User talk:Chardish

Post on this page and I will probably reply here. If I posted on your talk page, I'll expect a reply there. Thanks!

Click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules"

Wikipedia:Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules", a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules" and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules" during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, this gave me an idea for a new essay which could replace this one: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Calvinball. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FFXIII dispute

Hi, I just wanted to extend an olive branch and apologize if you found me in any way insulting in my talk comments. I hope that if we butt heads again in the future we can resolve our problems in a more civil discussion rather than edit warring. Khalfani Khaldun 08:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I agree. Edit warring usually isn't my style; don't know what got into me. Peace! - Chardish (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent/Representative chart

It appears your image File:Constituents per Member of Congress.png demonstrates U.S. population / (representatives + senators). Especially since its only use is at United States congressional apportionment, shouldn't it just calculate U.S. population divided by representatives only? Senators aren't apportioned by population, so their inclusion just skews the data. For instance, the 2000 number should be closer to 650,000 than 525,000. -Rrius (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of a more appropriate page for inclusion of the image I created, I'd be interested in seeing it. The page does mostly discuss the size of the House (and debates thereof); I don't know of any ongoing debates to amend the size of the Senate. I would disagree, though, that the inclusion of senators skews the data; the chart is intended to illustrate a trend, and certainly the number of U.S. citizens per senator has increased as well! - Chardish (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was never saying it should be transcluded elsewhere. I was saying that since it was about apportionment of representatives, it should show the ratio of people to representatives, which is more staggering than the ratio of people to (representatives+senators). In addition, the size of the Senate has changed during the 210 years covered by the chart at a different rate of increase from either the House or U.S. population. The meaning and importance of the data as presented is therefore hard to understand. -Rrius (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the chart has been replaced with another, similar chart, in line with your suggestions. Can you think of a better place for the chart I created? Cheers. - Chardish (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only noticed this now. Perhaps, relabeled, it would make sense at Electoral College (United States)? -Rrius (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next time...

I can see you're a self-declared "deletionist" and all, which implies a certain level of knowledge of the ins and outs. So perhaps you could try to contact the major authors of the articles you AfD? Like this one for instance? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if offense was taken; none was intended. I mark AfD nominations as such in my edit summary, and I assume that page authors keep pages they're interested in on their watchlists, and thus would be notified that way. Cheers! - Chardish (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Single-player games that require a constant internet connection

I have nominated Category:Single-player games that require a constant internet connection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a defense of this category, but it would help if you added your voice to the discussion as well! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gameofthronesintertitle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gameofthronesintertitle.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:YellowPillar.png

A tag has been placed on File:YellowPillar.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:GreenPillar.png

A tag has been placed on File:GreenPillar.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- --JamboQueen (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]