User talk:TunaSushi/Archive 2008

Archives

---

• 2009
• 2008
• 2007
• 2006

---

Current

License tagging for Image:ChipsAhoyPackage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ChipsAhoyPackage.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger Tags

Why have you removed merger tags from some of the articles which were split. The tags cannot simply be removed because you dislike them. If you feel strongly enough that your arguments for the recently split pages are strong enough to warrant them remaining separate, why remove the tags and try and stifle the discussion from occurring. Surly you should welcome the discussion as your arguments are strong enough and you have enough consensus to have the articles remain separate.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to explain this because you just don't seem to get it. I'll try though. The articles were split because consensus said they should not have been merged. If you follow that, then why are the tags necessary? Discussion is completed, and they merit their own articles. Am I missing something? TunaSushi (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Why restore them to their previous separate pages from the merged page just to reapply the stupid merger tag that no one agreed on? This entire merger madness is ridiculous. Looks like getting bonked didn't help much....Angelriver (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And to you Lucy-marie, the discussions already DID happen. You failed to garner ANY support. Therefore, the pages were unmerged. Get it? Angelriver (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The original merger discussions I admit did not go through with much discussion because there was no credible opposing to the proposals on the talk pages. The articles had been tagged and nobody had said hey this is notable because of XYZ. I say we actually have full discussions with as many different users as possible and try and involve as many as possible. If you feel that strongly that your arguments are strong enough then why are you worrying about the articles being tagged for merging. Please also note I wasn't the person who re-tagged the articles. I have only reinitiated one merger proposal as there was only one comment on the original merger proposal. I say we tackle each article individually rather than doing loads at once. That way the articles which do need merging will be merged and the articles that don't won't be merged. It seems that other users are supporting some of the merger proposals and the mergers are being reversed, unilaterally.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, Theresa Knott, an admin, went through all of the characters to which you had applied merger tags and DELETED THE TAGS because you FAILED to generate ANY support for your cause. Are you saying that you know more than the admins now? Are you questioning their judgment? Angelriver (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, when people try to have a discussion about the merger tags, you either ignore them if they don’t agree with you, claim everyone else’s opinions don’t matter, or just try to go ahead with the merger even if every single person has opposed the suggestion. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the Mike Doyle page where actual serious discussion is taking place based on policy to show that I am not the only one irritated by the arguments which ignore all policy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've pulled the merger tag for Mike Doyle until his presence can be established once the new season begins. If his character does not return, the merging issue can be rediscussed. Angelriver (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my page. Unfortunately lucy re-nuked the pages, so all my work was for nothing.--Lan Di (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cabal

Lucy has decided to drag this debate into the realm of mediation and named you in her dispute. See the link.Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13_24_character_merging_of_minor_characters. --MiB-24 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

I'm a Wikipedian, that's all. I'm established and dedicated if that helps. I've just found time, so I'll be reviewing the plethora of statements — I daresay I'll be consulting with some of my experienced cohorts (be they admin or not). My current inclination is towards a sort of mentorship for Lucy — I myself would probably be up for it... DBD 13:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Case on Hold

As a case is currently occurring at the Arbitration Commitee, i have placed the current MedCabal case on hold to prevent conflict occurring between any consensus that occurs at MedCab and any decisions that are made at ArbCom. I recommend you watch the outcomes and discussions that occur at ArbCom as you could be affected by them.

If you do do not want me as a mediator and wish for someone else to mediate after the ArbCom case is over then feel free to place a request on the MedCab talk page and then notify me so that i can see if your points are valid enough for me to recuse myself. I hope that this case will be dealt with soon. Seddon69 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reopening of case

I don't believe that mentorship of lucy is the only way of solving this dispute. But the only way anything will be achieved is if both parties assume good faith. I realise that people might be frustrated by lucy but the case so far has mostly consisted of user bashing from both sides of the argument which just isnt an atmosphere for dispute resolution.

If lucy is willing for this mediation to restart then im willing have another go at this case. I know nothing is binding but this definitely isn't ready for anything higher in the chain of dispute resolution. If this second shot doesn't work then either i refer the case to MedCom or you take it to ArbCom but i don't wanna see the latter happen. Seddon69 (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup on the cabal page

Nice job on the cleanup. <g> I was particularly amused to note that I had duplicated numbering. That was a LONG thread of conversation. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Injunction

As you have pointed out, the user has refused to adhere to the injunction, which, as I have pointed out on their talk page, is an extremely major breach of WP:AP, in particular, to the section on adhering to injunctions. And as ArbCom is the highest committee in Wikipedia, what would the next step be? Contacting Jimmy Wales directly? Steve Crossin (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just seen a page, if any user breaches a ruling by ArbCom, you can request Arbitration Enforcment (WP:AE). Steve Crossin (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Michaelpillar.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Michaelpillar.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Michaelpillar.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Michaelpillar.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Case

Heya. i was wondering whether you could be interested in continuing to participate in the 24 characters medcab case. I believe that this dispute can be resolved given a little time and more patience from the parties involved. Seddon69 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. This is a new slate. Seddon69 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can I speak to you? On my talk page, or on IRC, at #wikipedia-medcab. Its about the case, obviously. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the answer to my question about the non-breaking space. -Airtuna08 (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinay

Hi, I noticed that the Chinay article you contributed has been on the uncategorized page list for a while. Can it be expanded beyond a WP:DICDEF or can you state why it should not be merged/redirected to Chinese Filipino like Chinoy? • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• The uncategorized page list is at Special:UncategorizedPages and Chinay is on the list here. And for the other question, I patrol the list for articles that need work (categories, expansion, repair, etc.) If the article stays as it is, another editor may come along and tag it. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor CTU agents in 24

There's a current change to an article that I feel should have the discussion of the whole Wkiproject. It's the article above, the old version is this and the new version is the current version. I think some discussion on which version would be best would be wise in this situation. Feel free to discuss this on the article talk page. Thanks, SteveBot (owner) 21:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)