are coming from. I feel like there are some issues we raised in this discussion that could be made broader, and applied to more examples (how to define "notability" a bit more precisely to this context, for example). Thanks for sticking with the discussion! Bldxyz 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Vote on Ultraviolet map

Hi I was thinking about taking this whole merge discussion in an entirely different direction. Instead of merging the info on the poorly named Ultraviolet map into the unfocused The DHARMA Initiative. How about we expand on Silentplanet's idea and create sub sections on known Hatches?

Remember the "The DHARMA Initiative" article is supposed to focus on what it is. Adding more information to "the Swan" only shows that this hatch should be expanded upon in another article. The title of this article after all is not "The DHARMA Hatches." To me it looks like we should put in some information about what exactly the DHARMA Initiative is. We should give some history on it maybe include the information on the film and then some brief information about the hatches and what they are. Hatches that we know more about like "The Swan" should have its own page that would then contain information such as "the Map", "The Timer", etc... I think that this is a more reasonable solution and would also make it a more logical solution as an encyclopedia article. Please let me know what you think (in your talk page)! And if you do agree please note that on your merge vote! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 04:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Hi thank you for joining the WikiProject. There is still plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. We are about establishing standards for Novel based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on Fiction books, otherwise called Novels. If you have any questions, do ask. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

I didn't notice the discussion on the Lost Template for Rose and Bernard. Once Again Sorry Empty2005 06:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Sorry, thought I was on my alternative account. Great work chief! Keep it up!