Tsetna
Welcome!
Hello, Tsetna, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
editHi, thanks again for taking a look at the Sensible Soccer controversy on Eurogamer - it doesn't seem like there was much controversy to deal with in the end! Cheers --The Researcher 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello! thanks for your intervention in Anti-Sacrilege Act, it seems that the user who disagreed with the text finally accepted the content. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all. I just got sidetracked, which Taz immediately interpreted as accepting his pov pushing. I did not think he'd do that before he commented on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-31 Anti-Sacrilege Act Census Law at all. Very bad style IMHO. Anyway, the dispute remains. Str1977 (smile back) 13:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Tsetna, could you weigh in again. Taz and Dahn are trying to force their wording down the article's throat after having ignored mediation. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 07:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hello! I have re-opened the case. Let's hope everyone will discuss!Tsetna 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hallo, Tsetna! I have read your posting on the article talk page. Yes, I'd love to have a discussion too but I cannot discuss either, when the other side is not acting at all. I haven't considered it necessary to repeat my hitherto unanswered statement on the mediation page, but I will now post a short note. I hope your posts will get the other side to reply. Otherwise I must assuem that they have no case. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Restating things would definately help, even basics! Tsetna 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have reposted my initial statement on the article talk page now. If you want me to reword it, just drop me a line. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 18:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Restating things would definately help, even basics! Tsetna 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hallo, Tsetna! I have read your posting on the article talk page. Yes, I'd love to have a discussion too but I cannot discuss either, when the other side is not acting at all. I haven't considered it necessary to repeat my hitherto unanswered statement on the mediation page, but I will now post a short note. I hope your posts will get the other side to reply. Otherwise I must assuem that they have no case. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the invite, Tsetna. I am not really a side in this dispute, I was just asked by Tazmaniacs to give my opinion on the sentence's deletion - I found the content of the dispute fragment to be relevant to the text and believe that the best solution is to add more content instead of removing, as I have answered on your mediation page. Dahn 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Tsetna, as nothing moves forward in the mediation I had a go at solving the problem myself, including the information in a sport where it doesn't push a POV. If Taz or Dahn do not react in the next few days, I think you can close the mediation. In any case, I will then remove the POV tag from the article. Thanks for your effort. It is not your fault that this went nowhere. Str1977 (smile back) 12:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I will keep an eye on it. It seems like such a minor issue. This should be easier to solve. Tsetna 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is really a minute issue - otherwise I would have become creative sooner. If the others don't object to the current wording everything is fine. Str1977 (smile back) 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Since no reaction came, I consider this case closed and remove the tag. Str1977 (smile back) 09:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is really a minute issue - otherwise I would have become creative sooner. If the others don't object to the current wording everything is fine. Str1977 (smile back) 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments Wanted
editHi. Please see Talk: Ars Technica#RfC about Tatsuma's Reverts. Your input one way or the other would be appreciated. Thanks. - Debuskjt 03:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've updated the RfC page. It appears to be an impersonation attempt, and the person in question has asked me to pass on the word that his good name is being sullied. Captainktainer * Talk 03:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Very interesting! I cannot say I am surprised because the user is likely just a sockpuppet judging from activity on that article. Thank you for trying to help out with this situation. Tsetna 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)