User talk:Chaser/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

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

Biblioworks.org Page reinstatement request

Re: BiblioWorks.org deletion which had been removed because of notability guidelines (thanks for getting back to me, by the way). I have several news citations of the organization's work from large newspapers in both Bolivia and stateside. Unfortunately, the La Paz and Sucre newspapers don't seem to keep online archives, but articles did appear in print, which I assume can be cited. Might these be considered useful in a second look to see if the topic meets notability standards? Thanks. Fict (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Check your email.--Chaser (away) - talk 04:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my email, please email them to my email address. If you never email them to me, I cannot evaluate them.--Chaser (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

United States related Tagging

I replied to you last comment at the WPUS talk page. The end result is I believe these do belong in WPUS because WPUS isnt just for National topics. --Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Moriarty Deletion

You cited winning the Emmy as part of a team as the reason for deletion. I would like further explanation as I feel any Emmy winner wins as part of a team. No one performer be it behind the scenes or in front of the camera, does it on their own. I wonder if you would be willing to clarify the decision further. I put my name as Christopher because there is an author named Chris Moriarty on Wikipedia already . Thank You in advance for your reconsideration. Chris Moriarty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.13.66 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my decision. I just determined whether there was a consensus based on the community discussion.--Chaser (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Snarkosis

Hi. I look at a lot of spam in connection with WikiProject Spam. Lots of spam -- I probably have 10k to 20k spam cleanup edits. I am at least 60% confident that this user is associated with IP.com, protestations to the contrary. I think you were right to unblock him (as a general rule, if a spammer is really persistent, you're better off blacklisting his domains rather than blocking the person -- otherwise, you still keep getting the spam from new socks but now it's harder to find the source).

I think we should continue to assume good faith, but I recommend against giving him any encouragement on his links. There's no need to link to patents on IP.com when we can link directly to the patent itself on the patent office web site. I've already told him that yet he is at Talk:Patent talking up IP.com anyway. If he really is here to contribute and has no association with IP.com, then he should move on to contributing.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Thanks for keeping an eye on things around here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern A.B. I only brought up the issue on Talk:Patent because Chaser requested that I do so. I have just now on that page offered my reasoning, as well as my willingness to concede the point to others and "move on", so no worries. —Snarkosis (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Kirill

Hi David. Could you point me to the comment of Kirill's described here? I'm not sure where to look. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I was mostly referring to the comments such as "An ever-increasing fraction of our workload consists of 'behind the scenes' work—hearing appeals, responding to questions and complaints, investigating allegations of sockpuppetry. Managing this is less visible and glamorous than case work." from the interview itself; I've tried to make my response a little clearer in that regard. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the interview I linked. I feel a bit sheepish. Thanks for getting back to me.--Chaser (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hello, the article Daniel Colegrove was deleted and I saw the message too late. I do have a lot of reference material on this photographer (including newspaper clippings and book references) but I hadn't gotten around to including them in the article. Is there some way to view and edit the article as I am not proficient in re creating it on my own.GGliddy (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion that the article be userfied to you (restored and moved to a subpage in your userspace). You'll be able to work on it there. Eventually you then may want to file a deletion review or just ask me about it and I'll give you my opinion about whether you can restore it despite the previous deletion discussion. I'm in favor of restoring it if you have sufficient offline sources to create a decent article that meets the notability guideline for articles about people. If you have questions, just ask.--Chaser (away) - talk 03:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you (I think), I will work on it as I have the time. He is an interesting fellow for sure and the things he did in the 80's were indeed quite remarkable. I do have a question about if it is necessary to get permission from him to reference some of these articles and such as a lot of it is very controversial in nature.GGliddy (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tough question. It's not generally necessary to get permission from the subject of an article to do anything. However, complying with our biographies of living persons policy is absolutely imperative. Any negative information must be sourced. If notability is marginal, it will have to go back through a deletion discussion of some kind to become an encyclopedia article. In addition, it might be wise to do some of this offline so that a negative version of this article does not hang around in your userspace without review for very long.--Chaser (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will look into it time permitting. I did contact him via email and his response was "As long as it doesn't involve his kids and it's the truth" it's all fine by him. I have all these clippings because I was his photography and journalism teacher in High School and I found his page here, he was even an interesting kid.GGliddy (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another question: I see the talk about "self published" works and I am wondering if referencing any of Daniel's own articles is permissible? I would only do this to cover the facts of his recovery from alcoholism and to reference his status as a writer as well.GGliddy (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See our policy on that issue. In addition, the policy on biographies of living people applies to any negative information, including alcoholism, about living people. However, if he has unambiguously acknowledged it, then there should be no issue.--Chaser (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about uploading / publishing scanned clippings.

