User talk:Kevin Langdon

Mega Society

I have requested that the Mega Society deletion be overturned here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

DaturaS

Are you sure DaturaS is Chris Langan/Asmodeus? Whilst CML's style shows signs of an overbearing superiority complex, he always seems to be fair within the parameters of his own belief system; by contrast DaturaS's style seems dominated by a petty vindictiveness and frequently resorts to outright malicious lies; quite distinct I think. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mega Society Judgement

As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

• Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
• It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
• When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.

The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

ASSP

May-Zi, some times known as May-Tzu (Richard May), posted a link to the wikipedia deletion debate in ASSP list. I have read and support the keep propostion. Please keep me informed on progress and let me know if you need to further the Keep message to high authorities. RoddyYoung (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple 9

Perhaps you wee unaware, but in general, we frown on posting personal e-mails on wikipedia, even if they are accessible elsewhere, for privacy reasons. Also, all of that information is accessible from the organizations website, which itself is linked to the wiki page, so it is not appropriate for the page.Please remember that wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and not a web page. Thank you very much for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you the Kevin Langdon who was in Apa X?

The inventor of Langdon charts? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC) (member of Milwapa, formerly in FAPA and TurboApa)

I am that Kevin Langdon. For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with the context here, long before the Internet became available outside academia there were "APAs" (amateur press associations) within the science fiction fan community which operated similarly to today's e-mail lists. The members published newsletters in rotation containing contributions by members. FAPA (Fantasy Amateur Press Association) was the best known and most prestigious of these organizations. I was on a waiting list for membership in FAPA but never joined. APA X (also known as APEX) was an elite, invitation-only group. I was a member for several years in the 1960's. The "Langdon Charts" were diagrams of sexual partnerings. There were many interconnections, indicated by lines joining the names of the sexual partners. It's a bit embarrassing to be known for such a silly thing but for the sake of historical accuracy I'm setting the record straight here. Kevin Langdon (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)