User talk:Chaser/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives
2006: Mar—Jun 19 | Jun 20—Jul | Aug—Sep | Oct—Dec 17 | Dec 17—31 2007: Jan | Feb—May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2008: Jan—May | Jun—Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2009: Jan—Apr | May—Aug | Sep | Oct—Nov | Dec 2010: Jan—Jun | Jul—Oct | Nov—Dec 2011: Jan—Mar | Apr—Jul 2012: Jul—Aug | Sep—Dec 2013: Jan—Dec 2014: Jan—Dec 2015: Jan—Dec

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)

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

) 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I nominated this at AFD, seeing as the prod tag was removed. --

14:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.
  addict^{Editor 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)

My

).

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

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

16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

10nn

Given [1] related to

10:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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.--

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please see

) 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)

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)

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

), 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)

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)

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)