User talk:Chisme: Difference between revisions

Comments needed for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Thanks Chisme for your comments on my talk page for the Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International debate. Now your words are needed on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to win this debate. Best wishes, --Zeamays (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I see your new note on my personal talk page. Do you have any suggestions of other articles that need balance? --Zeamays (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Infinite Jest

Thank you for catching that deletion in the middle of my editing. I missed it. Glad to know someone else is still paying attention (my edits deserve auditing also). FWIW, the above warning was not personal. You appear to be acting in good faith. I also warned all of the IP editor sockpuppets.

The blanket warning was in the interest of neutrality.

Revent (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to your comment "Find the note and we'll talk about it on the Discussion page before including" I have posted at Talk:Infinite_Jest/Literary_Criticism#Harold_Bloom.27s_criticism; please respond. Wukai (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aaron Peskin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telegraph Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cupcake!

Nick Turse OpEd in the NYT

In your massive deletion edit of 18:14 today, you removed a large amount of content added by User:Readerfix. Perhaps you did this wholesale with a revert not noted in your edit summary. What perhaps you hadn't noticed is that between two sets of consecutive edits by that User, you also deleted the External link I'd added. This was to an OpEd piece by Nick Turse, published in the New York Times online edition of Oct. 9 and in the print edition of the International Herald Tribune on Oct. 11. This is no cherry-picking on my part, even if these two long-established and respected secondary sources have essentially one in the same editorial policy. None of the other External links on that page provide a piece of writing by Nick Turse as this one does. I believe it belongs in Wikipedia and am restoring it, also noting this on the article's Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
ETA: I did see the subsequent activity by User:Readerfix reverting your edit (which restores, for now, the Ext. link about which I wrote above), and also the Talk page issue. I'll add my support - hope it helps. And do you know of a WP Style guide for biographies of investigative journalists, that would give proper section headings? I've been meaning to learn the ropes of that, among other things. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

mulignon

Hi. Can you come up with a better source? I have tried. I know the word is used in English, and have seen both mulignan and mulignon as spellings, but I don't see a god source, and I removed urban dictionary as unreliable. But I will leave the listing, since it's obviously a slur and documented as used in English. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Jane Kim page

Hi Chisme,

I'd like to add more info to what you posted to round out the entry. Maybe we can collaborate?

DL2014 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy Michaelmas

Chisme, I agree with basically all of your points on V. S. Naipaul‎ talk - the images and stilted language should go. There is an excess of needless detail for a wikipage, and now dozens of citations to a single work. I haven't worked on the Naipaul page since 2008 or so, and then only briefly, as Naipaul‎ is not one of my primary interests, but I am up for opening a larger discussion on Fowler's behavior, adding canvassing of sympathetic editors to his already questionable comments and insistence that he needs a month to have sole editing control of a BLP. I mentioned an Rfc in the talk, but conflict resolution noticeboard might be a better place to take this. Thoughts?Dialectric (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've written a brief statement at User:Dialectric/dispute. If you have any suggestions, I'd like to hear them. The best place for this is probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is for content disputes, and I would characterize the issue at V. S. Naipaul‎ as primarily a user conduct dispute/ incident. RFC/RFCU's appear to be for large, ongoing problems, and hopefully this can be resolved with some administrator input. Dialectric (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Dude

Hey dude, whats your beef I am cleaning up the Ross Mirkarimi intro section. The DV is fully covered in the content section #5. friends of ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.245.181 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan Senor

Hello Chisme,

In regards to the recent events in Iraq, please see WP:RECENT. Dan Senor's BLP is not the place to highlight an event currently unfolding in the Middle East. It is a page dedicated to the biography of Dan Senor. Even if the conflict persist, it's a stretch to say that Senor is somehow responsible for the war in Iraq, and another stretch to say that "the war in Iraq was the biggest foreign policy bungle in US history." If you are interested in brining attention to the article by Dowd, perhaps you should add the quotation to the Iraq War page, where it would be more appropriate.

Additionally, please see WP:COATRACk. From the subsection titled "The Attack Article" (also found in WP:Attack page) I've included a portion that is relevant to the content you've added back to the page and the article you are citing by Dowd:

John Doe works as a journalist. He has given over 30 years of long and faithful service to his newspaper. However, one day, he made the terrible mistake of nearly reporting an unchecked fact that came within a whisker of ruining an innocent person's life. Because he did this, he is an evil person. Here is some more information about this incident… (and so on, and so forth).

By no means am I trying to start an edit war with you. While I understand where you are coming from, I respectful disagree with you. Dowd's article should not be mentioned on a page dedicated specifically to the biography of Dan Senor because of the numerous reasons I have cited since removing the material in the first place. I've cited various WP violations now and I hope that, at the very least, you can see where I am coming from with my decision to remove the sentence from the page. Best Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 04:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Celery Task Queue

I removed the Controversial comments by CEO section from the page.

There are two entities called 'Celery'. One is the task queue project, the other is the (pre-)ordering service from Airbrite. Peter Shih is the founder of the latter, not the former, and both entities are entirely independent of one another asides from coincidentally sharing a name.

If you want, you can grab that section you wrote on Peter Shih's comments and put them on the Airbrite page, but the Celery Task Queue page is entirely the wrong place for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgaughan (talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Go to Celery's web site here. It says he was the co-founder. I'm restoring. Chisme (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a different Celery. The only connection with Celery the task queue is that they share a name. Celery the task queue's homepage is here: http://www.celeryproject.org/ - it was founded by Ask Solem, and Peter Shih has nothing to do with it. The Celery you're talking about (https://www.trycelery.com/) is an entirely different entity. Your complaint belongs on the Airbrite page, which is Peter Shih's company, which Celery is just a brand of. Kgaughan (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually aware of what Celery is? Do you know anything about open source software? You're proposing a widely used and popular open source project for deletion. Kgaughan (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Open source software. Big fucking deal. Chisme (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Of which Wikipedia is full of and built upon. Celery is a notable open source project, and thus the only thing about the article that's lacking is that it needs further details added. 21:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Celery Task Queue, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!