BritishWatcher (talk | contribs) |
→Sarah777 removing comments from talk page.: new section |
||
Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
I know you're an experienced VG page editor, so I thought I'd let you know that I flagged the [[Compilation packs for the Grand Theft Auto series]] article for deletion. I think it's pretty obvious that the article needs to be deleted, but ould you express your opinion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compilation packs for the Grand Theft Auto series|here]]? [[User:VG Editor|VG Editor]] ([[User talk:VG Editor|talk]]) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
I know you're an experienced VG page editor, so I thought I'd let you know that I flagged the [[Compilation packs for the Grand Theft Auto series]] article for deletion. I think it's pretty obvious that the article needs to be deleted, but ould you express your opinion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compilation packs for the Grand Theft Auto series|here]]? [[User:VG Editor|VG Editor]] ([[User talk:VG Editor|talk]]) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Sarah777 removing comments from talk page. == |
|||
Hi Masem - since you're the mediator, or whatever, at the IECOLL poll, I thought I would bring this to your attention. [[User:Sarah777]] removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration%2FPoll_on_Ireland_article_names&diff=308585665&oldid=308577012 this comment] by Srnec from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names]], calling it a personal attack against her. I think that the case for this being a personal attack is questionable, and that, at any rate, if anyone is going to be removing it, it should not be her. (Personally, I'm pretty dubious of the merit of removing all but the most egregious personal attacks from non-user talk pages. Taken too far, this can be chilling to debate, and gives a false sense of what is said. As such, I restored it. Sarah then removed it again, and posted a note on my talk page accusing me of a personal attack by restoring it. At any rate, I really don't want to get into it again with Sarah, so I thought I'd just point it out to you and leave you to decide what to do. Thanks for your attention. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] ([[User talk:John Kenney|talk]]) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:52, 18 August 2009
Template:Archive box collapsible
Helo there. I understand you are an Admin. I think User: William M. Connolley, an Admin (who previously blocked me), is abusing his power at List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom. He is calling my insertion of a "citation" tag (as no source is tagged for a Taiwan / RoC entry as "edit warring". I have to tread carefully because he will likely block me again if I try to revert his change. Could you wade in with yor tuppence on the relevant talk page. Otherwise, if you won't, is there a page where these sorts of complaints can be made? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Meltdown
Ireland Collaboration is melting down. Weeks and weeks of it are not getting us anywnere. Some progress has been made. See the talk page. We really need guidance from you now. -- Evertype·✆ 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ireland Collaboration is not melting down you are. Just because things are not going your way you’re stamping your feet and lashing out at all an sundry and it’s not just me for a change. Stop now and start to behave in a reasonable and product manner. Were I think Masem is wrong I’m not long in telling them, were I think they are right equally so. But I do not come here or on the talk page pleading and imploring them to come help me so stop being ridiculous. Progress is being made, and will continue to be made but your outbursts are not helping. --Domer48'fenian' 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Masem, I believe the Collaboration process-in-question, is eroding my brain; ahhhhh. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I consider Domer's passive-agressive attacks to be uncivil and unwarranted, not to mantion full of hyperbole and stale metaphor. Be that as it may, one outstanding question remains: Some people want Pro/Con Statements to be "separate" from Position Statements. I for my part don't believe that this is feasiblel; my own Position Statement is in fact a list of Pro/Con statements. We really need guidance from you now. (Do forgive me if that final sentence there smacks of "pleading" and "imploring" and "ridiculousness". -- Evertype·✆ 07:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
So you like to play games? 98.26.147.251 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Left 4 Dead 2
Treat those users well. They may be new, and not understand Wikipedia much yet, but they are well intended. Don't just throw policies at them, explain, teach, etc. Cheers, and thanks, Prodego talk 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Guitar Hero
I think you'd better fix that "Oppose" on your FLC... it's a great list, make it pass! igordebraga ≠ 04:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- List of songs in the Guitar Hero On Tour series has been promoted, congrats. Shouldn't there be a colon between "Hero" and "On"? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Poor Man's Talkback Notice
Please see the "RE: Image Galleries" section on Hammersoft's talk page for a reply. Since this will be going back and forth (with many replies for awhile) you might want to check it often or watchlist it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Moving Poll material to the ballot
Masem, please see this discussion on finalizing the ballot paper. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Masem, I made the change as agreed; you may wish to check the diffs and if content lock the page again. -- Evertype·✆ 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
- Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
- Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
- Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
- News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
- Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 11:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Infamousscreen.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Infamousscreen.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Ratatouille-remy-control-linguini.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Ratatouille-remy-control-linguini.png. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ireland vote - go! go! go?
