User talk:Chardish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Chardish is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia on April 8, 2007. Messages left here will likely not be read until after then. |
Contents |
[edit] Miscellaneous
This chardish guy is crazy --Tiger yamato 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I second that... Coolgamer 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hallo.
I do believe you do know me. How do you do! -- Rediahs 07:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Office image
Where did you get that image? --DrBat 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Administrator at dead link
That's pretty cool. Oh wait. You should probably edit that out because FFR isn't notable. Afrobean 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] tagging
Could you please stop substing {{unreferenced}}, {{original research}} and such? 76.178.95.219 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific, please? Can you show me a place I've used it where it hasn't been warranted? - Chardish 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Anywhere you use them because those templates should be transcluded instead. 76.178.95.219 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chewbacca defense prod
Why on earth did you place a prod on Chewbacca defense; i.e., on what basis do you believe it is a non-notable neologism? The article is amply sourced contrary to this assertion (although it's nowhere near the level of an FA).--chris.lawson 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- By that logic, nearly everything in the See also section on the article is also a non-notable neologism. Google shows over 40,000 hits for "Chewbacca defense", while showing only 2,000 for "idiot defense" and about 47,000 for "twinkie defense". As far as quality of those hits, there are plenty of links that would count as reliable sources.--chris.lawson 23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re : AfD on Chewbacca Defense
I physically checked the list of sources - they're reputable, reliable and relevant, so verifiability isn't a problem here and it isn't original research. This is the main argument by many who justify a standalone article beyond the episode, which is why the consensus is to have the article kept. Let's say even if it's a merge, it does not require deletion - it is best to initiate a second discussion to gain consensus on having the article merged. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is worth noting (perhaps not) that this was actually the second deletion nomination for the article, and it was kept the first time with almost no opposition. Dekimasuが... 13:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfD
Dear editor, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 6, where I nominated a redirect created by you for deletion. Your input is appreciated. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re : AfD on Exposure (magic)
Send for cleanup is an old option that was more commonly used two years ago, and applied to particularly deal with such cases. I'm assuming good faith that some editor is now willing to fix up the article and properly source it per the discussion, having brought to attention of the community via articles for deletion for the first time.
If after a reasonable time you feel that the concerns are still not addressed, please nominate it for deletion again citing this message - if the article remains in this state I'm pretty sure by then there will easily be a consensus to delete. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Added clarification to closing statement in the AfD. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your tagging of the "Manos" articles
Would you object to the tagged articles simply being redirected to the main aritcle? It seems to be the best solution. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Deletion of "List of unboundedly long songs" Contested
I agree in principal that the List of unboundedly long songs article doesn't belong on Wikipedia; however, I contest your assertion that it should be deleted under Wikipedia's "not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy. If you're so inclined, please put the article up for deletion under WP:AFD. » K i G O E | talk 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear. I understand that I could propose for the article's deletion under different reasons. However, I thought the matter was shaky at any rate and would need to be discussed and a consensus would need to be reached. Again, if you're interested, please begin the deletion process per the AfD policy. I am for keeping the article, and will not pursue it further. » K i G O E | talk 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
