User talk:Chaser: Difference between revisions

; 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
	;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:22, 25 September 2008

Leave a new message

Keeping dialog readable: If you post here, I'll reply here. If I posted somewhere else, please reply there instead of on my talk page. Thank you.

Lupin's Anti-vandal Tool

Hey Chaser. Regarding your post on village pump, I'm not quite sure about how to implement the codes correctly asides from adding more bad words for the filtered changes. Also, did you notice my post about it and respond using a new section, or did you just think of something unrelated? Because, I'm sort of wondering why the "non-admin rollback" stopped working. Does it work with you, by any chance? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our posts are unrelated. I haven't used the java-script hacks you're talking about in years, but I did have a problem with the admin version (which I think is what the "rollbacker" user group gives non-admins) yesterday after installing the purge clock and assessment gadgets from Preferences/Gadgets. Removing them solved the problem. You might try stripping out any extraneous gadgets and your other javascript stuff and installing just Godmode light and see if that gives you functioning Javascript rollback. I have no idea if any of this will work; these are just the experiments I would do.--chaser - t 00:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll try them out and see what I can do. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol

In response to your message on my talk page, yes, I am still interested. Thanks. --Winger84 (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Angel Locsin image

You should not have included [:Image:M2008_AngelLocsin.jpg|this image of Angel Locsin]. It has been deleted several times for Flickrwashing. The edit was suggested by a banned user. Thanks. Starczamora (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I got fooled. Thanks for cleaning up after me.--chaser - t 02:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As of..." pages

In response to your creation of As of September 2008 – please note that following a change in guideline to WP:As of, the "As of..." pages are no longer used and creation of new pages is discouraged. Thanks – Ikara ^{talk →} 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I updated the two articles that linked to the page I created and deleted the page.--chaser - t 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully that will stem the tide of new pages, thanks to your previous deletion message. When I get around to it the old pages will hopefully be removed once all appropriate conversions have been made... unfortunately there are a lot of them. All the best – Ikara ^{talk →} 14:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply Dumbasses Of Killarney

Hello , I am replying to a message that you sent to me before about my wikipedia page . And well I know that there are laws about saying that these facts must be true or whatever but they are I just created a wikipedia page as a user page and did not mean any harm in doing so I use this Wikipedia page to show my fans on youtube.com more about myself and my friends . I wrote this page for a long time and it would be such a shame for it to be deleted . I use this page simply for a link from my youtube account and mean no harm in doing so . sorry for any inconvience , Dumbasses Of Killarney

(plz do not delete this page plz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbasses Of Killarney (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion Academy of Dayton

I stumbled across this article by accident. And I think it should be deleted. Could I get your opinion please?--Supernerd 10 (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Deletion precedent is that high school articles are usually kept. Although this one is quite small, I found these brief articles about hosting an art show and one-act plays that could both be incorporated into it. Cheers.--chaser - t 01:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGRdC

I've indef-blocked the account (with autoblock disabled) just to cover all the bases. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By which I mean the original name, rather than the renamed one. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I think we've covered our bases.--chaser - t 20:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rtv

I do agree with you. I've archived it, only because I don't like hiding anything in my talk page history. However, neither the username, its nicks nor a link to it is anywhere to be seen in the archived thread, so a Google search for him shouldn't stir it up. Let me know if you have any other thoughts on this and all the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great solution. Thanks, Gwen.--chaser - t 16:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

The article parameter must be defined. Usage of this template has recently changed; please see Template:ITN notice for details. --Tone 14:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP Law Assessment

Hello Chaser, since you are a participant in WP Law and are an admin can you help in a WP Law dispute? Several months ago a non-participant in WP Law removed the links to WP Law's assessment department from the WP Law project page and essentially squatted it: the editor did not make enough changes to return the link to the assessment department on WP Law's project page including the addition of a caption to the top that said the department was closed, refused to let others make necessary changes (and said the status quo would last a year longer), and added content from WP India that specificially linked to WP India assessment department links (rather than WP Law assessment department links). In the past week or so I have reopened the Assessment department after cleaning it up and I have reduced the number of unassessed articles by about a third (+3000 unassessed articles to about 2300 unassessed articles). Now the editor who squatted the assessment department is lashing out in two ways: (1) reverting the article assessment's I've made that assessed articles as a C class. The editor's argument is that WP Law has not adopted the C class. However, the assessment bigwigs of Wikipedia stated that the C class is a default opt-in and a consensus opt-out. Two WP Law participants (including myself) support the C class and the editor with whom I am in this disupte is the only editor against it, and so there is no consensus to opt-out. (2) the editor in disupte is reverting the changes I've made to the assessment department to return it to the defunct state. Could you please just state some of the rules, reiterate that the C class is an automatic opt-in, and suggest a possible mediation? Thanks. EECavazos (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is misrepresenting what's really happening here and merely wikilawyering that you are not a participant of the project unless your name is listed which is bollocks. His assessment was overriden for two reasons - (a) it was quite often poor in terms of following the quality scale that's been used (and even in the application of the importance scale), and (b) we have not adopted C-class, and the editorial team does not have the authority to impose their changes on the WikiProject. Seeing he wanted to use C-class, I opened the discussion on adopting it at the WikiProject talk page and informed him, while moving back those poorly assessed articles to more suitable grades. Since then, he's been revert-warring and being a complete nuisance, making only a handful of productive contributions in terms of trying to reactivate the assessment dept. But he's been making significant and clearly controversial changes, and continues to do so as if he has the authority. If he has no interest in making any productive contributions outside of assessment area, and keeps edit-warring over it, then that speaks for itself. The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss - he was reverted but does not seek consensus or discuss so please show him to that page so he does not continue. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Furco