Are we good to go? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe we are good to go. How can we assist you, Masem? Or do you want to do all the locking and announcing and so on yourself? -- Evertype·✆ 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm sorry for the positioning but I wanted to avoid your critics below due to edit conflicts and other reasons I hope you will understand by the end of the message. I noticed the names poll and the voter profiling issue. I am not necessarily intimidated but rather discouraged from voting by "my little spreadsheet" as I wish not be drawn into these sorts of disputes or connected with one side versus the other on this issue and think I have thus far been relatively successful in that aim. My position on such a spreadsheet would probably be evident from contributions and interactions with others, etc. but usually I don't touch subjects of a political, etc. as there are several less controversial topics I enjoy getting on with, music for example. You seem to be a good person to come to in the hope of not stirring any drama or further controversy on this issue; I was simply wondering if the spreadsheet is ongoing or has it finished? Sorry for the long comment and I hope your critics are content to not pursue me for this. --C•W 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ireland vote
Masem, please lock the ballot paper and we will begin the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Poll on Ireland article names
Problem with ballot template
Hi Masem,
I'm having difficultly getting anyone to do this by the usual means. There is a problem with the voting template. It's a bug that means the template breaks for people with fancy sigs. The change fixes the bug, no more. It means too that the instructions on the ballot page need to be updated with slightly different instruction for using the template.
Could you update the template and ballot page as requested hered.
Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
- Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ireland Poll on Name
Masem; I have added back the latest update. Would you please tell me why you saw fit to remove it? Without discussion (with me)? This is especially outrageous given that the actual votes coming in are proving beyond reasonable doubt that my contention re British voting strength is correct. Are you trying to deny reality? Sarah777 (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Voters being intimidated
Masem,
At least two voters have removed their votes to avoid being "ethnically profiled" or being "added to some POV warriors statistics": Nanonic and Andrwsc.
It was agreed that, "Non-trivial sanctions will be imposed for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or otherwise manipulating the ballot (or attempting to do so)." At one time a straight 12-month block was aired. Voter intimidation is surely a serious matter. Can you please do something to stop it.
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Adds: I've posted a copy of this message on the ballot talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is a crock of shit intimidated whould you catch yourself on. BigDunc 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- How can an Wiki editor be intimidated? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the issue, have warned Sarah, and am checking at AN/I to see if there's a serious problem here before taking more drastic action. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a serious problem here, and it's you Masem and your handling of the issue. I'd suggest some drastic action, but the chances of having something done is next too zero! --Domer48'fenian' 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Masem, the same thing was done at the vote on a name change at Macedonia and as far as I'm aware it wasn't seen as distruption, despite objections. I'd have to find a diff for you. Jack forbes (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- That would be good if you could find it Jack. BigDunc 20:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, please find it and to see if the situations are compariable. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the diff here Masem. I would like to add that I objected to it, but if it was acceptable there then it should be here. Jack forbes (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Seems the logic of all this is that all editors from sovereign Ireland (bar the 4 or 5 usual suspects) will eventually be blocked in order to preserve the nonsense that some British editors don't vote along national lines on Ireland-related articles. That proposition is absurd. Totally absurd. But we are not allowed to demonstrate that it is absurd! That is the root of 7 years of strife across Ireland-related Wiki; and still the favoured solution appears to pretend reality doesn't exist! (This is NOT personal Masem, so please don't accuse me of that at ANI) Sarah777 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've checked that and Talk:Greece/Naming poll which a similar "tally" from Future Perfect were made but met with a large amount of resistence, and the largest difference here was that these were all leading up to the ArbCom case. In the present situation, we've already past ArbCom, so there's already some decorum that needs to be maintain. I'm not convinced from the Macadonia/Greece issue that this approach is allowed, and am still awaiting additional administrator input on the issue. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- If Sarah moved her 'Tally sheet' to her own userpage, would that be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Take it to her user space and not show it to anyone else until September 14th would be fine by me. But it has to be taken off the talk page. It is evidently intimidating to some people to have their votes profiled in that way. (The banner's announcing that "profiling" was taking place, I think are also intimidating, Masem. The relevant sections should just be blanked - completely.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the sensible thing to do is to follow the consensus that appears to be emerging, namely to ban profiling. My own opinion on this is that I'm not completely convinced that it is a form of intimidation, or even that it is breaking any rules or policies. It's not like the information is being gathered from off-wiki sources - it's all information available here, and public. The collation of the statistics can't even be regarded as accurate.... --HighKing (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Take it to her user space and not show it to anyone else until September 14th would be fine by me. But it has to be taken off the talk page. It is evidently intimidating to some people to have their votes profiled in that way. (The banner's announcing that "profiling" was taking place, I think are also intimidating, Masem. The relevant sections should just be blanked - completely.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- If Sarah moved her 'Tally sheet' to her own userpage, would that be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the diff here Masem. I would like to add that I objected to it, but if it was acceptable there then it should be here. Jack forbes (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Masem. Do you think going to Arbcom enforcement to try and get Sarah blocked is fair. You may have been right asking her to remove her text, but come on, you were really quick off the mark taking her there. This could have been sorted quickly without this. No drama, no fuss. I have a feeling most of those who disagreed with her profiling would not want her blocked, just reverted. Jack forbes (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Arbcom blocks need to be enforced. Now, I'm 100% certain this qualifies, but it feels like it, and it needs to be brought forward. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with any Arbcom ruling. Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let's keep calm. Masem is trying to preserve the integrity of the vote and needs to be seen to play an active role. Editors have made an accusation that Sarah is deliberately intimidating voters and deliberately manupulating votes, and this is a serious accusation that needs to be dealt with (the accusation). A consensus only appears to be emerging on this issue, and IMHO the intent of Sarah must be taken into consideration. Did she intend to imtimdate editors? Was it foreseeable? It would be inappropriate to sanction an editor unless this was established, so lets give some other editors time to deliberate. --HighKing (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Masem removed Sarahs spreadsheet, Sarah then clearly ignored Masem by readding it and refused to accept she should stop doing it. Even on the enforcment page she is demanding the right to continue posting her spreadsheet in an attempt to influence the vote. Her own comments about her little spreadsheet shows it was aimed at trying to claim their was a British POV being imposed on this. Those accusations and attacks on most British editors are certainly unfair and when looking at the two who removed their votes its important to note one didnt even have F as his first choice. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- BW, such emotive terminology only serves to needlessly exaggerate things. Sarah didn't ignore Masem; she noticed and reacted. She didn't refuse to accept; she wanted it discussed first (and now is prepared to accept). She didn't do it in an attempt to influence the vote and it goes against AGF to attribute these motives. Raising the tension like this is akin to trying to influence the ref in a soccer game; diving in the box and rolling over 5 times pretending injury. Can we just move on? --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Using the term ignore is emotive terminology??? LMAO im sorry but i do not know another word for what she did, i certainly would not describe it as "she noticed and reacted." Masem removed her spreadsheet placed a box there clearly explaining why its was removed, Sarah ignored that box and less than 10 minutes later had re added her spreadsheet. She did refuse to stop and even now, far from saying sorry and that she will not push it any further.. she still demands the right to post it on the arbcom enforcment page.
