User talk:Chardish/Archive 2

Google Twin

While I agree wholeheartedly that this is a ridiculous neologism with no place on Wikipedia, it's provied impossible to delete in the past — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Essay

Hi. Please see my comment at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#Linked to an essay. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; per comments, I decided to remove the link to the essay for now. - Chardish 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Hello Mr Chardish. I`m new wikipedian of en.wikipedia & metawiki and older in fa.wiki. I`m so glad to meet you, because you`re an admin of wiki. then, I have proposal for the better user cheking for sockpuppet in wiki.

Now, your processed agent strings is only software agent like kind of browser or operation system. in this manner, in the some browsers like IE or firefox, and operation system like xp or vista that have used by many general users, couse the mistake in cheking the users. in some country like Iran, the IP addresses is shared between many users in an ISP and maybe all the people of one city in Iran have same IP. further, some of realy sockpuppet users (that unfortunately not a few in fa.wiki) can change browser and operation systems in short time and escape from checkusers. unfortunately it couse to born the very bad user bands that prevent growing wiki project and decrease contributions, specialy in fa.wiki that I cooperated in it.

For solve this problem, I propose that design the cookies for register the further hardware information about user`s computers in mediawiki software. it`s very better than software agent string, because changing the hardware doesn`t possible in short time and so comfortable.

I hope that my idea be suitable for this great project and you use it. I`m in wait for your answer.

Best regards

--Gordafarid 15:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia administrator; I'm an administrator at Flash Flash Revolution. Sorry about the confusion, and good luck with your project! - Chardish 17:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

excuse me sir, I`m not verifying the en.wiki good. u can delete my talk. regards,--Gordafarid 18:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW Template

Please see the note in the comment of the text you removed along with the template. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is...

... the opinion of all editors editing a page, rather than the opinion of Chardish alone.

You do need pay attention to edits by other editors and not blindly revert, lest you end up violating the famous three revert rule.

It's an easy trap to think that you have consensus and to keep reverting, when in reality you do not have consensus at all yet (as is shown here by the edits of other wikipedians).

See also: Bold revert discuss, for ideas on how to continue in good faith without having to resort to edit warring.

--Kim Bruning 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You very easily could have expressed that in a polite manner. At no time have I held a belief that my opinion supersedes consensus. We have been engaged in a discussion on the talk page for over a week now about how best to revise the policy, and this was the consensus we arrived at. Upon making the change, they were very quickly attacked by people (possibly including yourself) who apparently take great interest in IAR yet ignore the discussions on the talk page. My objection was to people reverting to the previous version without even contributing to the discussion on the talk page - how are we supposed to arrive at consensus if those who object refuse to discuss? Nonetheless, I've marked the page as being disputed, since it most clearly is. I will continue to work with fellow contributors on the talk page, as I have in the past. - Chardish 22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I could have also easily expressed that in a much less polite manner I think. I chose a kind of middle ground. I don't think anyone attacked anything. People just did standard Consensus style editing by the book and you reverted them. As per your preferred wording (which was not bad btw :-) ) could you explain why you did that?

Take it easy, by the way. I'm not attacking you, I don't really think anyone else is either.  :-) Would a brief skype chat be helpful? --Kim Bruning 22:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have Skype, but you're welcome to catch me on AIM. You have my screen name now! : ) - Chardish 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So you stated that Ignore All Rules should not be an exercise in exegesis, and that you shouldn't need a week long discussion to understand it.

Well, that much is true. On the other hand, camping guidelines and applying the long consensus cycle is one way to catch folks and explain policies to them.

