User talk:Chardish/Archive 1

Miscellaneous
This chardish guy is crazy --Tiger yamato 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that... Coolgamer 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hallo.
I do believe you do know me. How do you do! -- Rediahs 07:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Office image
Where did you get that image? --DrBat 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrator at dead link
That's pretty cool. Oh wait. You should probably edit that out because FFR isn't notable. Afrobean 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

tagging
Could you please stop substing unreferenced, original research and such? 76.178.95.219 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific, please? Can you show me a place I've used it where it hasn't been warranted? - Chardish 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anywhere you use them because those templates should be transcluded instead. 76.178.95.219 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Chewbacca defense prod
Why on earth did you place a prod on Chewbacca defense; i.e., on what basis do you believe it is a non-notable neologism? The article is amply sourced contrary to this assertion (although it's nowhere near the level of an FA).--chris.lawson 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By that logic, nearly everything in the See also section on the article is also a non-notable neologism. Google shows over 40,000 hits for "Chewbacca defense", while showing only 2,000 for "idiot defense" and about 47,000 for "twinkie defense". As far as quality of those hits, there are plenty of links that would count as reliable sources.--chris.lawson 23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Re : AfD on Chewbacca Defense
I physically checked the list of sources - they're reputable, reliable and relevant, so verifiability isn't a problem here and it isn't original research. This is the main argument by many who justify a standalone article beyond the episode, which is why the consensus is to have the article kept. Let's say even if it's a merge, it does not require deletion - it is best to initiate a second discussion to gain consensus on having the article merged. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is worth noting (perhaps not) that this was actually the second deletion nomination for the article, and it was kept the first time with almost no opposition. Dekimasu が... 13:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RfD
Dear editor, please see Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 6, where I nominated a redirect created by you for deletion. Your input is appreciated. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re : AfD on Exposure (magic)
Send for cleanup is an old option that was more commonly used two years ago, and applied to particularly deal with such cases. I'm assuming good faith that some editor is now willing to fix up the article and properly source it per the discussion, having brought to attention of the community via articles for deletion for the first time.

If after a reasonable time you feel that the concerns are still not addressed, please nominate it for deletion again citing this message - if the article remains in this state I'm pretty sure by then there will easily be a consensus to delete. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Added clarification to closing statement in the AfD. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your tagging of the "Manos" articles
Would you object to the tagged articles simply being redirected to the main aritcle? It seems to be the best solution. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of "List of unboundedly long songs" Contested
I agree in principal that the List of unboundedly long songs article doesn't belong on Wikipedia; however, I contest your assertion that it should be deleted under Wikipedia's "not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy. If you're so inclined, please put the article up for deletion under WP:AFD. » K i G O E  | talk  01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I wasn't clear. I understand that I could propose for the article's deletion under different reasons. However, I thought the matter was shaky at any rate and would need to be discussed and a consensus would need to be reached. Again, if you're interested, please begin the deletion process per the AfD policy. I am for keeping the article, and will not pursue it further. » K i G O E  | talk  02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Satellite images censored by Google Maps. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. You are getting close now. Please stop, you are going against the consensus. --MoRsE 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accusing Google of censoring images that they may not have censored is libel unless it is sourced. Potentially defamatory information absolutely, positively must be sourced. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page concerning a renaming of this article that would satisfy all parties - I invite you to participate in that discussion. Until such a decision is reached, I will continue to remove unsourced, libelous information. This is an exception to the three-revert rule. - Chardish 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As you have continued on your one-man journey to remove the information on the page, although there is a wide support for keeping it there, I have now reported you to the administrator's noticeboard on 3RR. Also your edit comment here goes against WP:CIV --MoRsE 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your posting at the Administrator's Noticeboard, and await a judgment from them. Until then I see absolutely no reason to allow libelous material to remain in the encyclopedia. - Chardish 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The original research material isn't biographical material, so I don't think there is an urgent need to delete it, especially since it was kept after an AfD. I added a reference column to one of the lists on the article.  If the references are not supplied after a reasonable time, it might be acceptable to remove the unreferenced material after discussion. As for the term "censor", it does not always have a negative connotation.  However, if you object to the use of "censor" in the article, please discuss it on the article talk page and work towards a consensus on its use in the article. As for the 3RR warning, it may help to provide the diffs of Chardish's reverts that prompted the 3RR warning. -- Jreferee 16:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified article for deletionism!
Please do not list relevant and hard worked on articles for deletion. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean lots of others do not find use in the articles. You wouldn't like it if it happened to you. So, be respectful of your fellow editors. Thanks, --24.154.173.243 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mark articles for deletion because I don't like them, I mark them for deletion because they are in violation of a Wikipedia policy (usually one pertaining to notability or verifiability). Also, if a lot of people have worked very hard on an article, and it hasn't met Wikipedia standards, that's a good sign that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia to begin with. I have nothing against the articles themselves and, in the past, have voted to delete articles I've liked. Thanks! (And, also, register an account!) : ) - Chardish 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I obviously still have to disagree with the whole deletionism thing, but hey if you are into video games, perhaps you could help answer the following: [video game questions trimmed] --24.154.173.243 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not use my talk page as a forum for general discussion. - Chardish 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever, so be it; just thought you could maybe help out. --24.154.173.243 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't use templates in deletion discussions
Please don't do that. Any closing administrator who notices may decide to discount your contributions to the discussion, on the grounds that they could have been altered from what you originally meant to write by other people editing the template. It's also ugly and widely frowned upon to use images in that way in AFD discussions. AFD is not about the votes. It's the rationales that matter. We don't have tally boxes in AFD discussions, and we don't have little ticks and crosses. Uncle G 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * diff
 * diff
 * AfD is not about the votes, but images can make it easier to categorize opinions. Don't try to sow fear by claiming that closing administrators ignore comments with a small image categorizing them. - Chardish 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * inflammatory message by User:Uncle G removed
 * It's gone to DRV, talk about it there if you want to. - Chardish 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates
The previous debates were also about templates used for voting in deletion debates. Such templates do in fact stifle consensus building. Also, they fall in the same category as the "tally box pox" and "deletion criterion boxes", both of which were strongly disliked by the community. Despite what was stated in the debate, these do not usually "allow for a good summary of a comment" because comments cannot always be neatly pigeonholed, nor do they help "organize and categorize opinions" since deletion debates are not decided by vote count.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. Our speedy deletion policy allows for the immediate deletion of recreated content. It's not that we object to forming consensus on the topic, but it's that said consensus already exists and there's really no need to discuss that again any time such recreations occur.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The recreation may not have been identical, but it was substantially similar and failed to address the problems that got it deleted in the first place. CSD requires the latter, not the former. And I disagree with your assessment that the delete-commenters wanted the templates kept.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD closure
I think my closure was correct. First of all, the overall result, "no consensus," is very hard to argue against given how closely split the debate was, and I don't remember seeing many if any comments that should be discounted as irrelevant arguments. Having looked again, a lot of the keep comments directly address the crystal ball concern, and their argument, generally, is that this may be speculation but it's sourced speculation. From WP:NOT:


 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced.

So you see, that argument really does trump the crystal ball argument, and it can't be answered by continuing to assert that this is crystal ballism. I didn't discuss your argument about sourceability in the closure, but that's mainly because it was a point only a couple people had made, whereas a lot of the keep comments included assertions that the sourcing was good. So, even assuming that argument is well-founded in policy (which I don't think it is: a quote written up in a magazine is a reliable source, isn't it?), I think it's fair to say that a lot of people felt the sourcing was good enough. Mango juice talk 12:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the quote above does apply, because it's the first paragraph under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." If you think it doesn't apply to this situation, I think that says a lot.  Anyway, regardless, since the whole "not crystal ball" section of WP:NOT very firmly makes it clear that it's unsourced material about future events that must be removed, it's fair to say that the keep commentors have a point when they argue that clause doesn't apply.  Of course, the delete commentors argue the opposite, and the very fact that there are significantly many of them means that argument can't be simply dismissed.  Hence, "no consensus."  But I do think the keep arguments are more in line with that policy.  Mango juice talk 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:%s
Besides my already stated opinion that my comment belongs directly under that which it is a response to, I'd like to remind you to please be a bit more careful. The first time you moved my comment, you retained the " " prefix, which disrupts the DOM (if implemented) when not under a " " prefix (in the discussion section the burgeoning convention seemed to be to use solely " "). The second time you moved my comment, you also inexplicably removed my signature from an unrelated comment elsewhere on the page. There is a rather nice undo function in the wikimedia software, which would help avoid the latter error and its like. Also, even if you feel the need to move others' comments around on a page, I'd ask that you please not modify them, even if only to provide a contextual basis necessary in the new location you have placed it and which was not necessary in the original location of the text. That's basic etiquette, I should think. Thanks... &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the undo function - really, I didn't know it existed! I've been using reverts for a very long time. Also, sorry if you were offended by the moving of your comments. I was simply refactoring the page to improve readability, under the assumption that you missed the part about discussion-related comments going in the discussion section. I'm sorry if you didn't like the changes, and I won't revert them anymore, but I hope you consider keeping point-counterpoint discussion in its proper section. Thanks! :) - Chardish 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm offended by your moving my comments about, but that you added words to my sentences without indicating that they were your words feels sort of like putting words in my mouth. As for the undo feature, glad I could be of help (hehe, again - remember me? :P). As the editor who reverted your action stated in an edit summary, until it becomes a full-on discussion, it should be where it is - a tagged-on reply to a position set forth in the "vote". Now that Random832 has replied to me, it is probably time to move the comments to the discussion section - in fact, he probably shouldn't have made that statement in the voting section anyway, as it is neither an argument for transclusion nor an explication of his voting motives, but rather just a stab at the voting process itself. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: IIDX Page
I'm not familiar with wiki user pages and messages, so let me know if I'm doing this wrong. Since you seem to be more involved with the whole wiki project- at least here, anyway- you would probably know what's best in terms of what to keep here and what to keep at RemyWiki. I'd trust your judgment on what to do; I'm just trying to get the information out there. What all exactly do you think I should move to RemyWiki? I could copy some stuff over and see how it goes and then delete it off here or something.Taren Nauxen 02:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2007
Though I support your deletions of many of the nn events, I've restored two that seem notable. Corvus cornix 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Though those events seem notable, they use extensive POV terminology (the one about the gay rights activists even goes so far as to deem the judgment of the police officers incorrect.) I removed them because there was absolutely no source backing them up - no wikilink to an article and no external link. As a result, I didn't know how I could edit them to remove their POV nature since I don't know the real stories behind them. See Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Feel free to leave more comments. I have not reverted your changes, but added undefined tags to the offending pieces. I do ask that you reconsider your decision to restore them. Thanks! - Cheers, Chardish 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)