- Personally i dont have a problem with her little list, i found it amusing although i was pretty annoyed it was allowed to be on the ballot page for 24 hours. But clearly some of those who have been invited to give up their time and vote on this matter do not see the funny side. As i said before, i think its important we actually look at how the first person that withdrew voted.. They did not even back the F option as their first vote, their first preference was Sarahs vote. "Intimidation" is a bit strong, but i certainly see her actions as aimed to influence this vote and that was not done by trying to persuade people another option was better, it was trying discredit contributors based on their nationality which isnt very nice BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- BW, such emotive terminology only serves to needlessly exaggerate things. Sarah didn't ignore Masem; she noticed and reacted. She didn't refuse to accept; she wanted it discussed first (and now is prepared to accept). She didn't do it in an attempt to influence the vote and it goes against AGF to attribute these motives. Raising the tension like this is akin to trying to influence the ref in a soccer game; diving in the box and rolling over 5 times pretending injury. Can we just move on? --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) How can anything Sarah does influence the vote? BigDunc 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- This clearly shows she has influenced the vote, nobody else started to profile people. [1] , Despite TWO people withdrawing their vote and Masem removing her little spreadsheet, she carried on and re added it refusing to compromise demanding the right to post it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- What happened might not dealt with by the request and thus nothing may happen. At the same time, reading the Famine remedy in a different light, it runs right aground of it and should be reported. I'm not the final judge of that, that's why the request process is there. If the admins/arbcoms watching that feel there's no violation, then there's no violation. I felt that there was something, particularly when remedies are towards specific editors, and thus necessary to report it. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with any Arbcom ruling. Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom ruling
User:Cadbury Wispa has broken the Arbcom ruling of moving pages using ROI/Ireland. Please see the history of the page in question [here]. The user is a sock puppet of a previous disruptive user User:Dylanmckane. Can you sort it out? Thanks.83.43.216.214 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi as a previous moderator would be able to do something about this? If not can you recommend an admin who would? Thanks83.43.216.214 (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Advice re personal attack
I've been accused of sectarianism here. I asked the editor to retract the allegation, but he has refused. Can you advise if there is anything I can do to have the allegation removed? Mooretwin (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ruling request
Is it possible for you to rule on the question of stricken votes at the Ireland poll talk page to avoid further unnecessary drama brought on by my initial post? I think the issue is cut and dried on this minor question. Sswonk (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed with Sswonk. Masem, you yourself provide the rationale when you say that "if people want to strip their votes out that's fine, but it's acceptable (and preferable?) to strike them, as to indicate that you rescinded your vote as a statement to this poll". A "statement to this poll" is precisely a comment that is prohibited in the voting area. Therefore it is unacceptable. Remove the strikethroughs or remove the votes. Srnec (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Re:Colons
Oh, sorry, didn't realize there was any consensus on this. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
- News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Pity. So close...
Masem, no doubt you've been keeping an eye on goings-on at the Ireland poll. I've been expecting you to pop in. Before I start what is going to sound like a big whinge and moan, genuinely I'd like to thank you for the huge amount of effort and time you've put in. It's a thankless job, but I'd like to at least let you know that your efforts were appreciated. But Sarah's block today by an involved admin, with no response by you or other admins (and I *know* that Sarah's Talk page is on perma-watch by dozens of admins) takes a lot of credibility out of the vote and effectively puts an end to the process. Coupled with the fact that the initial intentions behind the vote in the first place (a comprehensive compromise involving article titles and article content) has now been overtaken by numerous editors attempting to cement the status quo in place for 2 years. Arbcom did not give a mandate for that, and I did not sign up for such a process. So I'm withdrawing from the process altogether, and I don't believe that this process has any credibility any longer. It's a pity, seeing as how close we came with Mooretwins proposal. --HighKing (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whilst i agree the 24 hour block was unfair considering all the other things that had been said on the poll talk page, Sarah is not an innocent victim in all of this. Had she not responded by calling an Admin a clown twice im sure DrK would of unblocked her and she certainly would not of been blocked from talking on her talk page and she chose not to contest the block for some reason. The block is only for 24 hours, its not like she has been stopped from taking part in the whole process, and based on several vote changes in the past 48 hours id say her recent actions / comments have hurt the chances of a non F outcome rather than helping it.
