User talk:Chardish/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WT:UCS[edit]

I have started a discussion on the question of if there was ever consensus for it to be more than an essay on the talk page. Your opinion is welcome. 1 != 2 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR[edit]

I don't want an edit war, but you're deliberately performing edits that you know defy consensus. Please stop. —David Levy 02:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How does moving from a page that doesn't hold consensus to a page that doesn't hold consensus defy consensus? I am curious. These are not black and white questions, and a version that doesn't hold consensus (yet) may not be the wrong version. Think about it. - Chardish (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I reject the premise that the policy's current version lacks consensus, I dispute the assertion that it's okay to deliberately edit it in a manner that you know lacks consensus, and I'm utterly baffled by any interpretation of WP:BRD (which you cited on the policy's talk page) that involves following the initial "R" with another "R" to the "B" version without any "D." —David Levy 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If the current policy had consensus we wouldn't have to resort to protection to prevent good-faith attempts to improve the page. This has happened, time and again, anytime anyone sees a way to improve it. To claim that every edit must be free of objections before being made is absurd. Do you need me to compile a list of diffs of the dozens of editors who have tried to improve the page, only to be reverted sometimes minutes later? Consensus means that the current version of the page is free of significant contention. I don't see how that could possibly be said about the current wording of IAR. - Chardish (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This image demonstrates the mentality I feel the IAR cops are carrying around these days. - Chardish (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that some editors believe that the page could be improved (and others disagree with suggested changes) does not mean that the current version lacks consensus. You recently acknowledged that "IAR isn't broken, but has potential for improvement," and I agree. A failure to reach consensus on how to go about improving the page does not imply that there is a lack of support for the current version (even among those who believe that another version would be better). —David Levy 08:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Conversely, the fact that few people object to the general spirit of the page does not imply that the current wording holds consensus. - Chardish (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! That was a nice edit IMO. Love that Zen story. Good one. Tparameter (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD[edit]

Just wanted to point out that the essay WP:BRD says creating a discussion if you are reverted is helpful. It does not say, nor does any other essay guideline or policy say, that if someone reverts you they must start a discussion.

The burden of finding consensus is on those who wish to make a change, not those who wish to keep a version with long standing. Nobody steamrolled you, you just did not find consensus. Bold edits only work if they are not objected to, otherwise you will need agreement first. (1 == 2)Until 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point, and probably stems from the fact that I haven't read BRD thoroughly in a few months. I still don't think the current version of IAR holds consensus. Cheers. - Chardish (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that it has been that way for well over a year, and that anytime anyone boldly changes it, it goes back, and that there has never been a consensus to change it then I would say that it holds a strong consensus. It has longevity, stability, and has been more enduring than any other version. If I see a consensus to change it on the talk page I will accept such a change even if I disagree. I rarely even get a chance to explain my objection to edits because nobody ever asked on the talk page, they just got reverted in the night without me noticing.

When you get reverted on a policy page not everyone involved notices your attempt at change, the talk page makes a permanent record of such attempts and if such changes are re-proposed in the future such records will aid that attempt. Any edit that gets reverted and is not accompanied by a talk page discussion will have very little long term effect, whereas talk page discussions do hold a strong sway in future discussion.

It is in everyones best interest to document attempts at change. Peace. (1 == 2)Until 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the talk pages demonstrate the attempts at change. It's been happening like this for about a year now where dozens of people will try to improve the page, some in significant ways, some in insignificant ways, and get reverted. Sometimes this is after discussion happens, sometimes before. But they always get reverted. Usually the reverts happen because the edits don't bear consensus. This may be true, but I look at this and I'm compelled to ask "If we're going to use consensus as a reason to revert any good-faith attempt to improve the page, then isn't it an absolutely essential question whether the current version holds consensus or not? And we can't use the argument "it's resisted attempts to change it for years" - that's circular logic." I agree that stability is a good indicator of consensus for most pages, but when a page is constantly being edited and reverted it deserves more attention to the question of whether the current version holds consensus, and a more probing answer than "It's always held consensus." - Chardish (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Chardish, you keep on saying that dozens of people are making changes to the IARpolicypage, but you are the one, on your own, who introduces any old thing you can think up, which gets shot down time and again. No dozen people do anything like that, you are much mistaken. You have been doing it on-and-off for ten months at IAR, you ought to stop. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?[edit]