Me again, and thank you for your time and patience. This is kind of a general question.

I assume that uploading scans of newspaper clippings here would be forbidden due to violation of copyrights, but do you know of a place or way to do this in order to provide article references? There is no online archive of a lot of older daily publications and magazines.GGliddy (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You can still reference a source even if it is not on the internet. Books are a good example. However, since this article has already been through one deletion discussion, it would be best to also email them to a neutral party (me) for review. I have emailed you. Just reply with those sources.--Chaser (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you I will just have to have then scanned at FedEx/Kinko's and I'll email you copiesGGliddy (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Chaser, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Chaser/Hamilton C shell. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Kellycodetectors

I'm hoping you will monitor this one, because I saw not a scintilla of evidence that he plans to contribute anything to this project except an article on his company with an "other crap exists" defence. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah crap, I thought this was just a username block. Now I finally read the templated block message. I should have consulted you. Sorry. In any case, I will monitor and re-block as necessary. I think I'll restore the article and clear out the POV and explain what I can, but not today.--Chaser (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Behdad Sami

Moved to Talk:Behdad Sami#Behdad Sami.--Chaser (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Hey Chaser, could you change the ITN blurb about NASA's new discovery to say "the first life form" instead of "the first microbe". To those not familiar with the story, this will reflect its significance as not just the first microbe of its kind, but the first form of life of its kind. Swarm ^X 05:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I linked it as [[life|life form]] (as opposed to [[life form]], which redirects to organism). Feedback welcome on that issue.--Chaser (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The link seems fine to me. Swarm ^X 05:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BigMattyO unblock

Were you aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigMattyO/Archive before making the decision? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No. I saw the block log indicating vandalism and I did not check the userpage. I'm not sure whether re-blocking is necessary, but I do not mind if any administrator wants to do that. I'm in the midst of studying for an exam, so I really should not be delving into this right now. If it can wait until tomorrow afternoon, I will address it then.--Chaser (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I took it to ANI to gauge community consensus in that case? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Please remember to notify BigMattyO of the ANI thread. It wouldn't hurt to direct him to this thread as well, so that he knows what is happening.--Chaser (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I have read and understood the current situation that has been put into place on my account. I realise that I made many other accounts, only due to the fact I was unaware of applying for an unblock on my first account, and I stupidly created a string of unnecessary accounts. I understand the rules of Wikipedia and how it functions now, and I assure you, it will not happen again.

BigMattyO 20:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMattyO (talk • contribs)

Thank you

For the fast response here. --John (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

But I'm still irritated by your post at my talk which seems to show real misunderstanding of a core value here. To help me understand where you are coming from, is it your contention that a local consensus can override site policies? My understanding was the contrary. --John (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Consensus on interpretation of the policy. The consensus is that it does not apply.--Chaser (away) - talk 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? I don't agree. Can you take another look please? --John (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks note

Some additional dialog taken from page history of User talk:FormerIP.--Chaser (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the headcount is here. If you want to find a neutral admin to weigh consensus in light of the whole discussion (I doubt it has changed), then please do so. But the head count is definitely in favor.--Chaser (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It probably depends who's doing the counting. Which means, by normal standards, there is not a consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to update, dispute my count, or get a neutral third party to do either of those things.--Chaser (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't done by counting, it's done by getting a clear agreement, which there clearly isn't. We should go back to the status quo until there is. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there is not a consensus, but of course both of us are biased. Get an admin to assess the discussion if you want to remove the note. It's as simple as dropping a neutrally worded note to WP:ANI and asking them to assess whether there is consensus to include the note.--Chaser (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've done, and I'll abide by the outcome. In the meantime though, what I'm saying is a conclusion is needed in order to include the disclaimer. Please don't re-insert it until we have that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for approving my request for AWB. WarFox (talk | contribs) 05:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

behdad sami page revision

Moved to Talk:Behdad Sami#behdad sami page revision.--Chaser (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your election question