Hello! I noticed from the log that you've deleted Andrew Furco per the OTRS ticket. Would you mind, then, closing out the associated AfD nom? (And courtesy blanking the AfD page if you agree with Jeandré's opinion? While I'm not happy with courtesy blanking an AfD / don't agree with the reasoning, nevertheless the AfD should be properly closed out, whatever result that means.) Thanks, LaughingVulcan 11:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the log again, please.--chaser - t 17:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article survived AFD, I would have nuked it to rid of the copyvio. But, now that there are BLP and OTRS issues, I think it was good the article was killed earlier. Plus, chaser, I had no problems at what you did. All I did was delete for copyvio, not for BLP. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you paste the reflist to the article talkpage so at least that work is salvaged, and just to be clear the entire article was copyvio? If not could relevant passages also be pasted? -- Banjeboi 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of my article

hi, I'm a doctoral student studying service-learning. I am working on material on contributors to the field, and began an article on Dr. Andrew Furco, who is one of the leading scholars in the field. I have used his work extensively in my research work. For accuracy, I pulled material from other sources so and cited them appropriately in my article....Yet the article was targeted for deletion. There were no inaccuracies in the article and the deletion should not have occurred. Jespo (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Martin J.[reply]

The article was deleted because of copyright concerns. Every revision contained, in whole or in part, a copyright violation.--chaser - t 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can correct any copyright violation phrases if they are pointed out to me. I wish to note that I included links to all of the places the information was gotten from. I would like the article restored. I can rewrite it in a different way if that is helpful. This work is part of a research project I am doing and it is necessary to proceed with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespo (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the section directly above. The fact that the subject requested deletion makes me reluctant to restore as liberally as I usually do. I've emailed you the final diff that you edited. Also take note that sources are on the talk page.--chaser - t 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete my article

Hello,

I'm a PhD student of service-learning. I wrote an article on Andrew Furco, who is one of the leading scholars and researchers in the field. I developed an article on him, and it was deleted. There were no copyright infringements as some suggest. Everything that I included in the article were properly referenced. My article had 13 links in all that pointed to citations. Please give me a more detailed explanation of specifically which pieces of the article were copyrighted. I will revise those portions and resubmit. Thanks Jespo (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Jespo[reply]

Another Q

I just read your response to my previous messages. What do you mean by the phrase "the subject requested deletion"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespo (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Furco contacted us by email via Wikipedia:Contact us and requested that the article be deleted. It's an OTRS ticket, but it's referenced in the beginning of the AFD. See Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion about a subject's request and deletion discussions.--chaser - t 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Understand now

Thanks for letting me know that Dr. Furco requested the deletion. Did he say why? I will write to him and ask him for permission. If I get his permission, what can I re-submit? He's a humble kind of person and doesn't like accolades, but he has had such a huge impact on a growing area of work taking place all around the world. I can have him review the information before I submit it. Thanks for your help. Jespo (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Jespo[reply]

OTRS emails are confidential, so I can't respond to your question about what Furco said. Copyright violation wasn't the only problem, so if you re-created the article without copyright violations (see User_talk:Zscout370#Andrew_Furco for problems even with early revisions), I would probably nominate it again for a slower deletion discussion in respect for the subject's wishes and in light of the limited notability. That said, if you get him to change his mind, do let me know.--chaser - t 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue

It's not necessarily POV, but it is ambiguous. Whenever possible, it's always better to just explain what actions occurred, rather than use a loaded word to represent those actions. Many of the definitions of "rescue" imply good vs. bad, so it's better not to use it altogether. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-17 20:04Z

Comment

Thanks for this. As long as it got into somebody's head, I'll consider my bringing it up worth it. Grsz ^talk 05:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I noticed the diff before you commented at ANI.--chaser - t 05:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got highlighting happy, but AGF. But even still, I'm convinced it was a poor and hasty unblock. Grsz ^talk 05:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF?--chaser - t 05:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at each one of her edits since unblock, then let me know what you think. Grsz ^talk 05:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think many people involved in this situation have done more to esasperate it than to resolve it. SirFozzie put it well [1]. 'night.--chaser - t 05:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly flap

I'm sure you disagreed with how I handled the situation, but I hope there are no hard feelings. I feel silly even leaving a note like this, but it seems that the new standard around here is to assume spite, so I wanted to say: none here. Cheers.--Tznkai (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your note; perhaps if more were so proactive there would be less of the simmering spite, incivility, and digging that make situations like this one so difficult. I disagreed, but there's significant disagreement about appropriate responses to incivility, so of course no hard feelings about it. Cheers.--chaser - t 23:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please let my user page be please. Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and it is already "at a minimum," we are talking about ONe template, not hundreds. Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 04:16, 25 September 2008 edit Bilodeauzx (talk \| contribs) 109 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:22, 25 September 2008 edit undo Bilodeauzx (talk \| contribs) 109 edits →Kelly flap Next edit →
Line 118:		Line 118:

	please let my user page be please. [[User:Bilodeauzx\|Bilodeauzx]] ([[User talk:Bilodeauzx\|talk]]) 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)		please let my user page be please. [[User:Bilodeauzx\|Bilodeauzx]] ([[User talk:Bilodeauzx\|talk]]) 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

			and it is already "at a minimum," we are talking about ONe template, not hundreds. [[User:Bilodeauzx\|Bilodeauzx]] ([[User talk:Bilodeauzx\|talk]]) 04:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)