Merge =/= redirect. Consensus =/= redirect. I don't see how you can claim that the consensus is redirect, when it is merge, and you make literally no effort to perform the merge besides the removal of the content from the article and replacing it with a redirect.- 24.179.176.142 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The primary issue is that none of the content in the old article meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines (see especially the rule about original research and the fact that sources for information must be cited.) The old article, which looked like someone said "Hey, I'm going to go to Wikipedia and type in everything I know about this power-up, is inconsistent with our content guidelines. As such, a redirect is wholly appropriate. - Chardish (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Being bold goes only far enough that you can make such a decision when there's not a consensus against you. Wiping the content from the article and making it so only viewing the history would allow only someone happening upon it by luck to add citations. That argument is tired. I've seen people argue it many, many times, and no matter how many times they use it, the fact still remains that we have citation tags, and that deleting the unverified content at no point encourages users to verify the content. - 24.179.176.142 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If you believe you can edit the article to the point where it satisfies Wikipedia standards, go for it. There's a reason the policy is called "be bold" and not "wait for someone else to do something." - Chardish (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
When does "Be bold" say that you can ignore consensus? In no universe is hiding the unsourced content going to do anything to cause people to source it, and I'm shocked that you think this is the right thing to do - make it difficult for the content TO be sourced. You have absolutely no interest in the quality of the article, so all you're doing is making a decision that instead of giving editors of that article the chance to source it, you hide the content and don't even raise issue with the lack of sources at any time to make anyone aware of the problem. Ever heard of the comment "sweeping it under the rug"? Lack of sources is a problem, and what you're doing is sweeping the problem under the rug. And on the off chance one person checks the history, or, "under the rug", they may not even be able to "fix" what you swept under there, and the people that could would be completely and totally unable to find the content. You can't bank on the fact that I found the content you hid, because that's only an excuse for why you do it now, but the fact that you seem to defend your actions shows that in the future, you'll continue to discourage the problem from being fixed. This is not improving the Wiki - you think citation needed tags are just for show? If it is a good idea to just wipe unsourced content before it gets the chance to be fixed, then the tags wouldn't exist. There has never even been citation tags ON the article, so no one was even made aware that a problem existed ever. Now, give me one good reason why deleting unsourced content > sourcing unsourced content. - 24.179.176.142 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It usually isn't preferable, but when content stays up for years without getting sourced, it's fairly obvious that no one is interested in improving it. Furthermore, deleting unsourced content is necessary for creating a culture that is willing to source material - if it weren't for the fact that sources are a non-negotiable requirement for articles, why would anyone bother to source anything? Removing content inappropriate for Wikipedia is an essential task; unsourced content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. That article has been completely unsourced for over three years; how long do you think we should leave up unsourced content? More than three years? You way wish to ask if your personal opinions about the project are consistent with its goals. - Chardish (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
May I ask how many regular editors are aware of this? With the exception of assuming bad faith in that the editors are not concerned with sources, you are assuming that over ignorance of the guideline. It helps no article to just wipe the content away - do that with EarthBound, and the content would be gone just like that. You made no effort to make the editors aware of just how important sources are, so those who do understand and those who aren't are both left unaware of the problem. The consenus said merge. If wiping away unsourced content was always good, then are you encouraging people to just go through articles wiping them dry of most content? - 24.179.176.142 (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
When you edit a page, there's a link below the edit box that explains that encyclopedic content must be verifiable. That is how regular editors are aware of it. Wikipedia users are smart and literate, we don't feel the need to shove everything in their faces. I encourage people to tag unsourced content as requiring a source; if a fair amount of time goes by and no one sources it, it should be removed. I don't have a fine definition for "fair amount of time," but I think that three years is more than fair ; ) - Chardish (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
How can we assume that they read that? At no point do we know that they were aware of this, so they and no one else has any chance at all. "Sweeping under the rug" argument still exists. - 24.179.176.142 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Debating this with me will do little good; if you wish to see current practices change I recommend you take it up at the Village Pump. A link can be found at the "community portal" on the left navigation bar. In response to your claim about "sweeping it under the rug" - removing unsourced material from a page that's not being maintained does not sweep the problem under the rug; it solves the problem. Wikipedia is not a place for unsourced material, plain and simple.
I also conjecture that perhaps there are better things for you to do if you're interested in helping the encyclopedia as a whole than fighting to preserve an unsourced article on a powerup in a video game. We have plenty of other work that needs to be done. - Chardish (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's what "people did", then people would wipe content away the very moment it appeared on the article without a source. No one added citation needed tags, and to insist that people would know that sources are required for articles is foolish, and you are most aware of that. The consensus did not say redirect. It said merge. Merge the content, tag it. Have you ever considered that editors of Mario (series) are not the same editors that edit the Starman (Nintendo) article? They never had a chance to fix the unsourced content that was supposed to be merged there. - 96.2.27.142 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully speaking, I'm kind of tired of debating this with you. Your energy would be much better off finding reliable, third-party sources that assert the individual notability of the topic than fighting to maintain a low standard of quality for the project. - Chardish (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Maintain? Can you explain why citation needed tags exist and are used on most articles? The only standard I establish is that people be made aware of it. You can't assume they understand quality guidelines. - 96.2.27.142 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume that when they are made aware of a quality guideline through removal of material by experienced editors that they do their best to educate themselves about the quality guideline so they can make better edits in the future. Wikipedia is not free space for people to upload anything they want. Furthermore, this is not the proper venue to debate whether Wikipedia is properly educating new editors about policy. If you think there's a problem with community standards, you will accomplish nothing by complaining to me about it. - Chardish (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FFR[edit]

