User talk:Chunky Rice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 - March 6, 2007 - October 15, 2007

[edit] Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game

If you can provide details of your sources (paper sources work fine) I'm going to ask fort that deletion to be overthrown, as IMHO it was IDONTLIKEIT bullshit, and was rushed through before a serious attempt to see if the article could meet WP:N could be made. Artw 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

TBH I would have waited until you had the sources in hand, but even if it does take longer and the deletion is upheld theres no reason the article can't be listed for review again. Artw 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that worked better than I thought it would - good on you! Artw 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added one ref, which will help a lot, though if we could gert those print refs in it would be rock solid. TBH if the afd runs properly I don;t really see deletion being a very likely outcome. Artw 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary?

I don't understand how that is nessercy. Anyway, you seem like a positive editor so I am inviting you to join my wiki, the Alien research Wiki a research project on alien theories, life, allegations and so on. Opinions and original research is welcome. The sunder king 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for your warning anyway, but a "blockable offense"? that makes blocking sound like somekind of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The sunder king (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed comment

You told him to go away and cool off right after he got blocked for 24 hours. Seemed like pouring gas on the fire...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd spot it yourself, after I called attention to it. I was trying to keep it as quiet as possible, so as not to aggravate things further.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violet Blue (author)

Thanks for chiming in on the VB talk page. I'm concerned about EscalenteXP posting personal information about one of the other editors (WikiWikiMoore's real name, presumably) but I'm not sure about the protocol for dealing with it. What do I do? Can I delete it from their comment? Can an admin? Thanks, KathrynA 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFA

I've left a comment there. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability templates discussion

Thanks for contributing to my discussion with Gavin.collins regarding the importance and notability tags. Feel free to butt into my discussions anytime, especially if I'm wrong about something and need to be corrected. :) Rray (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

...for taking out my frustration at the edit-warring on only you. Though you were culpable, pointing fingers rarely helps when hands on keyboard are more needed to fix the problem. Again, my apologies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Erection

An editor has nominated Erection, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erection and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Send some discussion to me!!! i just got here and am bored ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21mandy21 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Command & Conquer Factions deletion nomination

Could you perhaps also provide alternatives as to which deletion tags are more appropriate then? I've summarized my rationale on the article's talk page. 84.192.112.199 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was reading up on the help files pending your response, and added a "prod" tag, which should be the correct tag this time around. The issue with this article seems to be that it consists entirely out of already existing content from other articles, mixed in with the page creator's personal interpretations on the subject, rather than the sourced analysis the parent articles provide. Seems both a bit redundant and unnessary. 84.192.112.199 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eufeeds notability

Thanks Chunky Rice for your reply. I examined minutely the 'Non-Critiria' and particularly the notion of 'Notability'. In my opinion Eufeeds.eu has more than one sources to prove the objective evidence of notability. There are a lot of articles on internet and the European Journalism Centre, creator of this website, is already mentioned on Wikipedia. Please note also how similar websites like Imooty are included on Wikipidia with the same kind of references of Eufeeds. Of course Eufeeds doesn't have "fame" or "importance" because is a new website but is notabily concerns the fact that it is the first rss aggregator that cover all EU countries with more than 300 newpapers feeds. Please let me know your opinion (and yor critiria of notability), because I would like to rewrite the Eufeeds page in the best way is possible. 1:02 31 January 2008 (UTC) Kugno

[edit] vandalizm

i'm not sure what you are referring to, but dont ever send me a message like that again tool. if you are talking about the clemson page, that wasn't me.. so you can go fuck yourself Enjoisktboarding (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rampage Darts

(Blue alert82 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)) I would like to know why one of my country's largest sports organisations wikipedia article has been removed. Hopefully you can explain this to me and the rest of the darts community in my country, as we are very disturbed that someone who obviously knows little about our country has removed this notable organisations page.

[edit] No Use For Nickels

An editor has asked for a deletion review of No Use For Nickels. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of No Use For Nickels

Thanks for the information. Would an entry on thefreedictionary.com be at all sufficient as a secondary source? Thanks for your time. Juliancaza (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Miniatures Page

Sorry to bother you, but as an admin (and maybe as a lawyer, I don't know) could I get your opinion on this page? A new, so-far SPA, editor has been adding content to this page which I thought appropriate to remove (and have removed ~~twice~~ three times now). Obviously, an article about a website is not a BLP, but this is all uncited material and does have some reference to the Editor of the site (presumeably referring to Armintrout) in the added text. Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I guess that I'll try to keep an eye on the page and revert if/when that stuff is re-inserted. Would it be appropriate to report it to AIV if it gets re-inserted (several times)? (I ask because sometimes I'm not sure what might qualify as "vandalism" aside from the obvious things.) I can do that if/when it comes to it, I just want to know if that's the right place to report it. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't bother warning

