Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (2nd nomination)

message: *Keep Sorry, but I don't see why Lostpedia should be deleted and Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha, for examples, shouldn't be kept.  Besides, the extensive attempts to find problem with Lostpedia seem more like reaching than genuine concerns.  Really, these kinds of frivolous complaints do not improve your arguments. CSS incompatible??  Where?  What pages?  Copyrights of others?  Are you kidding?  Lostpedia isn't a site about software piracy (Astalavista) or movies (IsoHunt).  3 Advertisements objectionable?  CNN.com has just as many.  The nytimes.com page has even more.  I don't know about the behavior of the sysops there, but there is certainly plenty of verifiable information on the site, and even if there is fan speculation, it is often identified as such, so it's not a problem.  Besides, it's not like there isn't published works on Lost(Amazon for example, has at least 3 Unofficial Guides that I could find without looking hard), and it's not a no-name unknown show.  So, there are sources for it as well.   But seriously, it seems to me that there is some serious personal animus here.  That's a concern that tends to make me doubt the fairness of this proposal.  Seems to me that this is a conflic that needs to be resolved more than this article needs to be deleted.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The fact that Star Wars and Star Trek are old and Lost is new should not be at issue here. After all, we're talking about websites here, not movies and television shows. One of the points raised in support of a Lostpedia article is that their lame news appearances are at least as good as Memory Alpha's and Wookipedia's lame news appearances. If we're to use such citations as the principal metric of notability, we then either need to acknowledge that Lostpedia meets this low standard, or explicitly raise the standard. I'm not one who requires total consistency. Times change. Every situation is unique. Human judgment should be an asset, not a liability, to the healthy functioning of any wiki. Therefore, it's okay with me if there's inconsistency here. But let's try to stick with justification we can support in such a way that it doesn't look like there's personal prejudice at play here. --Loqi T. 18:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to Star Wars and Star Trek

message: *Strong keep - i somehow get an overwhelming impression just from reading the upper part of this AfD that some users seem to be simply holding some kind of grudge against it. I don't see Lostpedia as obviously failing either WP:WEB or WP:EL, and i especially don't see how lostpedia fails them any worse than Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha. Talking about which, i don't see how "unverified fancruft" has anything to do with this. Do people even realize what fancruft means? The opening line of WP:CRUFT explains it quite well "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.". There's nothing wrong with Fancruft, it's not bad. It's just not fit for an encyclopedia. But fansites by definition exist to serve the 'small population of enthusiastic fans'. So-called "Fancruft" is exactly the kind of external sites are supposed to provide, since it's information that's not appropriate on our own encyclopedia. Arguments like this "Blatant fail; their sysops and owner have been trying for several months to spam articles relating to Lost when their neutrality is practically a big problem, if they were notable would not someone independent link them?" is circular. Because even if someone independant added links to lostpedia in wikipedia articles, there is no way to prove who is adding links because they think it's a good idea, and who is adding links because they're affiliated with lostpedia. At the end, it just comes down to the bad faith assumption of "you're adding links to lostpedia, you must be from lospedia and trying to advertise". --`/aksha 13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just "appearing" here confirms to me my suspicions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fenton, what is that supposed to mean?  Please explain your comments.  --Jabrwocky7 14:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let me jump in here.  The user above, Yaksha, has never edited a Lost article or even a Lost-related talk page aside from here. 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. This is not good behavior on Wikipedia, folks. -- PKtm 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If two users are having a spat, this page isn't really the place for that, is it? --Milo H Minderbinder 01:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, i've never edited a Lost article because i don't watch lost. But in case you haven't noticed, this entire spat between lost editors on wikipedia and lostpedia is becoming quite widely known. After seeing and responding to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#a clearer policy regarding linking to fansites, i got curious to see what the huge fuss was about. So i read a few of the links people over there provided to old discussions regarding Lostpedia, and frankly speaking i'm surprised such a fuss has lasted this long. As for all the 4400 articles, they're all the same one nomination. "Submitting 30+ AfD nominations" is blowing things way out of proportion. The 39 4400 articles were articles in a series (one for each episode) and were all submitted as one single AfD all for the same reasons. Seriously, attack arguments all you like. But don't waste your time attacking people when you can't even be bothered to do the research. --`/aksha 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, equally, attack arguments all you like, but do not (in what is essentially a personal attack) accuse me of failing to do research.  Let's turn, once again, to facts.  