I saw that you were present at the AfD for Flash Flash Revolution. Well, when you were there, the site had 76k users, which now has grown to 1.4 million which does satisfy the guidelines for notability. (I'm on FFR too as irionman. I don't, however, recognize you. But I will over time) Anyways, what I am trying to get at, I need some help requesting that the admins unblock the ability to create the page for it. I believe that with the new bands that have been added to it and the widgets that have been created, FFR is extremely notable. Please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I, too, believe that FFR is notable. However, Wikipedia's criteria for notability are objective, not subjective. Do me a favor and try searching for stories on notable websites and newspapers/magazines about FFR. We then should source a new article and get it posted via DRV. This is the best route to recognition. - Chardish (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Get ready for the list. Google hits = Notability Meta Filer, Mac.com, Review at Neat O Rama, and the big one Alexa page ranking. Enjoy. Undeath (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgot this one. Detailed Alexa Results. This makes criteria number 3 at WP:WEB. Undeath (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A good start, but you'll have to do better than that. Can you find very respected blogs with high readership that mention FFR? Magazines? Newspapers? Ideally we're looking for reliable sources from which to build an article. - Chardish (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Since your an admin on FFR, you need to pull for some advertisement. No other sites advertise FFR and hardly anything at all mentions it. Undeath (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here We Go[edit]

Now you can help me. Go to my page and help me build this article. After it's built, I have an admin who will help from that point on. Undeath (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Thanks for your review of Sarah Kerrigan. I'm glad to know I sorted most of the bits you had problems with, even though I didn't know exactly what I was going for. I'll be sure to apply the points from the review when moving Jim Raynor towards GA. -- Sabre (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Ignoreallrules-notebook.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ignoreallrules-notebook.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements[edit]

This made me spit coffee (why is it always coffee?) all over. Good work! :) Dreaded Walrus t c 08:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Darn, you're the 4th person to be always right today. See: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#More_RFBs_than_RFAs??. Note comments by Evula, Keeper and Me. *Do* read, it's worth it. :-D
<dark, serious tone> I wonder if You, Evula, Keeper, and I are going to have to have a deathmatch[*].</dark, serious tone>
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC) [*]THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

Stay cool![edit]

Both of you should take a break from the page. You're probably just both steamed up. (See also a longer answer on my talk page).

