User talk:TunaSushi/Archive 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.