Ummmmmmm.... Ok?

I say talk to Erebus about it, because I'm too busy working now.

Aside from that, I understand your position, but I also understand there is an equally large crowd of people who wishes me to NEVER mention EMK again. And since I did help create them, I have to kind of stay neutral as much as possible.

Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.

I can say that it's very disrespectful to repeatedly beat that dead horse. Dead horses have feelings too.

Haha. No it doesn't. It's dead. It can't feel anything. And I notice that you won't even answer me properly, unlike Swert.

I'm not staff, but I hope you don't mind if I give my two cents here;

While I don't agree with calling the staff 'hypocrites', the policy is definately hypocritical. The options I see here are to create the EMK or to delete the MoM and MoC, which were never seen in story, have 'no' image, and were not created by Greg. Also, all the EMK technically have an in-story appearance through the images they have, which were in various canon media.

-TN05

I'd have to agree with TN05 here. The Policy I think needs a revamp. The staff are not "hypocrites", the policy seems to be conflicting with itself.

I'm not staff, but I hope you don't mind if I give my two cents here;

 

While I don't agree with calling the staff 'hypocrites', the policy is definately hypocritical. The options I see here are to create the EMK or to delete the MoM and MoC, which were never seen in story, have 'no' image, and were not created by Greg. Also, all the EMK technically have an in-story appearance through the images they have, which were in various canon media.

Correct; that's why I have nominated the 'Other Kanohi' page at the AfC more than once. That way, we could delete the Masks of Intang. and Poss. pages (which are practically stubs and have no images), we could also delete the Masks of Mutation and Charisma pages (which can be more than stubs and have pictures, but have made no storyline appearances--breaking BS01 Wiki Policy), and create the EMK pages (which have all the qualifications to be made into pages).

I'd have to agree with TN05 here. The Policy I think needs a revamp. The staff are not "hypocrites", the policy seems to be conflicting with itself.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. The Staff support keeping the Mask of Intangibility and the Mask of Possibilities pages simply because they were mentioned, but refuse to create the EMK even though they actually appeared in the comics.

Then they go and break the rule they created to prevent the creation of the EMK pages.

I can say that it's very disrespectful to repeatedly beat that dead horse. Dead horses have feelings too.

Haha. No it doesn't. It's dead. It can't feel anything. And I notice that you won't even answer me properly, unlike Swert.

Wheeee ad hominem attacks. What I said amounted to "this is a dead horse issue, I've answered it before tenbajillion times, I don't feel like answering it again, and everybody should know that". So yeah. It actually isn't an answer, because I don't want to. In your mind, that makes me a bad person, and I can deal with that.

Wheeee ad hominem attacks. What I said amounted to "this is a dead horse issue, I've answered it before tenbajillion times, I don't feel like answering it again, and everybody should know that". So yeah. It actually isn't an answer, because I don't want to. In your mind, that makes me a bad person, and I can deal with that.

No, I am making a statment of fact. Swert answered my accusation, you brushed it off completely. Nobody has EVER given me a straight answer. And your discrimination against the EMK doesn't count.

Well, here is your straight answer, since unlike Dorek I haven't had to explain this before. You have made your own definition as what counts as an appearance, that being that it must have an image or it must be used. Our definition is much simpler, it has to appear. This, by extension means, that if the user appears and they were known to have that mask at the time, then it has appeared. Therefore, you have Mask of Intangibility and Mask of Possibilities. As for the relevance policy issue, I am open to removing the line "created by Greg Farshtey", since as you said the Mask of Mutation and Mask of Charisma were not created by him. However, that would not change anything about the EMK masks, since they have not had a story appearance. Sure you could say the comic appearances count, but they were not defined as such when the comics came out. Of course, that could also be said about the Mask of Mutation, but I am not an enemy to that page's deletion. As for the Mask of Charisma, well, that was created by a BS01 contest, so it would seem odd to not have a page for that.

Well, here is your straight answer, since unlike Dorek I haven't had to explain this before. You have made your own definition as what counts as an appearance, that being that it must have an image or it must be used. Our definition is much simpler, it has to appear. This, by extension means, that if the user appears and they were known to have that mask at the time, then it has appeared. Therefore, you have Mask of Intangibility and Mask of Possibilities. As for the relevance policy issue, I am open to removing the line "created by Greg Farshtey", since as you said the Mask of Mutation and Mask of Charisma were not created by him. However, that would not change anything about the EMK masks, since they have not had a story appearance. Sure you could say the comic appearances count, but they were not defined as such when the comics came out. Of course, that could also be said about the Mask of Mutation, but I am not an enemy to that page's deletion. As for the Mask of Charisma, well, that was created by a BS01 contest, so it would seem odd to not have a page for that.

