This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
User:Andrwsc pointed out there were sub-issues involved in a sub-bullet
I was involved in both series of discussions and, when I realized that a simple statement wasn't going to accurately summarize each of the related issues, I started another sub-bullet which touched on points in both the original RfC, the added section, and other related matters.
Now some people in the discussion feel that these sub-bullets do not belong in the RfC and have set them aside as separate bullets. However, I believe that changes the discussion (comments like "see above" and "what I said earlier" no longer make sense). Additionally, my comments directly relating to the RfC (see here) will also not be included in the discussion). This will only be made worse if the bots archive the discussion and it is further separated from the original comments.
I have tried to point out that this moving/re-bulleting of comments doesn't follow WP:TALK and I feel this is an attempt to exert ownership over a discussion. I have tried to discuss this with those who have done such a move:
With User:Camelbinky, my request for clarification was simply deleted with no explanation: [1]
With Hammersoft, I've had a series of discussions. It's hard to summarize or even show diffs as he keeps removing comments (this isn't any insinuation that he's done anything wrong, but simply a statement that it can be hard to follow), but I'll do my best: [2][3][4]
A conversation with Mr. Z-man seems to have hit the same brick wall as with Hammersoft, sans the profanity/accusations of impropriety.
I've tried a different way at doing this and I hope this meets everyone's approval: [5]. This still focuses the intent on the original RfC issues, but still leaves the rest as a footnote that will be appropriately archived with the rest of the discussion. — BQZip01 —talk19:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. As I've said repeatedly, if you want to answer questions you have regarding trademarks and their usage here on Wikipedia, start your own RfC. Piggy backing your 7 questions onto the 2 questions asked by the RfC disrupts the RfC and severely muddles the picture. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own it and cannot dictate what happens in the discussion or how later discussion evolves. It isn't your RfC.
In order to make this easier for you, please just pick what you'd like to have done and I will do all the work: 1. Put it back simply in the format it was originally in (not likely your pick, but I'll still leave it as an option) 2. Appropriately split it as annotated in WP:TALK.
Please, just start your own RfC. All of this argumentation is pointless. Multiple people have disagreed with you on whether or not to include an extra "=" before/after the section header where it is split. The amount of noise generated over this vs. the two characters were talking about...the ratio has got to be 2,000:1 now. Enough. Leave it alone. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, why is my name mentioned here, especially without contacting me? If I am a party to something then please contact me so I can defend myself. I deleted an unwanted unsolicited post on my talk page because 1- it was rude and obnoxious 2- I read it 3- I have no want to get involved with drama, it didnt mean enough to me to respond. I think I should be commended for not involving myself further instead of demonized for not responding. Deletion of posts on your talk page after you read them is allowed and is common practice, even certain admins do that. Please dont involve me in this drama, while I do think the sections should be separated I dont want my name involved as if I did something wrong. My edit was legitimate. Please strike the post with my name or better yet delete it altogether. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your name is mentioned because I attempted to contact you to clarify what you'd done. Instead of responding you deleted my message with no response. That is all I stated. I never said there was anything wrong with what you did, merely that nothing came out of my attempt at dispute resolution.
I do not need to contact you to state what I've done and the results of my actions.
Yeah ,sorry about that. They where appearing like icons to me yesterday or maybe I just didn't look properly, either way that answers my question Gnevin (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved issues in Talk Page, however I do feel that it is relevant that a non-business funded 'link' that is an 'official page' for the region should not be ommitted because of what is called : Spam. Spam is completely different, and it is well noted why there are rules for Spam.
To me, the flagged revision logo is too similar to the CBS logo (see this file: File:CBS news logo.jpg) and is an invitation for a trademark infringement suit... Is it sufficiently different to pass the test?
I tried to add a new discussion section, but Edit Filter #52 is not allowing it, and it's not giving any reason why other than this is "vandalism". Seems edit filter 52 is broken, so can someone who isn't restricted by edit filter 52 add this section to the VP? Thanks.
Resolved