--Kim Bruning 01:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC) BRD could really use a renaming

wikigroaning

I recognized that many of the commenters may have been recruited, but even ignoring them, there wasn't an argument for deletion. Even the nominator wanted a merge, not a deletion. AfD isn't there to do merges, the talk page is. So I closed it as keep, with a note that a merge could be worked out on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge is a valid result, not a valid reason for nomination. The afd had little more consensus for a merge than a deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anime South Deletion Review

The Anime South article that you originally commented on was re-created and immediately deleted. At the very least, this should not have been a Speedy Deletion. 15 new citations created an article which allows it to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. I would appreciate any comments you have in the Anime South deletion review. Since the article's deletion prevents it from being reviewed, the citations are listed below: (references removed) -Animesouth 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not considered good form to go and ask everyone who commented at AfD to participate in DRV. That aside, I endorse the deletion. - Chardish 23:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with edit summaries

Hi, I noticed this edit. The summary is incorrect. The edit you reverted was not mine, nor was the content of my choosing. You were reverting an edit by somebody called Father Goose. Please be careful with edit summaries. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting the decision you made to return to the version of the page that you prefer. Further edits after that were relatively inconsequential. I felt that you held responsibility for the changes I reverted. - Chardish 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Epic Legends Of The Hierarchs: The Elemenstor Saga restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Chaser - T 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

why did the ffr page get deleted

what happened to it?

is there any way to get it back. if so i would like to help

xinpig

It is currently up for deletion review. If you want to help get it back, I recommend you participate in that discussion. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks! - Chardish 15:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gunpei Yokoi Neutrality Tag

Hi! I noticed that on August 17 you added a Neutrality Tag to the article Gunpei Yokoi. However, you did not specify what needed work on the talk page. I have since made some minor changes, and would like to know if you still find the article to be biased. If so, please explain what the issue is. Thanks! Michael 134.84.96.142 17:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Konquest

An article that you have been involved in editing, Konquest, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konquest (2nd nomination). Thank you. --B. Wolterding 14:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Use common sense

It takes a logical step to get from "up until now" to "in the first two games but not this one". "Up until now" can also mean "from the start to now", which includes SSBB. Now, the meaning and the move similarities hint at Ness' replacement, but Wiki is based in Verifiability, not Truth: ergo, the burden of proof goes to those who challenge a fact, not those who protect it. Dengarde ► Complaints 07:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That was an insanely fast reply to my edit, I think you've been F5'ing that page rather heavily. "Up until now" does not also mean "up until and including now." The Japanese and Italian translations say the same thing the English one does. Ness is gone. Get over it and get back to improving Wikipedia. - Chardish 07:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

need help

hey how are you, I need help with sumthing how do you add countdowns to myuser page for ex like this site http://www.blingyblob.com/countdown/index.htm.--DarkFierceDeityLink 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• That link is broken. Also, I don't know what you're talking about, since I don't have anything like a "countdown" on my user page. - Chardish 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

mergism

Kindly consider meta:mergism. You seem to be nominating perfectly valid topics for deletion just on grounds of being isolated stubs. I have the impression that this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Afd is (and what it isn't). regards, --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Garry's Mod Merging Issue

I have come to ask for your opinion and reason for suggesting of merging Garry's Mod with the Source engine - that's all. Nothing else. Shougunner (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, I don't think that Garry's Mod is notable independently of the Source engine. (In other words, you couldn't find anything on Garry's Mod that doesn't talk about the Source engine as well.) Also, I don't think there's enough encyclopedic information on it that warrants its own article. - Chardish (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered about the Beta update about Garry's Mod because it uses the upgraded Source Engine 11. Shougunner (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Still Source Engine though. Why does it matter that it uses a newer version of Source? - Chardish (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

FFR?

Are you the Chardish from FFR forums and such? -Razorflame (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That'd be me! - Chardish (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And I shall be the Razorflame from them sites as well :)) -Razorflame (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Main page error reports

May I introduce you to WP:ERRORS? --74.13.129.11 08:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know about that. Thank you! - Chardish 16:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Hey there.

