User talk:Chaser/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
Archive
Archives
  1. 14 March 2006 - 19 June
  2. 20 June - July
  3. August - September
  4. October - 17 December
  5. 17 December 2006 - January 2007
  6. February 2007 - May 2007
  7. June 2007
  8. July 2007
  9. August 2007
  10. September 2007
  11. October 2007
  12. November 2007
  13. December 2007
  14. January 2008 -

Contents

Re: Adminship

I've decided to run. The vote page hasn't been created yet, but it will be as soon as Nlu gets around to doing it. MER-C 09:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. Glad to hear it.--Chaser T 12:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be notable

You said Big Neo Brother is probably not notable. Did it ever enter your head to give it a chance? You cannot stop it unless you can explain why it should be deleted, its more notable than some stuff on this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.73.87 (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Toyota Axina

I nominated this at AFD, seeing as the prod tag was removed. --sunstar nettalk 14:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandra_Shpakova

Could you please come and make a determination on this? Thanks - NipokNek 11:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A sysop who closes deletion discussions will close it within the next couple of days. I don't think it would be a problem to close it now, but AfD discussions normally last five days, and there's no need to close it early.--Chaser T 11:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just coming to strike out that message. I counted the days wrong. NipokNek 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Firefoxmans RFA

Hi there, I have realised my comments about the edit counts per month were a little out of order on firefoxmans RfA and I will openly admit that I was wrong, I'd just like to thank you for telling me about this on the users RFA. Thanks and if you have any other comments you may wish to contact me on my talk page (even though it says on the message on the top of this page that you'll normally reply here) or on my editor review.TellyaddictEditor review! 10:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for being so kind about it, yes we all have our different opninons and we could argue for days but what would be the point. Wikipedia is a community and maybe I could have said it a little different on an RFA.TellyaddictEditor review! 12:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page to yours... thx :-)

(Former title: "Moved your complaint, still active?")

I moved your complaint at the Village Pump talk page to here (the complaint about Carlton and Schiavo related articles). Is this still a problem? If not please make a note at the link provided. Thank you.--Chaser T 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problemo - I didn't know the best place to post it, and it might get more attention there, anyhow. Thanks!--GordonWatts 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Aflax

My AFLAX page has been deleted twice, once by you. The second time all of the information was put up by a user, not myself. I don't understand why Adobe Flash, for example, which is a commercial product, can keep a page alive, but AFLAX, which is a free, open-source project for the community cannot. Please explain. I've tried again by starting Aflax (I now spell it using not all uppercase). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pcolton (talk • contribs).

I deleted that article as blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become an encyclopedia article. Looking at the deleted content again, there's simply too much how-to's and promotional language for that to be considered an encyclopedia article. If you do submit it again, please take note of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and ensure that any future articles are in compliance with both of those standards. If you have any further questions, you are welcome to ask me here.--Chaser T 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assist with Bomba Dynasty

I just put an expert required tag on Bomba Dynasty. I also mentioned in my edit summary the article may need semi-protection due to its links to other semi-protected articles. I am going to bed now as I am a pumpkin. Ronbo76 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. I don't know if semi-protection is necessary due to linking. Usually that's just done to deal with vandalism. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy for more. Cheers!--Chaser T 09:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pinball FX

It's an upcoming XBLA title. Why would it be deleted? JAF1970 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

10nn

Given [1] related to 10nn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), I thought you should know that I extended the block to indefinite as this user not only continued but extended to vandalising userpages. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was contemplating the same yesterday.--Chaser T 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost talk pages

How do you find all these talk pages that meet CSD G8?

Crudely. Namely:

  • Copying entries from the deletion log, working backwards, into Word, as such:
  • 19:23 February 1, 2007 BanyanTree (Talk | contribs) deleted "The Never" (a7)
  • Do a search-and-replace to turn it into something like this:
  • 19:23 2/1 - BanyanTree - {{lat|The Never}} (a7)
  • Paste a chunk of these into a user page, hit "preview". The talk pages pop out in blue.

