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]

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]

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]