If you see a page getting edited in such a manner as was seen here, don't warn the IP behind it - hardblock it. These IPs are essentially one-off VOAs. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last names

Last names are major pieces of biographical information. You can't make claims about last names without citing a reliable source. There's no disputing this. We can get an admin in here to tell you the same thing. --69.22.254.108 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analogy

Kudos for this excellent analogy. Hope that Malleus can see the logic. Unschool (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica‎

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I re-closed the listing as "speedy keep" because the page creator's deletion consent was based upon an inaccurate explanation of a guideline. I began typing the closure while the discussion was open, and in no way is this intended to imply any incorrect action on your part. —David Levy 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

No, no hard feelings at all. I still remember you as the guy who helps keep Controversies about the word niggardly from falling off a cliff! I respect your opinions. Best, Noroton (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Chef citations

I just found a citation for Dan Talde. It's not hard. Let's collaborate like Wikipedians and do this together. It'll only make the site and the article stronger. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally say it's uncontroversial. If it's uncontroversial, then why doesn't the network give out their names, the way American Idol, Hell's Kitchen and others do? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Invoking your admin status as a way to try to trump another editor is frowned upon by other admins. An admin should uphold the highest tenets of Wikipedia. And there's no mystery involved -- I'd simply post at the Admin incidents noticeboard. Is all this worth it to not give citations? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The vast numbers of people who will read this global encyclopedia, now and in the future, can't simply tune in. Or take your or anyone's word for it. Being able to independently confirm what an editor adds is one of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We write for people in Australia, England, South Africa, wherever. Wikipedia has a global perspective. Citations need to be something people can look up, whether it's a screengrab or a quote from a DVD commentary or whatever else, and not everyone can just tune in to see the show to see if a particular editor got the information right. Having uncited claims is dangerous and sets a bad precedent. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The requirement is that an edit be verifiable to someone wanting to look it up independently.

Look, then, how about this: Put a line at the top of the names saying: "Last names are not supplied by the network but are given on air during episodes." At least that way people know where the alleged last names came from. I think this is far below the standard we should be upholding, but I offer it in the spirit of collaboration and compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Availability is at the heart of verifiability. Something is available in a library, in a bookstore, online, on DVD. How can someone verify anything without having access to it? In any event, if you've found pages on Bravo.com that list the last names, then that's a verifiable source, and I thank you for going to trouble to provide it. I'm being serious, not sarcastic — tone of voice obviously gets lost in plain print, and I want to convey my sincere appreciation. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I've tried being collegial and collaborative, and specifically looked for the good. I'm saddened you seem to have turned this personal. I say this because you've asked what happens if the Bravo site goes down. An admin knows: It's the same as with any other online source that goes down. An admin knows this, so what am I to conclude about your singling out a point already covered under Wikipedia policies and guidelines?

I've never encountered an admin who actively campaigns against fuller, verifiable citations. I'll simply trust that you won't go out of your way to remove citations that other editors put in.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, really, there was no need for the snide comments and to make assumptions about me. That's very disappointing. I made an assumption myself, but it was one of good faith: That an admin would know WP:DEADREF.

I also find it troubling that you rationalize low-bar research techniques as "common sense."

Perhaps we can figuratively shake hands, walk away, and leave things be. Fair enough? Shake? No hard feelings? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're an OK guy, CR. I mean that. Whatever our differing policy interpretations, I'm glad to see someone taking this encyclopedic endeavor seriously, taking time to discuss the big picture, and caring, ultimately, about digging out facts. With regards to a colleague, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KathrynA and Violet Blue

Replied in my talk section. --BenBurch (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Butserfest

Sorry if this isn't where i am supposed to ask this but I am new to all this and I am finding it all a bit complicated. How could I strengthen my article butserfest to make it more "notable". Thanks for your time—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtoppy (talk • contribs)

[edit] use of db-*

I got a message from you that said I should always put something in the comment field. I would think that using the appropriate tag, like db-bio, would be enough. BobBagwill (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for helping me clear the poor CSDs

i.e. here. I'm working on them as well. Something's ducky. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whittard of Chelsea

Thanks for rejecting this speedy delete. The article was originally deleted by another admin a while back, just as I was removing the tags to decline!! I rewrote and referenced it as, frankly, any company established in 1886 with 160 stores and part of the English tea trade history seems inherently notable. Again, thank you. Pedro : Chat 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I put some sources on the talk page if someone wants to work on it. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sports bio flagging

So the most I should have done was to flag them as a rugbyleague-bio-stub? Should I create a SouthAfrica-rugbyleague-bio-stub? --BobBagwill (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)