User talk:Chardish

Post on this page and I will probably reply here. If I posted on your talk page, I'll expect a reply there. Thanks!

Click here to leave me a new message.

Re: IIDX Page

I'm not familiar with wiki user pages and messages, so let me know if I'm doing this wrong. Since you seem to be more involved with the whole wiki project- at least here, anyway- you would probably know what's best in terms of what to keep here and what to keep at RemyWiki. I'd trust your judgment on what to do; I'm just trying to get the information out there. What all exactly do you think I should move to RemyWiki? I could copy some stuff over and see how it goes and then delete it off here or something.Taren Nauxen 02:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2007

Though I support your deletions of many of the nn events, I've restored two that seem notable. Corvus cornix 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Though those events seem notable, they use extensive POV terminology (the one about the gay rights activists even goes so far as to deem the judgment of the police officers incorrect.) I removed them because there was absolutely no source backing them up - no wikilink to an article and no external link. As a result, I didn't know how I could edit them to remove their POV nature since I don't know the real stories behind them. See Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Feel free to leave more comments. I have not reverted your changes, but added {{tl:lopsided}} tags to the offending pieces. I do ask that you reconsider your decision to restore them. Thanks! - Cheers, Chardish 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

WT:UCS

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

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

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)

Consensus?

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)