User talk:Miles Blues
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Miles Blues, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -—arf! 05:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] License tagging for Image:Shibyu.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Shibyu.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
As of now: nothing has been changed to the List of Virtual Console games (North America) article, (from the edit history: it was unprotected, then an IP edited). I just wanted to give this heads up, so you could fix the article to your compromise. I would do it myself, but I'm not very good with tables. Frankly: I think your idea should work, but if it doesn't and people edit war again... then something new will need to happen here and protection might need to be put on the article again. RobJ1981 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'll be sure to sort things out there. Miles Blues 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I refuse to mediate with Lamename and TJ Spyke. This might be considered "bad faith" by them or whatever, but frankly this wont get far on mediation either. They will bring up the same things they always do: "its not hurting the article", "consensus is for the points", and so on. A policy change or addition seems to be the only way to go here, and it's currently being discussed. Not to mention: they are going to encourage their friends to join in, and try to get a so called "consensus" (which they already claim at the talk page of the list). Simply put: they need to compromise on the list talk page with everyone else. I have yet to see any recent compromises they are willing to go with. The points in the article isn't a compromise, they should know this by now. RobJ1981 05:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- They refuse to compromise now, that's a sign they are unwilling to let go of the points in the version they like the best. Look at the mediation page history: TJ clearly didnt even follow the note. It said signatures and agree or disagree only, but he chose not to follow it. I'm done discussing this for today on Wikipedia at least, email me if you'd like to talk about it more (go to email this user in toolbox, on the left, in case you didn't know...I wasn't sure). I'll be online for a little bit longer. RobJ1981 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I refuse to mediate with Lamename and TJ Spyke. This might be considered "bad faith" by them or whatever, but frankly this wont get far on mediation either. They will bring up the same things they always do: "its not hurting the article", "consensus is for the points", and so on. A policy change or addition seems to be the only way to go here, and it's currently being discussed. Not to mention: they are going to encourage their friends to join in, and try to get a so called "consensus" (which they already claim at the talk page of the list). Simply put: they need to compromise on the list talk page with everyone else. I have yet to see any recent compromises they are willing to go with. The points in the article isn't a compromise, they should know this by now. RobJ1981 05:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] VC Table Test
| Title | Developer | Release Date | ESRB |
|---|---|---|---|
| Super Mario 64 | Nintendo | November 19, 2006 | E |
| Mario Kart 64 | Nintendo | January 29, 2007 | E |
| The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time | Nintendo EAD | February 26, 2007 | E |
| Star Fox 64 | Nintendo | April 2, 2007 | E |
| F-Zero X | Nintendo EAD | June 25, 2007 | E |
[edit] Mediation request
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of Virtual Console games (North America), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
- I think you didn't think out all the users for mediation. Duckingham has not been a part of the longer debate, and Rob has already thumbed his nose at mediation in the past. LN3000 05:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'm wanting this whole thing to end just about as much as everyone. LN3000 05:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because that will not work. Please save it for the actual mediation. LN3000 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Peace, brother. Good night. Hopefully everything will be calm until you get back. LN3000 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- The mediation request was closed because of Rob's unwillingness to participate. That is why I thought you should have been more careful in pulling people into the mediation, who have shown in the past that they don't want anything to do with mediation. I had nothing to do with DurinsBane going into the mediation request. However, I did look at the list of people who were on each side, and could not find an even amount of people who would be best for the mediation. It seems that most people who were against the Wii Points have sort of 'fizzled' away a little bit. The rest of my comment is on the talk page of the VCNA. I am trying to be as civil as possible, but as I am sure you know, it's hard with how both 'sides' are 'fighting'. LN3000 07:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Now do you see what I'm dealing with? Lamename and TJ Spyke refuse any compromise, and the article discussion is stuck going around and around in circles. They basically expect people to completely agree with the version they like the most: which isn't going to happen, and shouldn't happen. Compromising is give and take, not 100 percent take. As I stated on the list talk page: a policy change, or admin intervention is probably the only ways to finally end this. I would prefer policy change, then it would discourage further pricing issues (at video game articles, as well as other pages). Policy change takes a bit to happen I believe, so in the mean time: the article will be stuck in this argument I bet. Even if by some slim chance these 2 do agree to a compromise: there is still others that could disagree and continue to fight changes to the article. RobJ1981 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- The mediation request was closed because of Rob's unwillingness to participate. That is why I thought you should have been more careful in pulling people into the mediation, who have shown in the past that they don't want anything to do with mediation. I had nothing to do with DurinsBane going into the mediation request. However, I did look at the list of people who were on each side, and could not find an even amount of people who would be best for the mediation. It seems that most people who were against the Wii Points have sort of 'fizzled' away a little bit. The rest of my comment is on the talk page of the VCNA. I am trying to be as civil as possible, but as I am sure you know, it's hard with how both 'sides' are 'fighting'. LN3000 07:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Peace, brother. Good night. Hopefully everything will be calm until you get back. LN3000 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because that will not work. Please save it for the actual mediation. LN3000 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'm wanting this whole thing to end just about as much as everyone. LN3000 05:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of Virtual Console games (North America).
|
[edit] Revert
I am not 100% sure what you are talking about, but if it's about the VC list, then I helped put it back to having the Wii Points in the list, because you can't force your 'compromise' on everyone while the discussion is still going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamename3000 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Archiving
Usually, you aren't supposed to archive topics that have had active discussion within the last 7 days. LN3000 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, it's ok. I wasn't trying to complain, just trying to give a heads up. I've seen people complain about people archiving a lot of stuff that was part of 'current discussion' on multiple previous articles. But if no one complains, then it's fine with me. :) I think it's ok this time, since most people, during this discussion, don't care what topic they post under. haha LN3000 05:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm complaining. I'm sure you meant well, but I unarchived the topics, as they are currently in discussion. Maybe it'd be best to allow a bot to do this sort of thing? Drumpler 06:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] March 2008
In a recent edit to the page Orca, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Perhaps you had a good reason for the changes? (Consistency of dialect comes to mind.) If so, please add it to the edit summary. —EncMstr 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