I'm going to have to ask you to stop edit warring over the WP:IAR article; please wait until consensus is reached on the talk page before making controversial edits. Unless you desist and start discussing the changes you feel are required, I'll have no choice but to block you to stop the disruptive warring. — Coren ^(talk) 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the page was just protected indefinitely last month because of edit warring, it's fairly obvious that it doesn't hold consensus. My two changes to the page (one of which was only a partial revert, in an attempt to establish consensus through compromise) hardly constitute an edit war. Nonetheless, since you're threatening with the sword, I guess I have no choice, do I? - Chardish 03:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, the fact that there was edit warring strong enough to protect is an even stronger reason to avoid continuing; the continuous reverts are a good sign that the changes are not felt to represent consensus. If I were you, I'd go to the village pump to gather enough interest for your proposed changes to settle where the future of that policy goes. — Coren ^(talk) 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You do understand that I was not changing the content of the policy, but trying to remove from the page the claim that the policy held consensus, right? - Chardish 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I don't know as I've ever run into you before here on Wikipedia, but I appreciate your comments over here. It's good to get some level-headed people in there to discuss the whole WP:NOR and its relation to images. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I wish some of those people would just cool down about policy and get back to writing an encyclopedia, especially in situations when religious adherence to the policy doesn't help improve the project. - Chardish (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Mushroom (Mario)

I closed this because, well frankly, there was no consensus, and it was starting to smell up the backlog of noms at WP:AFD. The default closure is to keep. It had a cite, and is tagged for more. It generates literally millions of Ghits, [1], but some nerd just needs a month or two to sort out the spam and cruft from the good stuff. Give them rope, I say. Of course, yes, I am perfectly aware of the rule that every single article has to have cites to prove its notability. However, in this case there are several reasons to ignore those rules.

1. It generates so many Ghits, so something must be out there.
2. There appears to be a strong minority of regular users who want to keep it, and presumably want to fix it up to an acceptable level.
3. Every admin must use common sense to move on discussions.
4. It's about a fictional entity, which has a much lower standard of proof than, let's say, an airport, a doctrine of law, an historical event, a religious doctrine, or a biography of a living person.
5. I pointed out that I'd welcome another nom in 3 months to delete it if it is not fixed by then. You are welcome to remind me.
6. You can always appeal at deletion review.
7. While I have, twice, changed my mind on a closure, I feel fairly confident about this one.

I hope that is helpful. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points except the one about ghits, which is a subjective and flexible number that has no real bearing on a topic's objective notability. Since you don't seem to have a problem with it, I'll take it to DRV. Thanks for your time! - Chardish (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw you took it to WP:DRV. I do not think the article was very good, and I am not a fan of Mario games, but I strongly believe in going along with community consensus and in a fair process, which I discussed in my RfA. Ghits, by themselves, are a lousy measure, but it can be a useful "guesstimate" of notability as well as a way to find cites. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's cool. I don't mean anything against you by taking it to DRV; I think you make a fair case but I just don't agree with it. : ) - Chardish 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb

I sent it to DRV because I'm not sure which decision is the right one anymore. --Coredesat 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Merge & Redirect

You said in your comment on my page that your experience has been different yet the page that you linked to ended exactly as it should. The people who argued (loudly and incivilly) that the AFD decision meant "keep as is" failed to make their case and the page was redirected. Once other impartial editors joined the discussion, it appears to have gone rather quickly.

The only real advice I have is to recognize that this is a perennial misunderstanding and that new users have to be coached through the Wikipedia Way a lot. The concept of "deletion" at Wikipedia is a bit counter-intuitive. Remember that the people arguing the other side are passionate about their view and that they share the goal of creating an encyclopedia - they just don't know about all the decisions that have already been made.

Repetition. I guess that's the best advice I have. It's Wikipedia policy and tradition and we need to tell new people often (and remind many of the old people, too). Sorry I don't have a better answer. Rossami (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominating articles in the scope of WP:VG for deletion

Would you be so kind to add future articles you nominate for deletion that fall in to the scope of WP:VG to the deletion list of that project? The list can be found at WP:VG/D. Thanks in advance, User:Krator (t c) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider it, but I'd appreciate it if you explained why. Adding deletions to WikiProject lists seems to me to be canvassing Keep votes. If I am mistaken, please explain your reasoning. Thanks! :) - Chardish (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blind Users

I was being tongue in cheek, hence the emoticon following that statement. I believe I ran into a blind wikipedian at one time, and I thought that was actually kind of cool. Thanks for the heads up, though! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)