FINALLY. THANK YOU. I see your point with the appearances, but that's not my entire argument. Another thing I disagree with is having a page for something so small (Mask of Intang. & Poss.). They are stubs. Period. We could delete the page and nobody would miss it. They just aren't worth it, especially with no quote or image. Better to merge them into an 'Other Kanohi' page, IMO. That's why I feel the BS01 Relevancy Policy should say that a Kanohi needs an image or an example usage; if it has an EU, then we can add an EU section to the page and maybe a quote with it, giving the Kanohi page more content.

As for the MoMutation and MoCharisma, "if the user appears and they were known to have that mask at the time, then it has appeared". If you wanted to keep their pages, then you would also need to remove the part about that from the Policy, since the masks were not known at the time. That would be consistant with keeping the EMK from becoming pages. On the other hand, if you WANT to keep their pages, then you set a precedent for the EMK, namely that retconned Kanohi can begiven pages.

I'm torn with the MoM, and MoP. I'll look into the possibilities of an Other Kanohi page, if it is accepted. The MoC should be kept though, since it has an image. The MoP is a stub, but until recently, I have had a change of mind in keeping or deleting certain pages. I think over what would be lost, and what would not. I'm torn with the MoP, because it doesn't really have any interesting info, other than the confirm that Nikila wore it as a Matoran. I'm torn with the MoM because it has info that could be fit onto this "Other Kanohi" page, though the trivia seems interesting. I know, I might not be a BS01 staff, but I just want to let you know my whole opinions on the EMK pages.

I'm torn with the MoM, and MoP. I'll look into the possibilities of an Other Kanohi page, if it is accepted. The MoC should be kept though, since it has an image. The MoP is a stub, but until recently, I have had a change of mind in keeping or deleting certain pages. I think over what would be lost, and what would not. I'm torn with the MoP, because it doesn't really have any interesting info, other than the confirm that Nikila wore it as a Matoran. I'm torn with the MoM because it has info that could be fit onto this "Other Kanohi" page, though the trivia seems interesting. I know, I might not be a BS01 staff, but I just want to let you know my whole opinions on the EMK pages.

Technically, the MoM should be kept, because we would have an image if it weren't for the dogmatic insistance of ET. Just saying.

I can compile an 'Other Kanohi' proto for later, if that might help illustrate my point.

Did you make this blog to flame BS01?

-SK

Did you make this blog to flame BS01?

 

-SK

I get that impression.

Did you make this blog to flame BS01?

 

-SK

I get that impression.

I created this blog to get answers, for once. Maybe even get the hypocrisy to stop. But flame? No.

BC, I have now decided that the MoP should actually be kept, because of this topic will show Nikila, along with possibly, a good image of the MoP.

-Vartemp

I think the EM Kanohi are pretty ludicrous.

/waitsforthistobetakenadvantageordisadvantageofsoicanpointatyouallandlaugh

~ Bioran

I think the EM Kanohi are pretty ludicrous.

 

/waitsforthistobetakenadvantageordisadvantageofsoicanpointatyouallandlaugh

I realize that some of the staff think like that, which is why I have repeatedly nominated the 'Other Kanohi' page for creation.

Bold Clone, I tried to work with you from a PR position for a long time up until the time you were blocked. I always respected your opinions and even told you that we would be happy to discuss any issues with you as long as you did it in a respectful manner.

Didn't I?

Yes. and we did even establish some mutually beneficial things when you were willing to be cooperative. I know that for a fact.

The problem has always lied with your attitude - your outlook and the way you approach the staff. We can work together... but your confrontational bent does not allow for that.

We are not open for discussion when you come out with guns blazing, calling people hypocrites left and right.

You want answers? Agreements?

Calm down. I think we are all capable of handline a toy line's story maturely if we're grown up enough to play nice.

Bold Clone, I tried to work with you from a PR position for a long time up until the time you were blocked. I always respected your opinions and even told you that we would be happy to discuss any issues with you as long as you did it in a respectful manner.

