Wanted to say hi after seeing you are on Bloodfin as well from your comments on Star Wars Galaxies. I'm Thomias (master artisan / architect / shipwright) and Swey (teras kasi master / master combat medic) if you ever want to say hi in the game. -- Syrthiss 15:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. I have responded to your MEDCAB request related to List of browser games and Browser game. The discussion can be found on the talk pages of both articles. Soltak | Talk 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm patient by all means but just curious as to how long a mediation would take if say, the other person never responds and just continues on their merry way. Also, what is the proper etique on making changes that keep being reverted? One last question, how would I make a link to the talk page in an edit summary? Thanks, - Moocats 18:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If both parties are active in mediation, then proper etiquette is to avoid editing the article until mediation is complete. If one party doesn't participate, however, there really is no restriction of reverting. Just make sure you adhere to the Three Revert Rule.
Edit summaries don't respond to wiki-coding or HTML. The best bet is to simply say "see talk page" or "see Talk:Article Name". Soltak | Talk 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As User:JasonBlake69 obviously doesn't feel that mediation is necessary and doesn't seem to be willing to discuss his behavior at all, I recommend you report his next untoward edit at Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress. Simply follow the instructions there and an admin should contact both of you, briefly blocking Jason. Soltak | Talk 00:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
It seems I was invited to a discussion which I was not aware of the least. This whole Wikipedia looks like a puzzle so far.
I think I know NOW how to work with the User talk system and request for a fair and new discussion.
Cheers,
Regarding the straw poll you recently voted in, note that the page has been archived for 8 days now. If you desire, go to the Talk:Qur'an page and there should be links for the archive dealing with the entire controversy. Pepsidrinka 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to stir up the hornet's nest over the cartoons scandal. I want Wikipedia to have a clear and rigorous censorship policy. To do this, we need to either use the cartoons test case to highlight the criterias in question that allow us to distinguish between the two, or we need to change some past cases where editor consensus gave the 'wrong' decision. Otherwise, the crazies will be all over this, and we will have to go over this again and again and again, losing credibility and neutrality every time. Wouldn't things be easier if we had an agreed upon policy or principle that we can just point to? -- Fangz 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Wanted to say hi after seeing you are on Bloodfin as well from your comments on Star Wars Galaxies. I'm Thomias (master artisan / architect / shipwright) and Swey (teras kasi master / master combat medic) if you ever want to say hi in the game. -- Syrthiss 15:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. I have responded to your MEDCAB request related to List of browser games and Browser game. The discussion can be found on the talk pages of both articles. Soltak | Talk 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm patient by all means but just curious as to how long a mediation would take if say, the other person never responds and just continues on their merry way. Also, what is the proper etique on making changes that keep being reverted? One last question, how would I make a link to the talk page in an edit summary? Thanks, - Moocats 18:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If both parties are active in mediation, then proper etiquette is to avoid editing the article until mediation is complete. If one party doesn't participate, however, there really is no restriction of reverting. Just make sure you adhere to the Three Revert Rule.
Edit summaries don't respond to wiki-coding or HTML. The best bet is to simply say "see talk page" or "see Talk:Article Name". Soltak | Talk 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As User:JasonBlake69 obviously doesn't feel that mediation is necessary and doesn't seem to be willing to discuss his behavior at all, I recommend you report his next untoward edit at Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress. Simply follow the instructions there and an admin should contact both of you, briefly blocking Jason. Soltak | Talk 00:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
It seems I was invited to a discussion which I was not aware of the least. This whole Wikipedia looks like a puzzle so far.
I think I know NOW how to work with the User talk system and request for a fair and new discussion.
Cheers,
Regarding the straw poll you recently voted in, note that the page has been archived for 8 days now. If you desire, go to the Talk:Qur'an page and there should be links for the archive dealing with the entire controversy. Pepsidrinka 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to stir up the hornet's nest over the cartoons scandal. I want Wikipedia to have a clear and rigorous censorship policy. To do this, we need to either use the cartoons test case to highlight the criterias in question that allow us to distinguish between the two, or we need to change some past cases where editor consensus gave the 'wrong' decision. Otherwise, the crazies will be all over this, and we will have to go over this again and again and again, losing credibility and neutrality every time. Wouldn't things be easier if we had an agreed upon policy or principle that we can just point to? -- Fangz 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)