If that doesn't work, we can always try a plan B. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Plan (rf)C, or plan (D)ropit[edit]

At Iar discussion page

Just to be clear, if I were to go to Rfc over this, I would certainly present this Protest being ignored as evidence of my case. But, I do not wish to entangle another user in it, so, drop it. I will. At talk/Iar, you are being accused, by me, at this stage, of being disruptive, and of edit-warring which caused one or more page protections. That is a matter for centralized discussion, at talk:Iar. I apologise, I have there too, for anything you construed as a personal attack and which caused you genuine harm. I do not doubt your good faith, do not doubt mine, Goodbye. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Newbyguesses. I apologize as well for any behavior you've perceived as disruptive. As User:Kim Bruning suggested, I'm in the middle of taking 24 hours off from that page, so I'll get around to checking it later tonight. I hope we can put this nasty business behind us. I really don't want to go to RfC over any of this. - Chardish (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, we understand each other, and I have no personal beef, other than having one post removed, and one other which should be removed, which is now a small thing, since there are half-a-dozen sections below that by now. I suggest you look at "No bicycles at the IAR page", that is the latest, and we simply move on from there, though you are free to reply to any of the posts i made about edit-warring. It looks like no-one will be following those up, except perhaps for Until 1==2, who has expressed the view that blocking of some user is preferable to further page protection. Oh, and also GTB expressed a similar view, but no-one will probably read there, so, I say, let's move on, and please do not try to "jog" the page into action when the page-protection expires, that is not going to work. Actually, I am dreading what happened last time, i think, when following protection, some editors who had not been around for a while came along and stirred things up un-productively. I will not edit contentiously to that page, you know that, and I hope you see your way clear to avoiding that trap, and can contribute insightfully on the discussion page, also /Versions and /Workshop need watching, or something, maybe. Anyway, all good, then. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Yeah, if I learned anything from this time around it's that trying lots of different versions is perceived as edit-warring even if it's not a revert war. Actually, we joke about RfC, but I wonder if there's some way we can set up a straw poll of some kind to elicit outside opinions about the page. But that's a discussion for there, not here. I'm just happy that (afaik) everyone's AGFing about one another again. : ) - Chardish (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but no, i have never seen a "straw poll" that did any good. I reckon the best thing for this page would be some fresh eyes, although, I may regret saying that. (The AN/I thread does not appear to have got us much, though I concur up to a point with those who expressed approval of the "image", and some other edits.) The place for those edits is at /Workshop, at this time, they are being wholeheartedly rejected at IAR itself.
Yes, an edit war might have nothing to do with 3RR, or repeated reverts, read Dmcdevit's essay, if you have the time. And AGF is the starting point for all useful discussion, on or off-wiki, I do that, you do that, FG and GTB do that etc. But it is only a starting point, we need focussed discussion, not meta-theorizing about "consensus" and such. Make an edit, if it is reverted, DO NOT repeat it, or come up with a sly change, you wont "get away with" that.
I notice when I put up FeelFreeTOBe's contribution, that you improved it with a simple formatfix I had neglected. That is optimal editing. David's revert then was unfortunate for me, but I think his represent's the majority, current, or "consensus" view - no-one seems to want a series of dot-point versions, they are after a mini-essay, and some are working on that.
So, my (FFTB's) version was a legitimate attempt, which failed, but, who knows, it may get resurrected via /Workshop, or /Versions.
Now, I edited /Versions recently down to 15 entries, including the koan, which many like, though i tired of it quickly, and also the 3C's version, which was a legitimate, transitional, version. So that page looks cool, at the moment, i think, and ought to remain linked, though not at the expense of WP:WIARM. If one of them had to go, and maybe having just one "official" link is a good idea, then it would be /Versions, dont you think.
There are plenty of ways forward. I do not usually go to User:talkpages, and i am rather busy with an Arbcom case at the moment. When I do go to Usertalk pages, I often jump into a conversation between other users, including, hopefully, the page's operator.
I like my talkpage to be minimal, that is, if you exclude the HUGE drama section where I am documenting the /Mantanmoreland arbcom case as a kind of public notice-board. And may I say, the drama is much more than i care for, but, I went into it, so...
Now, I resisted visiting your talk page before, but all positions come to be overturned in time, hope you do not mind me going on at length. It seems i often have trouble getting my points across, as we all do, and I can be snippy, and even off-the-wall from time to time. Pull me up , if that is the case, or without doubt someone else will.
If you enjoy rabitting on, well sometimes, though not often so do i, so feel free to drop over to talk:newbyG if there is some relevant question I should clarify. In fact, if a comment is left on any talk page, I prefer if possible to make my reply by EDITING the article! (not always possible) and leaving a detailed edit-summary (when my speech center is on duty).
Let me know if i talk too much, or if you want to hear more, there are a coulple of things I could still say. If you visit talk:NBG, check out my CIVILITY disclaimers, there are at least 3 of them. Now, I must let you get back to what you were doing, and, fingers crossed for the future of IAR when the protection lapses. My personal wish, at the moment, is for a name-change, unlikely, and a mini-essay to materialize from some user or other, though that has been promised for some time. I like the 12words, but am coming to the conclusion that expansion may be the best way to go.
I think WP:WIARM is fine exactly as it is, no merge candidate. See ya, please, no hard feelings, we are past it and need say no more, but speak freely and move forward. Best, Newbyguesses - Talk 01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Chardish[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to chat to me. Lets be friends.

