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.
... 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.
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. -
Chardish22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)reply
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 Bruning22:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
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) -
Animesouth18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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. -
Chardish23:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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 Sidaway21:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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. -
Chardish07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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
134.84.96.14217:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. -
Chardish07:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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. -
Chardish18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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? -
Chardish03:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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? -
Chardish04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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 Nihonjoe02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
It generates so many Ghits, so something must be out there.
Every admin must use common sense to move on discussions.
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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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. : ) -
Chardish02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 (
tc)
20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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-ſtanTalkContribs16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)reply