Mechanical, but it does the job. --Calton | Talk 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:physiscs and Star Wars

Thanks alot for your message.Regarding the article I stated in my edit summary that the article is not presenting any evidence that the charecters in the Star Wars galaxy can hear the sounds in space.So what would be the purpose of adding the sounds in space section? No part in either trilogies as far as I can see indicates that the charecters can hear any sounds in space which the audiance can.So the reason I put the template there is because the writer merely assumed that there was sound in space.

Furthermore I find that the article is only pointing to minor unrealistic elements (science fiction is not technicly reality,only possibility) while ignoring the mostly realistic concepts. Take for example the tie fighters.They possess solar panels on either wing.Basicly they run on solar energy.Now that's realistic is it not? Don't we use spaceships and sattelights that run on solar power today? Why was this not added in the article? Most of the Star Wars technical commentries written by Dr Curtis Auxtin who has a PHD in astrophysics. Dr Micheal Wong who has a PHD in engineeering is another individual who points to the sceintific concepts of Star Wars.

I suspect the contents of the article is the work of some Trekkie.No offence intended, but I find Trekkies to be ignorent of what science fiction really is and they will insist on calling Star Trek (a fantasy franchise,their favorite) the most realistic no matter how many other franchises present more realistic science in it.I believe they are now bringing their enthusiasm to wikipedia and trying to validate their views.See criticisms of Star Trek.Though I didn't write the article (a Trekkie wrote it) I still contributed to it.

Coming back the the Physics and Star Wars article,I agree with the elements mentioned such as the twin suns of tatooine. But those are still minor elements if you look at how few are mentioned.It's time we add the realistic elements.Do you happen to have the book Star Wars:where science meets imagination? If you don't maybe you can borrow it from a library.You can also buy the technical commentries from the science fiction section of the Indigo bookstore.I have it with me.We can use these as our sources after we add the realistic elements of Star Wars to the article. Further more I think w should remove that "sounds in space section" as there is no evidence that proves the charecters can hear the sounds in space. Look forward to hearing from you on this.--Nadirali نادرالی

Buffyverse chronology

Hiya, I decided it might be worth contacting an administrator about something, there have recently been some deletion nominations for articles I created relating to Buffyverse chronology (timeline about the series, Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer). There are currently two separate nominations, "Buffyverse chronology" and "Buffyverse chronology (canon)" for deletion. Should these two nominations be combined? -- Paxomen 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guide is WP:AFD#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. I also left a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Need_two_AFD_discussions_merged. Back to my wikibreak!--Chaser T 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Money and Banking in the United States

Please refer to the article's talk page for my note on LvMI releasing this work for use on Wikipedia. Cheers, DickClarkMises 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Template

Hi Chaser. It's not my template. I actually just put it in to see if there was an existing template with that name. When the preview came up with a valid message, I forgot that I hadn't subst'd it yet. Thanks for the note though. --Onorem 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Omagh Bombing/name

Hi Chaser. Saw your Rfd nom for this. I can't believe that was an AfD outcome- its clearly unsupported by policy and confusing.... Couple of things about this one I wanted to discuss with you:

  1. If its going to exist on a talk sub-page (sigh) I think it should be Talk:Omagh bombing/names not Talk:Omagh Bombing/names so it matches the name of the article.
  2. But I'm wondering what the whole point of the sub-talkpage is... Surely the list could just exist on the talkpage (which isn't that full). Not sure it should be anywhere give WP:NOT#MEMORIAL though.