hawkign radiation[edit]

it is not original research, i have publsiehd many books on different subjets and can show you my credentials,so you realize it is not or. Im worried abot cern.thats all. i think we shouldnt make black holes on earth and a sound critique added. I have been a bit harsh with price and iblis who claims to come from another planet to enlighten us, because they just erase, they erase also the talk they erase articles i wrote in relativity many years ago. as i said since you are more normal i can show you my credentials, you probably if you are a physicst have read part of my work... i just think some criticism is needed. thats all. but i guess i will have to comply at least the talk page should be not erased so someone interested in seeing further can read there, what really pissed me off is that they keep erasing the talk page on top of all what i put there, basically the prove of contradiction is by mr. hawking who keeps changing opinions. i have addressed to him personally a letter on this which is pending to publish in physical review, we are still waiting for his prove that he has not contradicted itself, otherwise it will appear in the june issue without his response. Again this is not original research, just pointing out his contradictions. I believe at least you should stop them from constnatly erasing my talk, for them it seems to be personal cause i doubted of theri credentials. In any case, i will comply by sunday and leave to my students to keep a critical view on this shalom ls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether you're an expert or not doesn't matter: Wikipedia operates on principles such as verifiability and consensus - in other words, information contained in Wikipedia must be published in (not derived from) reliable third-party sources (and this doesn't include works you published yourself.) Consensus means that if numerous other individuals are telling you to stop making a particular type of edit and no one else is supporting it, you should probably stop doing it. Happy editing! : ) - Chardish (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ok i ve been told that 100 times im not stupid, but since i cant put or. i have never put my 'expert work that is why i find totally incorrect to be erased, i have been quotng all authorities and still called OR the point i want to put and was erased and blocked is a self-contradiction between 2 statements done by the same hawking. And that cannot be original research ok? that is why i complain. hawking said in 75 that 2 particles are born and one evaporates and in 2004 that there is only 1 particle, so in ç riticism i just want to put that at least. And that was erased. I believe the people who erase basically are fundaemntalist physicists and we know some of them dont we? who just believe and see noting else. I cant see how a self-contradiction pointed out properly can be erased. Respect to the fact that many are agreeing in erasing, all physicsts many working at cern i just would say like einstein put it, when it was published '300 phydicsts vs. einstein' in geremany 'if i were wrong 1 would be enough' that is the point: none argues the contradiction of ahwking, they just censor and erase and eerase the talk, which is well over the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments but I am not the Wikipedia complaints department. You might want to consider Requests for comment if you seek to resolve a content dispute. - Chardish (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, at least you inform me, my complain right now is dual: tey erase non OR, and they erase the TALK PAGE DEPISTE being told by another adminstraotr that THEY CANT DO that, and they also asked for protection of the talk page, and they have been rejected and still keep erasing it. which amounts to deny the rejection, specially count iblis so if you are so kind to indicate me also where i can report vandalizing of talk page which has been already forbidden i wotn bother you anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The proper thing to do if you feel an administrator misused their powers is to take it up with them at their talk page. If this fails, you can post on the incidents noticeboard. Note that I think that it's highly unlikely you'll find people (myself included) sympathetic to your position, and you might want to take a day off to calm your nerves. Happy editing. - Chardish (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

