User talk:Moocats

Bloodfin
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)


 * Thanks for the swg wiki link. :) --Syrthiss 17:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB Request
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)

Re: New to Mediation
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)


 * I'll answer your questions in the order asked. If one party in a mediation refuses to participate, then mediation simply doesn't occur. For mediation to work, both parties have to be willing to involve themselves in the process. If one party refuses to participate but continues the disputed action, then mutual dispute resolution isn't going to work and I'd recommend discussing a brief block with an administrator or moving on to file at WP:RFC.

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)

User:JasonBlake69
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 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)


 * Thanks for the information, I guess this is the wiki life so far as I've heard. I'll do just that if he does it again without discussion.  -Moocats 01:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A fair discussion!
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,

Jasonblake69


 * Ah finally! I originally thought that you were perhaps a new user to wiki since you had just registered.  When you made some edits I tried contacting you about them however you did not seem responsive and I wondered if you perhaps did not know where to access the discussions page.  When you made a few additions to other discussion pages I thought perhaps you were ignoring me, or at worst, pretending to not know where it was when it suited you.  In good faith however, I tried to contact you through another method, mediation.  When you did not respond I thought you had perhaps left, however you edited again claiming personal attacks.


 * This is not what I was after however, I wanted to help you learn about the methods wikipedia utilizes in order to create more well formed unbiased articles such as the discussion page where users such as you and me can work out a compromised change, or explain why we made such a change. Comments are definitely not the area to have a discussion as this is generally seen as an edit war.


 * Now that you have posted here I believe you may have just been new to wiki afterall and would be glad to discuss why I was making changes to the page and would also like to hear your side of the story on the Browser Game article and the List of browser games article :) -Moocats 15:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello "Moocats", let's start by why you have continued to claim I was the owner of MoFunZone.com, why you persistently removed my contributions when they were perfectly valid and detailed and why do you continue to make up your own definitions of what browser games are. Looking forward to your speedy response. --JasonBlake69 17:49, 26 January 2006 EST


 * Hello there, I have posted responses under the gaming areas Talk:Browser_game and Talk:List_of_browser_games. I am sorry we got off to such a rough start, hopefully we can clear things up and both get a better understanding of what we each want :) -Moocats 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On the MoFunZone area I thought you were perhaps the owner of said site because you mentioned material I did not immediately find on the web page such as the owner, and when it was started up. You also appeared to have a very vested interest in the page staying on wiki which I've found to be unusual in general.  From my time here I have not seen many people try and resurrect an article unless it has recieved a lot of attention, and only then by someone other than the original creator.  However after only about a week you brought it back, it's very dedicated!  So I just naturally assumped you had a vested interest.


 * Hopefully you can understand why I was so upset after three weeks of trying to get you to come discuss these articles. I did not realize you found it so puzzling and wish I could have been of further assistance for your first time here.  I may have done so because I am a web programmer by trade and tend to adapt very quickly to new pages, as well as not being able to remember what it was like my first time here.  Please forgive my anger at your edits as I forgive yours as we seem to have misunderstood each other.  The internet and especially edit wars can easily make comments seem like personal attacks.  This was not my intention and I truly hope you will forgive my actions :) -Moocats 00:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The information I contributed to the MoFunZone article can easily be attained from the site, and from Google if you ever tried searching for MoFunZone. I happen to be a fan of the site as I have been following it for close to 3 years through its evolution. And I thought it would be fair to create and keep an article for such a popular and notable gaming website. With that said, the same can be said about the link you continue to post in the browser game article and the fact you want to remove MoFunZone and its games from wiki also insinuates you're a competitor of some sort. However I haven't resorted to false allegations as you have.


 * There isn't a need to be upset or emotional over one or two similar links. This is a new hobby for me and I am excited to share my knowledge to the world. We should both perceive our contributions to this great site as a charitable donation (of knowledge). And of course I forgive you, I now see we have had a misunderstanding in perception and I hope we can move on to our core discussion regarding the links and games listings. Cheers, --Jasonblake69 17:17, 27 January 2006 EST

Qur'an Pic Straw Poll
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)

Please try to understand what I'm doing
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)