User talk:Chaser/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Chaser. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
 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 |
Susan Rice
Newsmax made criticsism concerning Susan Rice. I described Newsmax as often controversial and added its allegations in the section of the Susan Rice entry that is reserved for criticisms.
It seems to me that whether YOU consider newsmax to be credible or not even you can admit that newsmax made those criticisms.
Nonetheless I have noted several other sources for those criticisms.
The criticisms made by those sources really are criticisms and they really were made.
You can find Dr,. Rice's respnse to those criticsims in the May 2002 edition of 'Elle' magazine. But of course since we delete all writing in allsources we do not deem reliable I trust you will not post her repsonse unless you - apologize for your delete - describe Elle as something other than a reliable source.
Your attempts to silence dissent and criticism do not mean that dissent and criticism are nonexistent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Hyneman (talk • contribs)
- Not speaking for Chaser here, but it is worth noting that the op-ed by the person you whose "criticism" you r are pushing in the Rice article, Mansoor Ijaz also claimed that Sudan offered to turn over bin Ladin to the U.S., a claim which was found to be not true by the 9/11 commission. So is this person a reliable source for his opinion to be included in the Rice article? Just because some right-wing crank levels assertions that are later found to be suspect at best doesn't mean they should be given credence into a bio on Rice. Lestatdelc (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Midnight regulations DYK
Hello! Your submission of midnight regulations at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer talk/contribs 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy Chaser/Archive 19's Day!
 |
User:Chaser/Archive 19 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Rvelse. That's very kind of you. Friday really was my day: first law school exam ever!--chaser - t 03:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Midnight regulations
|
On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Midnight regulations, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Editors of 2 deleted articles?
I'm getting ready for a checkuser request, can you please email me the editors of Benjamin Barrick and Ben Barrick? -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t23:21z
Watchlist-details
I've re-added the note about ArbCom elections; it's a major communal event that happens annually, and not everyone logs in every day. I really don't see the harm in retaining it, but removing it seems to be pointless. Your thoughts? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think we can presume that interested parties have watchlisted the results page. Watchlist-details is visible to every logged-in editor, so its best use is for things that people should know about; there's nothing people can do now to affect the results of this election (except lobbying Jimbo).--chaser - t 08:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You really can't presume that. There are people who edit on a weekly and not daily basis. This message is taking up a line of screen-space; personally, my watchlist is some 5,000 items long and many people have it even longer. A single line that could still be informing to some less active people seems to be of no harm and of potential benefit to me. Just my opinion. If you feel strongly about it, remove it; I won't revert you again. I just believe that since its actually not causing any injury to anyone, its notification would be useful. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the sub-template, chaser
However I've noticed you'd just deleted it. I hope you don't mind, but I just recreated it...for the reason that I'd already done the work of incorporated it into the main template. Anyway, I appreciate your work and thanks again! :^) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 21:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oops. No, that's fine. I just didn't want anyone who ran across it to get the impression it needed to be updated since it's no longer transcluded onto articles (or so I thought). Cheers.--chaser - t 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Need copy of deleted article
(PS. I posted the below request to another editor but have since read that he's not available)
An article I created Men's Health and Wellbeing Association was deleted by an admin who reckons the article was blatant advertizing (?). I don't understand that allegation as I had not intended it to be so, I wanted to merely record the types of activity engaged by this non-profit organization. He says also that there are copyright issues, which perhaps there are as I quoted material. Why he didn't at least leave a stub is beyond my understanding (judging by his edit history he has a personal investment in gender issues, but I'm still confused as to why the total deletion??). I believe a partial deletion would have been less antagonistic.
Anyways, I'll cut to the point: I'd like a copy of the article so that i can re-write it a little..... is that possible? I put a bit of work into it and wouldn't like to start again from scratch. Any help you can give is appreciated. Smugant101 (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see much point. I can't find anything that would constitute an assertion to notability. If it's not notable Wikipedia isn't going to have an article on it. I don't see any evidence of and do not accept your explanation that the deleting administrator had some sort of an agenda in deleting this article in particular.--chaser - t 03:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let me be clearer- I want to rework the article, including adding notable source material. As already mentioned above I wish to "re-write" it. Or let me say it a third way- I wish only to look at small portions of the previous material to see what can be salvaged and added with notable sources. Let me say it a fourth way- I will be re writing the article with notable sources, properly referencing a portion of older material (any help appreciated). Smugant101 (talk) 09:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, forget it. Asking your help is actually slower than if I went and sought out the original material myself (my single intention being to save time and searching). I wont waste any more of my time here. Smugant101 (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Deletion of the John Nance article
I am in agreement with your decision to delete the article if it had copyright violations. I am curios however, why those copyright violations were not noticed until after I posted additional information on John Nance. Nothing in my post contained any copyright violations, so it had to be something else that was there long before my additional contribution. Can I find out, specifically, what were those copyright violations? EditorASC (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- You must be thinking about some other article. Mikefightsfire created the John Nance article and he was the only editor. The entire article was copied wholesale from the cited link.--chaser - t 16:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct. I did the search for "John Nance," when it is necessary to put in his middle initial (John J. Nance). I guess Google has spoiled me. If you don't get search terms exactly right with Google, it often suggests other close approximations. My apology for bothering you with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorASC (talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)