 

Didn't I?

 

Yes. and we did even establish some mutually beneficial things when you were willing to be cooperative. I know that for a fact.

 

The problem has always lied with your attitude - your outlook and the way you approach the staff. We can work together... but your confrontational bent does not allow for that.

 

We are not open for discussion when you come out with guns blazing, calling people hypocrites left and right.

 

You want answers? Agreements?

Calm down. I think we are all capable of handline a toy line's story maturely if we're grown up enough to play nice.

You know what? You go look of the definition of 'hypocrite' and prove that I'm wrong to call you such.

I'll stop calling you hypocrites after you stop BEING hypocrites. Namely, the entire EMK double-standard. Can you prove me wrong there?

So, as usual, you feel the need to be confrontational, ignore everything that I said in regard to the root of the problem in our communictions, and go off with your attitude.

I'm sick of telling you the same thing over and over again. When you're ready to be a big boy and talk about your disagreements maturely, we can do so. The thing hindering our negotiations always has been (and is) your attitude and always will be until you take responsibility and treat us like a civil person would.

So, as usual, you feel the need to be confrontational, ignore everything that I said in regard to the root of the problem in our communictions, and go off with your attitude.

 

I'm sick of telling you the same thing over and over again. When you're ready to be a big boy and talk about your disagreements maturely, we can do so. The thing hindering our negotiations always has been (and is) your attitude and always will be until you take responsibility and treat us like a civil person would.

...Right. And here you are, behaving like me. You're confronting me, ignoring everything I said in regards to the root of BS01's administative corruption, and go off on your Staff Attitude.

When you can be a big boy, accept responsibility and treat me civily, then I'll talk with you. Until then, please stay at BS01. I'm arguing with responsible and respectable people who are open-minded, like Bionicleman.

I have no desire to confront you. I have left you alone for quite some time. I believe the last time I contacted you was to let you know that someone who was using a quote in relation to your banning was not meant offensively.

Yes, and I have told you why your arguments have gone an will go ignored. Nothing new there, just the same old concepts I have been trying to get you to accept for... what? A year now?

A "staff attitude" is probably attributed to... being on the staff. If I were you, I would not go complaining about my attitude. I've been patient with you, given you plenty of chances, tried to work through thugs, reached agreements with you, etc. You could have been handled MUCH worse, and your eventual blocking was of your own decisions.

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish with your last paragraph. You are the one who wanted to make a blog about BS01 and flaunt your opinions about in the public, allowing anyone free access to the argument. I am pretty sure I, of all people, belong here.

---

Bold Clone. You don't care about these debates.

If you really did. REALLY. You would follow the clear. plain. simple. steps that have been laid it to you time and time again.

But you don't care enough.

You're just using whatever you can come up with as a weapon against BS01's "corrupted administration." Maybe you used to actually want to work some stuff out, but now you are just bitter and hostile.

I'm sure there are things we could do better, things we have overlooked, and things that have been handled wrong. We are human, the site is a WIKI, and we are open to suggestions, feedback, and criticism.

You just go about it in the wrong way.

Sound familiar yet?

You don't care about these debates.

If you really did. REALLY. You would follow the clear. plain. simple. steps that have been laid it to you time and time again.

 

But you don't care enough.

You're just using whatever you can come up with as a weapon against BS01's "corrupted administration." Maybe you used to actually want to work some stuff out, but now you are just bitter and hostile.

 

I'm sure there are things we could do better, things we have overlooked, and things that have been handled wrong. We are human, the site is a WIKI, and we are open to suggestions, feedback, and criticism.

 

You just go about it in the wrong way.

 

Sound familiar yet?

Yeah...you're brushing me off again because you can't handle my 'disrespect'.

My blocking was the result of edit warring against ET. For some reason, I was actually doing the wrong thing by removing a piece of false info a Staffer left up, contacting ET respectfully about why he was replacing the blatantly false info, and standing up for my freedom of speech...keep telling yourself that.

You aren't really open to suggestions, feedback, and criticism. Otherwise, we would have resolved your hypocrisy now. Instead...you just care about being respected.

Nobody on the Staff can refute that they are being a hypocrite (whether knowingly or not), and so they refuse to listen to me. If the staff REALLY cared about handling this properly, they would come with an open mind and be polite, like B-man. Can you refute that you are a hypocrite?