- I still fail to understand how you thought the intentions of the vote in the first place was "a comprehensive compromise involving article titles and article content". Consesus failed, we could not get agreement and people from all sides (whilst i accept some opposed it) supported putting this to the community poll to end the debate once and for all because we were going round and round in circles. After the poll there has to be an effort to decide on how to handle Ireland in text and other articles like Politics of Ireland, but this vote was always meant to decide the main problem (if the state/island articles should be moved and if they should be renamed). The overwhelming majority of the people who have voted have not been involved in this issue before, its good to get outside opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Quick answer: I can state my feelings about the block - but impartially I cannot get involved - I can't place the block nor can I remove it, only argue for or against it. If the block was fair or not is an admin issue (as I understand, the person placing it has been part of the process, so there is some question towards that). --MASEM (t) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're missing the most important point. How is it that an outspoken editor could be taken out of the process by an admin who participates and holds different views? How is this process credible any longer? BTW, I'm looking through the archives - can you point me to where the scope of the vote was agreed (especially the bit about 2 years). The vote is effectively in chaos - in retrospect, all blocking decisions relating to this vote should have gone through you. --HighKing (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I rather agree with HighKing. Though I regret his leaving the process. I am an optimist. -- Evertype·✆ 23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Quick answer: I can state my feelings about the block - but impartially I cannot get involved - I can't place the block nor can I remove it, only argue for or against it. If the block was fair or not is an admin issue (as I understand, the person placing it has been part of the process, so there is some question towards that). --MASEM (t) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Giles
Well, I was looking at Dhani's goofy mug and I realized Giles Martin should be represented as well. He's clearly the most important person to the game in terms of the audio. T. H. McAllister (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
B:RB gameplay screen
There's one at the Ed Sullivan Theater at the official site's promo section ([2]) but it doesn't show the vocal harmonies. Why not put the Ed Sullivan shot that's already in the article in the art production section and remove the image from the opening cinematic? At the moment, the opening cinema image only useful as a representation of what it looks like, while the Ed Sullivan image at least includes the caption detailing how the Apple archives were used to shape the in-game visuals. I'll try to set it up now. T. H. McAllister (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The purpose of a gameplay screen is to be a visual aid in explaining how the mechanics work, though; not to show off a venue. I agree that the cinematic image is helpful as a representation for that paragraph, but considering the space issue, I think in-game art assets get priority over the cinematic. T. H. McAllister (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Masem, there is enough nonsense being put onto the page, do we have to endure these inane additions [3]? Tfz 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was just trying to lighten folks up with my humour. The tension there is intense. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Masem, I suppose while the tension is high at the Colab page, I should restrain my 'laid back humour'. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Leave the little guy alone; there are more serious issues being ignored. Sarah777 (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Historical vs. current sport logos
I know you were involved in the discussion regarding their use some time back, and wanted to bring your attention to something.
In reviewing the high use NFCC list, I'm seeing a large number of sports logos listed. I was avoiding those because of all the brouhaha it causes, but out of curiosity checked out File:Usc football logo.gif. From there, I was looking at the logo's use on 1951 USC Trojans football team (which didn't have a rationale), and a thought suddenly occurred to me. "This logo looks pretty modern for 1951". So, I went digging. I couldn't find when the logo was adopted, but I did find it was missing on O. J. Simpson's uniform in 1968, his last year on the team. The earliest use of it that I could find was in the 1970s. I removed the logo from entries from before 1970 primarily because they were missing rationales, but probably a considerably more important point was that this logo was not their logo in that day. I did a similar check on the Texas Longhorns "Bevo" logo. Interestingly enough, it quite possibly didn't come into use until 1961. See this page regarding the 1960 Cotton Bowl. Contrast with the page on the 1962 Cotton Bowl. The 1960 bowl game was famous for a brawl that erupted between the teams. Look at this photo (which is very large, and you can see details readily) of the brawl. Not one Texas player has the logo on their uniforms, nor any Texas staff member. Oops. In the 1962 page, we can see the logos on the helmets in the various images.
I think what has been happening is the people putting the logos on the "<Year> <team> season" articles are not doing any checking to see if the current logo actually applies to the seasons in question. Some logos are quite modern and were only recently invented. Some are old. But, even old ones like the Texas logo need to be checked. This is true whether the logos are free of copyright or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
NGamer
Hi! Do you have a subscription to NGamer? « ₣M₣ » 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Copy-editing
Don't mention it. I had to write and self-edit almost the entirety of the article for The Velvet Underground and Nico. It can be a headache. Editing the work of others is far easier than editing your own work. T. H. McAllister (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Wii availability
My bad on deleting the Wii column. I didn't realize the full list was pulling information from the other three tables. T. H. McAllister (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
BS