Your contribution history, here, shows that you edited each and every one of those 39 articles, putting an AfD notice on each one, taking about half an hour for the effort. It's disingenuous for you now to claim that you didn't submit 39 AfDs, because it's tantamount to the same thing. Single AfD or not, you are clearly out to delete all 39 articles, all of which were spawned by the individual who created this Lostpedia AfD here. And I still haven't heard you explain or address just why you would have jumped in to do that, about three and a half hours later on the same day that you voted for a Strong Keep here. Just coincidence? Is it really that surprising that someone might look on your action as retaliation? -- PKtm 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged for the same AfD. What i mean is saying "i've nominated 40 of his articles for AfD" misleading implies i've gone and tracked down 40 different articles of his and put up nominations for each of them. Where as in fact, the 40 articles were apart of a single group. And have all been dumped into one AfD for the same reason. As for why, maybe you should actually read the opening paragraph of the AfD here, which explains exactly why i nominated the whole lot. And i should point out 4400 isn't the only TV series either. here is the nomination for equally short/indescriminate-information-dump pokemon episode articles. This is hardly a matter of "nom because the article is crap and needs deletion". I did provide abundant reasons for the nomination, and by all the merge votes, quite clearly i'm not the only one who thinks those articles are redundant. --`/aksha 04:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Really, PKtm, I wish you would drop the habit of opening your comments with "um." I find that practice to be shrill and belittling. I haven't done the research of vetting participants in this discussion the way you seem to have done, so I'm relying on what you say here. It sounds to me as if you're berating Yaksha for going to all the trouble of notifying readers of each individual article in a series about a consolidated AfD on the whole series. I truly hope I don't have an accurate read on this, but I fear I do. --Loqi T. 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a personal attack, Loqi T, using loaded words like "shrill", belittling", "berating".  Clear and simple, including your edit summary ("how petty").  Let's get back to the facts, please.  I truly hope I don't have to direct you to WP:NPA, but I fear I do. Um. -- PKtm 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Quite a broad interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack, there PKtm. I said I wish you'd stop being so insulting, and you accuse me of a personal attack. I'm afraid I do consider this sub-argument to be off topic, and a petty waste of mental bandwidth, and I suggest the three of us get a room. --Loqi T. 05:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please just settle down here? Loqi - thank you for trying to defend me, it's appreciated, but it's really okay. To be honest, i didn't even notice the 'um' bit. PKtm made some observations which i gave some explainations for - he probably just didn't notice all the 40 articles tagged with AfD were actually towards one same nomination. So if you two don't mind, i think i'll pass on the "and I suggest the three of us get a room." offer =). --`/aksha 08:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read the article you have linked to, specifially WP:NPA#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks.  While the tone of Loqi T's comments may not be 100% civil, he does not actually personally attack you.  "There is a subtle difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling."  If you feel strongly that this is a personal attack then you should visit WP:DR.  --Jabrwocky7 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: users just 'appearing here' is a direct result of the reason i raised this on the WP:VPP, matthew; i wanted to open this debate to unbiased wikipedia editors, who have no bias, either toward or against the inclusion of lostpedia (unlike you or i, as i have previously stated) - because it's without a doubt the fastest way of resolving this issue. it's not because of sockpuppetry, canvassing, or anything related. --Kaini 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD noms

message: *Delete per Matthew and PKtm. I also note the prevalence of apparent meatpuppetry of voting by recently created accounts, those who've never edited a Lost-related article, or may have only interest in inclusion of this particular article. --LeflymanTalk 08:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *C'mon, guys, let's try to stay focused on the topic under discussion, and not descend into ad hominem attacks on suspected puppets. If there are indeed meat puppets present, they are unclear on the concept of this forum. In particular, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." If huge swaths of the Zombie Hordes can't be taken down with our ATL guns (air-tight logic), then it might be time to begin asking ourselves some tough questions about our own positions. Please, let's try to focus more on what is said, and less on who is saying it. --Loqi T. 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I quite agree, Loqi, and would request that you demonstrate your good faith in making this suggestion by removing or striking through the personal attacks in your comments from yesterday. Thanks, PKtm 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment Eh, I've seen enough silliness here from both sides to know I don't particularly want to get involved in pointless blathering about this.  I've said my piece above and all I have now are condolences for the unlucky (or incredibly brave) admin who undertakes the closure of this and then is stuck listening to complaints for the next several weeks from whoever doesn't get their way.--Isotope23 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *comment: i've specifically stayed away from editing the LOST article due to this very debate. i added one fact concerning five of the six 'LOST numbers' being drawn in the irish national lottery  to the lost article on one occasion, but it was quickly reverted because i cited lostpedia as a reference. i wouldn't like to be lumped in with the 'registered at wiki as a result of the lostpedia controversy' set, and i'd like to make this explicit here. my primary concern, whether here or at lostpedia, is to help make the wiki in question as good as it can be. --Kaini 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * PKtm, those comments were made in the context of an abusive thread that began with this personal attack on Yaksha, launched by you: "... The user above, Yaksha, has never edited a Lost article or even a Lost-related talk page aside from here. 