Hi. You probably noticed that I never did come back and finish answering your question to me on my candidate page, even though it was a question I'd pretty much invited someone to ask. After spending a few days formulating the answer in my head, I decided that posting it risks reviving an off-wiki feud that took place two and a half years ago, which had some pretty nasty overtones at the time. Since (something to my surprise) not too many people seemed really to care about or even remember the incident, I decided to let it drop. If you are still curious about what happened, shoot me an e-mail and I'll fill you in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. I think I know enough of the story from Wikipedia Review to conclude that your short break was perfectly justified. I might have done the same thing under those circumstances. I just asked it because you were itching for someone to do so.--Chaser (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for approving me to use AWB. --Piast93 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

You just userfied something created by a blocked user. --Bsadowski1 11:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Messages from Verapar

self-published sources/reliable sources: statements of opinion

Hi, I have a question:

According to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "

Suppose I want to use a quote that describes an action (which would be more like a statement of fact) taken with a third party:

Jackie Jackson reported, "My friend John McClain (co-executor) and I have insisted for many weeks to have certain tracks removed from Michael's new album."

Does it have to modified it so it appears as:

Jackie Jackson reported, "I have insisted for many weeks to have certain tracks removed from Michael's new album."

Or can I use the full quote but also add refs's that support the info about John McClain e.g. http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/11/09/michael-jackson-producer-teddy-riley-blames-co-executor-for-bad-press

References:

Verapar (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the reliable sources policy about fact versus opinion matters here. Jackson's quote is clearly a statement of fact. Others may dispute the assertion, but it is still a statement of fact. The guidance you're looking for is at WP:SPS and the very next section of that policy. In brief, you can use Jackson's Twitter account to write an article about Jackie Jackson. You can't use it to reference other articles. You need an independent reliable source for that purpose, such as a newspaper or magazine article. Hope that helps.--Chaser (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Two points:

From WP:SPS Self-published..sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities,

* So it seems the quote can be used in an article which mentions the family's response to "Michael's new album." It is a statement of fact about/"source for material about" Jackie Jackson's response to it. And the quote was preceded by the "inline qualifier": "Jackie Jackson reported". The statement "usually in articles about themselves or their activities" does not seem to imply that the biographical material about the author be limited to articles about the author.

* What I meant was to include the part of the quote "My friend John McClain (co-executor) and", I would have include another reference to support that, not "use it to reference other articles." i.e. you would put a second citation linking to the article after the citation for Jackie Jackson's tweet.

Let me know. Thanks. Verapar (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion continued on User_talk:JohnCD#self-published_source.2Freliable_sources:_statements_of_opinion & it was resolved that the tweet could be used after finding sources that verified that a third party denied his request (which Chaser thought was implied by the tweet). I thought I would continue the discussion here about the second source but based on the header of this page, I've posted my next question to you on JohnCD's page again. Thanks. - Verapar (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Chaser. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

discussion on WP:footnotes, sent you an email

{{YGM}} I've also started a discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)#New_subsection_for_consecutive_sentences_using_the_same_source - Verapar (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Further question on the above discussion on sources, thanks for replying to my email

Thanks for replying to my email. I also had a further question on our previous discussion (reliability of showbiz411 & thewrap articles) that you may have missed: User_talk:JohnCD#self-published_source.2Freliable_sources:_statements_of_opinion

Also feel free to comment on: User_talk:JohnCD#User_continues_to_remove_wikilink_on_my_article

Thanks again. -Verapar (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for your help and pointing out a detail in an issue that may have been overlooked. It can be difficult for new users to get constructive feedback on subtle issues involving controversial subjects, so your input as an uninvolved editor was much appreciated. Verapar (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)