I'm thinking of nominating the "subpage" at MfD. But wanted your thoughts first. Cheers, WjBscribe 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my screw up with the titling, then. Sounds good to move. I'm indifferent to the subpage itself, I just wanted to move it out of mainspace.--Chaser - T 11:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I just wanted to tell you that you might want to check your page history. Your user page was attacked, I reverted it, and I'm off to reprimand the person who did it. You might want to just go over your page to make sure it's ok.
Have a wonderful day!
Saber girl08 12:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked that account for 24. Thanks for the revert.-- Chaser - T 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay subpage

I moved it to Talk:Essjay controversy/sandbox. Cheers!-- Chaser - T 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Doh, thank you. - Denny 14:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ecole Fairview School

Please see User_talk:Allen3#Ecole Fairview School and either rename or redirect so that List of high schools in Alberta#F is correct. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect done. You can create articles and take advantage of many of the other benefits of having a username by creating an account. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more info. Cheers!--Chaser - T 09:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I sometimes tell user that I reported them when they are active and still vandalizing after final warning - thanks for the info. Amos Han Talk 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Supernova in the news

Thanks for putting this right. Chrislintott 11:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. I was a little unwary about running roughshod over the discussion on WP:ERRORS, but no one seems to have minded (and consensus building was slow anyway). Cheers!--Chaser - T 14:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Shaggyfan123

You removed Shaggyfan123 from AIV [2] at just about the same time I was blocking him. I'm not a big fan of "we have to make sure to warn them plenty of times"; his diffs contained abuse of speedy deletion tags, listing someone as being dead (a violation of WP:BLP), replacing a page with profanity, and spuriously altering the contents of an infobox. Given the circumstances, I see no reason to assume good faith and leave them unblocked, when it's so painfully obvious they won't contribute anything worthwhile. Much easier to just shuffle them off the wiki coil and go back to working on the encyclopedia.

Just thought I'd drop you a line, since I completely missed your comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, but I also think this was a judgment call. Since another sysop had already posted a last warning for all this prior abuse, I just deferred to him (Y). Cheers.--Chaser - T 13:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA comment

Thanks for the interesting comment at my RfA. I've not come across that before, but I'm (as always) eager to hear more. What should closing admins do when handling, say, a nonsense/attack article Margaret Thatcher is a Welsh goat that happens to include a verified encyclopedic piece of information about Thatcher that's missing from her biog? Should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater because of the terms of the license? --Dweller 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. That's an interesting hypothetical (thankfully, not a very likely one). I think in that case it would be best to track down the source and either write the info into her bio yourself or post source information to the article's talk page so other editors can do it.--Chaser - T 08:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. But I'm confused... what you say is what I'd expect (it's common sense after all) but how does that differ from an AfD comment to delete an article and merge the 1 useful bit of information to a main article? --Dweller 10:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
May I chime in? The difference is that in the former case, you wrote some content based on a source. Those are your contributions and they are attributable to you through the page history. On the other hand a "merge" means taking a portion of text and adding it to another article. For GFDL to be preserved that text must remain attributable the person (or people) who wrote it. If we redirect the old article to the new one and tag it {{R from merge}} that is achieved. However if the old article is deleted, it is no longer possible to attribute the relevant edits. Hence why "delete and merge" is not compatible with GFDL. WjBscribe 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is now clear. I think this about sloppy use of English on my behalf. There was nothing in that article that I would want to verbatim lift ("merge") and put into another article. However, there was useful information that I felt should be preserved. Perhaps what I'd have done if I'd been less lazy/busy with WP projects at the time, was add the material myself ("in my own words") and then happily stick with a simple delete. Note to self re better use of word "merge". --Dweller 10:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is perhaps clarified by the fact that I opted for "Delete", not "Delete and merge", which WJBscribe rightly is irritated by. It's a fine difference, but perhaps, given that this misunderstanding is over a fine difference, an important one. --Dweller 10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Merge"

Irrespective of what happens at the RfA and whether this issue prompts wholesale switches to oppose, as ever I appreciate someone picking up a weakness in my editing and am happy to learn from it. So thank you. --Dweller 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm also happy that there wasn't any wholesale switch to opposers or even a few. Even if it's only an ego deflation, it still sucks to go from unanimous support to even one opposer. I know how that feels.--Chaser - T 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the kind comments. --Dweller 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)