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. ..." It seems to me that that statement is a public assumption of bad faith on someone who you apparently never encountered before. I would also point out that that passage is precisely the sort of ad hominem attack I deplore. Yesterday, you directed me to WP:NPA, and now I'm directing you to the alternatives section of that page, "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." I'm sorry, but I don't agree that harshly pointing out someone's offensive language is always a personal attack. My statement of opinion about your tone was not written as a personal attack, and I'm sorry if you read it that way. In any case I've re-read it today, and I stand by it today. Do please stop criticizing people's edit histories as a substitute for rational discussion. --Loqi T. 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, I won't "own" that. Loqi, if you don't see the difference between my citing facts, and your use of personal, inflammatory words like "shrill", belittling", "berating", and "petty", there's probably nothing anyone can do to convince you.  I'd point out, however, that WP:NPA includes the remark that Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.  And yes, people's edit histories are certainly germane here (you'll note that the facts went undisputed by Yaksha), and I'm not the only one to bring them up, because they matter when assessing good faith. I regret that you consider citing unpleasant facts as somehow being what you label "abusive". In any case, all the rational discussion on this topic, if any, occurred long ago, and we're just retreading the same old ground.-- PKtm 01:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *This side spat is already far too long, but I feel I must further dissect your words for you. You said Yaksha's actions somewhere else on Wikipedia were "clearly retaliatory," and a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. Aside from your very thin line of reasoning to arrive at such an inflammatory conclusion, it amounts to ascribing motivation to someone else's actions. My statement was about how your language irritates me; yours was abusive speculation masquerading as fact. Please don't hide behind "facts," when the core of that spat between the two of you was your mischaracterization of the meaning of those facts. And now you're mischaracterizing that mischaracterization for all the world to see. I'm not going to bicker about yesterday's unseemly display any further. --Loqi T. 03:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * (Halloween addendum) Interested readers can find recent continuations on this topic located on PKtm's personal talk page. Please try to refrain from chiming in, unless you have something really, really, really urgent. User_talk:PKtm#An_apology. --Loqi T. 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Puppetry

message: In Leflyman's comment under my recommendation on the main page, he seems to be insinuating that I am some sort of meat puppet. I've reproduced the entire comment here, because I feel I must address it more fully. --Loqi T. 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is almost becoming a parody of an AfD discussion! how in the world can a change of vote by a vehemently anti-inclusion of lostpedia user with a history of productive edits be construed as meatpuppetry by someone who has been pro-inclusion throughout the debate, bar by l33t h4x0r1ng? this whole discussion has somewhat descended into bathos. also, how can a compliment on a user's talk page for their passion in enforcing their interpretation of a wiki policy be interpreted as being underhanded in some way? the fact that loqi t hasn't participated in any other AfDs is moot; wiki users should not be accused of underhanded behaviour because they feel passionately about something. this whole branch of the debate is utterly ridiculous imo. 
 i see no meatpuppetry here. --Kaini 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm afraid I don't understand what this new section is about. A read of the worthwhile essay Wikipedia:Beware_of_the_tigers would seem to be appropriate. Please further note that nowhere in anything I've written has there been an accusation of Loqi of being a puppet -- this appears to be his own reading. I have stated, as he has acknowledged, that he has campaigned for inclusion of a Lostpedia link for the last three months. He's not been merely passionate about seeing Lostpedia here, he's been seemingly single-minded in that pursuit, and has been repeatedly asked to tone down the level of rhetoric when responding to others who do not share his interpretation of policy--  In comments on his talk page, he has posted that he wanted a "few knuckleheads to get a clue" which he later replaced with "scurvy scamps... share my view".--LeflymanTalk 04:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Note: I've reverted the edits to prior comments; it's considered bad form to edit comments after they've been responded to, per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, "Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration."--LeflymanTalk 04:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: apologies; the mere mention of meatpuppetry somewhat annoyed me (regardless of who it was mentioned by), and i should have cooled down before posting. happily restored and struck through. --04:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Thank-you for clarifying what you meant with those words, Leflyman. (I mean that sincerely.) And I will read that essay. Now, If you don't mind, I'd like to continue this conversation in the Lost/Fansite venue's new section.  --Loqi T. 04:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More puppetry