IAR's MfD closure[edit]

It was nominated through an attack account, and the subsequent account has been blocked as such. My assumption that it was a sock was correct. Thats all the matters. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My rationale still stands. I think its in bad faith to nominate a policy to MfD. Whats the rationale that an attack MfD shouldn't be closed? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Misunderstood. I've added to my closing rationale. I'm grumpy after I wake up. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cheetahmen[edit]

Hi Chardish. You tagged this article as {{db-repost}} but I can't seem to find the original AfD. Was it under a different article name? Thanks, ... discospinster talk 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussions were here and here. Consensus seemed to be that this material is not notable enough to support its own article. Cheers. - Chardish (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should redirect to Action 52 rather than Active Enterprises. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding, didn't realize that was a question. Up to you guys where you want it to redirect to; I'm not terribly interested in the article itself. It certainly can't stand on its own, but which notable article you want to merge the content into is up to you. - Chardish (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

William Baer[edit]

Hi,

Why did you delete the link to my (negative) review of his work? Is it now a Wikipedia rule that only positive reviews can be linked?

Please explain,

S.

(elnitsky@star.net, if you prefer to reply directly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.145.253 (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative criticism is acceptable, assuming that it is notable (e.g. published in a magazine, journal, newspaper, etc. and not someone's personal website or discussion forum.) The link in question is a discussion forum, and external links to discussion forum commentary are to be avoided. - Chardish (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... OK. Although one could argue that a discussion forum that's been around for several years and is likely to be around for several more, and for which full archives are kept, can be reasonably considered to be as "notable" as, say, some local weekly "indie" rag, which might start up one year and fold the next. (And where exactly is the boundary between a personal website, blog, or discussion forum and an internet-only magazine such as _Slate_?) And of course, I'd also say that greater leniency should be given to criticism/opinion pieces than to statements of fact (for which, obviously, the reputability of the source is much more important).

Thanks for replying, anyway,

S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.145.253 (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Quest (gaming)[edit]

I am currently in the process of cleaning up the article, removing a lot of the existing material and adding sourcing from other projects I'm currently working on. Please feel free to review the work in light of the current AfD. I'll be happy to answer any questions or discuss any outstanding issues that you may have. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem FAR[edit]

Hi - You haven't commented at WP:FAR#Monty Hall problem in a while. The article has been substantially changed (improved, I'd say). Have you looked at it recently? As the originator of the FAR, your comments about whether the changes in the current version have address your concerns would be appreciated. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid[edit]

Just letting you know I've been working on this article for the past few weeks and hope to get it back to FA status. Just wondering what you think? Buc (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Office us cast.jpg)[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Office us cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? βcommand 16:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That is misinformation![edit]

ABC reported that a source said the Secret Service was sent to Biden's home. All else is inference, they write! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.74.82 (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)