Masem, do we have to endure this dribble on a daily basis [4]. There is nobody claiming ownership to anything, and most knows that. Tfz 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is that like the British not claiming ownership within the context of the term "British Isles"? Mister Flash (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's strong, but it's a bold statement of opinion - but I'm not seeing anything that is incivil. Maybe overstating the facts, but that's not blockable. (I am, however, wathcing for "gloating" just as I'm looking for sore losers. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's sheer lies, and is provocative. Tfz 02:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah made a statement saying the state should be at Ireland, i simply responded by saying looking at the vote even if F loses that will not happen. Its not got alot of support in the poll and im glad about that, because i do find it offensive the idea of the state taking the prime spot. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well don't blabber that the state is trying to take over NI, that is not the case, and the Belfast Agreement proves that. There is 'parity of esteem' in relation to the NI question, thank God. And Masem, talk about sore losers, what an absurdity, I never lose.) Tfz 02:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if it sounded like that, i was not saying the Republic of Ireland was trying to claim ownership over the whole island, i was only talking about wikipedia. All i meant was by putting the country at the primary spot of Ireland and degrading the island in such a way does that. Thats what i find offensive, a sovereign state which has been around less than 100 years and does not fully control all of the island which has had that name for centuries does not (in my opinion) give it the right to have the prime spot. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well don't blabber that the state is trying to take over NI, that is not the case, and the Belfast Agreement proves that. There is 'parity of esteem' in relation to the NI question, thank God. And Masem, talk about sore losers, what an absurdity, I never lose.) Tfz 02:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah made a statement saying the state should be at Ireland, i simply responded by saying looking at the vote even if F loses that will not happen. Its not got alot of support in the poll and im glad about that, because i do find it offensive the idea of the state taking the prime spot. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's sheer lies, and is provocative. Tfz 02:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course this exemplifies what I have said: Options A, B, and F are offensive to some people, and Options A, B, and F are problematic. BritishWatcher would appear to be offended by Options A and B... Tfz would appear to be offended by Option F. Option E is getting very good support. At present I see it as the only solution (taking into account that Masem has said that the Poll gives us information about what the majority think, which can help us to make a decision when the Poll closes). -- Evertype·✆ 07:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Im still not against compromise even after the poll closes, but if we are to compromise (IF F wins the poll) then it should be option D which is the middle ground between E and F that gets chosen. I dont like option E very much, id prefer D or then C. Choosing D would do away with the title people have a problem with but keep the island in the prime spot.. So each side gets something they want. Compromising to option E if F wins is unacceptable in my book because that is not compromise BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yummy, Option E just might end up being the choice afterall. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly hope so. (I don't think too much of BritishWatcher's protestations, or unproved notions about what "the prime spot" is. It seems to me that if F wins (since it remains not much of a solution to the perennial problem) the runner-up should be looked at first. Having said that, I have voted for C, D, and E. -- Evertype·✆ 20:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- LMAO @ the runner up should be looked at. So lets get this straight, If F wins, (say with the majority it has now (like 15-20 votes which will tighten near the end) we should ignore that vote and consider what came second. So option F which has two main points the article at Republic of Ireland and the island at Ireland should be ignored and we should consider E which moves the island from the prime spot it deserves AND changes the title. How on earth is that compromise, especially if F wins.. thats clearly unacceptable. I hope everyone will be so willing to ignore the vote if F loses... Complete double standards, we all know if F loses this by just 1 vote Republic of Ireland title is gone for ever. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- How old are you? "LMAO". The article "deserves" some particular title? You yourself have said you consider compromise... and now you give two fingers to that? I have no "double standards". I'm looking for an end to this horror. The one thing that's guaranteed is that "F" won't bring an end to it. Be a realist, and start working with us rather than considering us your effing enemies all the time. -- Evertype·✆ 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry lmao is how i respond when i see something so stupid it makes me laugh. I have said clearly i support compromise, but im telling you now compromising to option E if F wins is totally unacceptable. D is the only moderate middle ground between E / F. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pfffff. You're drawing another line in the sand without looking at the analysis. -- Evertype·✆ 00:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Im just looking at the options, and i do not see how option E (especially if F wins) is a compromise. Supporters of F lose out on both fronts if E is chosen as an alternative. The island will be moved and the state article renamed. Surely a far more reasonable compromise (the only one i think would work) is D which keeps the setup the majority of people have voted for (so far) but changes the name some people have a problem with. I see that as a reasonable compromise and if others are prepared to support it then ill go along with it. I dont see people willing to compromise by choosing E though. I have a far bigger problem with the idea the island article is moved rather than the ROI title changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- And yet you never, ever seem to actually offer a compromise. Nor have you been watching the Poll. Currently, most people are supporting F. The second largest group supports E. The third largest group supports C. After that comes B, D, and A. So D isn't very popular. Given a choice between the status quo F, which many people may like but which does not SOLVE a longstanding problem, and a different configuration E that many editors can also support, I say we try E for two years. If it were a dismal failure, we would know it. But you're just drawing lines in the sand. -- Evertype·✆ 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Howabout, we all wait until September 13 & see what's what? Let the dust settle. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Umm i offered compromise on the talk page with a few conditions, others did not go along with it and it was clear one of the conditions i consider vital (accepting ROI is not British POV) would not be followed or accepted by some of those demanding change. E is coming second to F, under no circumstances can we just choose the second option in such a way. Wed have to rule out E and F and come up with a compromise and D is the only reasonable one for many supporters of F. Its the half way point. Supporters of E get the ROI title changed, supporters of F get the island kept at Ireland. I would say thats fair but people can not be pressured into accepting compromise, which is what i consider the claims nothing will change if we keep the status quo are. You say im the one drawing the lines in the sand yet you seem to be demanding E is chosen for 2 years even though its obvious many supporters of F do not like that option. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, its still to early to say F has won for sure anyway, F doesnt have that much of a lead in the final round. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- And yet you never, ever seem to actually offer a compromise. Nor have you been watching the Poll. Currently, most people are supporting F. The second largest group supports E. The third largest group supports C. After that comes B, D, and A. So D isn't very popular. Given a choice between the status quo F, which many people may like but which does not SOLVE a longstanding problem, and a different configuration E that many editors can also support, I say we try E for two years. If it were a dismal failure, we would know it. But you're just drawing lines in the sand. -- Evertype·✆ 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Im just looking at the options, and i do not see how option E (especially if F wins) is a compromise. Supporters of F lose out on both fronts if E is chosen as an alternative. The island will be moved and the state article renamed. Surely a far more reasonable compromise (the only one i think would work) is D which keeps the setup the majority of people have voted for (so far) but changes the name some people have a problem with. I see that as a reasonable compromise and if others are prepared to support it then ill go along with it. I dont see people willing to compromise by choosing E though. I have a far bigger problem with the idea the island article is moved rather than the ROI title changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pfffff. You're drawing another line in the sand without looking at the analysis. -- Evertype·✆ 00:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry lmao is how i respond when i see something so stupid it makes me laugh. I have said clearly i support compromise, but im telling you now compromising to option E if F wins is totally unacceptable. D is the only moderate middle ground between E / F. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- How old are you? "LMAO". The article "deserves" some particular title? You yourself have said you consider compromise... and now you give two fingers to that? I have no "double standards". I'm looking for an end to this horror. The one thing that's guaranteed is that "F" won't bring an end to it. Be a realist, and start working with us rather than considering us your effing enemies all the time. -- Evertype·✆ 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- LMAO @ the runner up should be looked at. So lets get this straight, If F wins, (say with the majority it has now (like 15-20 votes which will tighten near the end) we should ignore that vote and consider what came second. So option F which has two main points the article at Republic of Ireland and the island at Ireland should be ignored and we should consider E which moves the island from the prime spot it deserves AND changes the title. How on earth is that compromise, especially if F wins.. thats clearly unacceptable. I hope everyone will be so willing to ignore the vote if F loses... Complete double standards, we all know if F loses this by just 1 vote Republic of Ireland title is gone for ever. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly hope so. (I don't think too much of BritishWatcher's protestations, or unproved notions about what "the prime spot" is. It seems to me that if F wins (since it remains not much of a solution to the perennial problem) the runner-up should be looked at first. Having said that, I have voted for C, D, and E. -- Evertype·✆ 20:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yummy, Option E just might end up being the choice afterall. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Notification procedure
By accident I came across User:Wgh001 editing the RoI article and remembered he/she had been ivolved in the debate at some stage. Yet no notification of the poll was posted on the user's page. How is that? I thought everyone involved in the debate was going to be notified? (I have now added the template). Sarah777 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The notification went personally to anyone listed on the IECOLL - every other notification was through the country or continent WP that were listed. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your POV please?
I know you're an experienced VG page editor, so I thought I'd let you know that I flagged the Compilation packs for the Grand Theft Auto series article for deletion. I think it's pretty obvious that the article needs to be deleted, but ould you express your opinion here? VG Editor (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Sarah777 removing comments from talk page.
Hi Masem - since you're the mediator, or whatever, at the IECOLL poll, I thought I would bring this to your attention. User:Sarah777 removed this comment by Srnec from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names, calling it a personal attack against her. I think that the case for this being a personal attack is questionable, and that, at any rate, if anyone is going to be removing it, it should not be her. (Personally, I'm pretty dubious of the merit of removing all but the most egregious personal attacks from non-user talk pages. Taken too far, this can be chilling to debate, and gives a false sense of what is said. As such, I restored it. Sarah then removed it again, and posted a note on my talk page accusing me of a personal attack by restoring it. At any rate, I really don't want to get into it again with Sarah, so I thought I'd just point it out to you and leave you to decide what to do. Thanks for your attention. john k (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)