User talk:Chasnor15

This user may have left Wikipedia. Chasnor15 has not edited Wikipedia since 6 December 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome

Welcome To Wikipedia! Hello, Chasnor15, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay and make constructive edits. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and have a great time being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, I will always be willing to help or you can ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Addshore/vandalism, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Mifter (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in George Alfred Julius

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on George Alfred Julius, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because George Alfred Julius is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting George Alfred Julius, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 3, 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Julie Myerson worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Paul20070 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to White Nationalist Party constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Will ^(talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

March 7, 2008

Hi. I noticed that you made a number of changes to the Stonyhurst Saint Mary's Hall page, most of which had to be undone. You placed square brackets around several terms which do not have their own pages on Wikipedia (since the page in question was explaining some of the terms, eg "Hodder House", this was rather obvious). I have also noticed that in your other contributions that you have been replacing good English for bad, good grammar for bad and replacing words with others which do not suit the context or meaning. Could I suggest that you do not save these changes in future if they are not intended seriously, and may I also suggest, with friendly intention, that if English is not your first language, perhaps you should not be as quick to assume a sentence is wrongly phrased or constructed. Thank you. Imaginativename (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I speak English, and I have to do a lot of correcting to stuff that isn't. Please don't make a general complaint, but raise a specific issue of my use of English. Vague abuse is not helpful. Chasnor15 (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. That wasn't vague 'abuse'. Please remain civil. Littleteddy (roar!) 09:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't vague and unfocussed abuse, are you complaining of the word 'vague' or 'abuse'. All I've pointed out that you have claimed that possibly English is not my first language, a conclusion you have come to by producing no evidence. If you have difficulties with the many repairs I have to make to Wikipedia, you have three options: (i) revert them, (ii) put your own version there, (iii) contact me, about the particular issue(s), and we'll discuss the changes you want to make. I am being civil and logical.

Generally, if I [[ ]] and there isn't a subject, the [[ ]]ed subject needs an entry in Wikipedia. How else does the 'pedia expand. It's not a clsoed source of human knowledge, complete of itself! Chasnor15 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Littleteddy (roar!) 09:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not claiming English is not your first language. We are just saying that if it is, please don't assume XYZ. Littleteddy (roar!) 09:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this correspondence closed Chasnor15 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see my comments at User talk:Littleteddy. Matchups (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chasnor15, I apologise if there was any miscommunication (is that a word :) ), I was merely clarifying what I thought Imaginativename was trying to say. I hope this matter has been rectified. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Chasnor, I agree with you when you were talking about redlinks (adding [[ ]] when no article exists). In my opinion, Imaginativename was incorrect there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleteddy (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have taken my remarks out of context. I apologise if I caused offence - that was not my intention, hence why I said "may I also suggest, with friendly intention". I did not say that you do not speak English, just made a suggestion *IF* it is not your natural tongue - an inference your edits left open. My point about your bracketing is that you put them needlessly around numerous words. For instance you bracketed "Hodder Place" in the article which is explaining what Hodder Place is - it would not be sensible to create a separate page for Hodder Place when the article is already about it. You also bracketed other words without directing them to the correct place, like "Georgian" so that it did not direct to the description of Georgian architecture - the article was not referring to the place Georgia. Linguistic changes include changing finite verbs for participles leaving sentences incomplete; you also changed, in one article, "gunners" to "guns" so that the sentence in question made no sense as it referred to hunters and not their weapons. Please do not take this as an attack. It is just infuriating for those who have to undo errors. Imaginativename (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis de Soissons

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Louis de Soissons, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.louisdesoissons.co.uk/index.php/practice_history. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Louis de Soissons, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back garden

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Back garden, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Back garden

An editor has nominated Back garden, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back garden and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation

The EDITOR who is nameless, (not very hepful that) has not read my defence of back garden. If back garden goes, I shall recommend shed for deletion. Most sheds are in back gardens btw. Chasnor15 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That editor seems to be User:CultureDrone - I suppose the PROD and AFD notifications were semi-automated - a poor protocol for good communication. But he just proposes deletion and it is open to all to comment. When you make your comment, please restrain yourself as rants and displays of temper, however justified, are usually counter-productive. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not ranting, just trenchant in defence of my work

As I say. I thought it all looked a bit automatic. I wish people would think before they rely on bots. Chasnor15 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing that an article be deleted is complex (try it) and so some editors use tools which automate some of the edits required. And maybe there are bots out there which fill in the gaps, such as notifying the authors of articles. I'm not sure of all the facts of the matter but the key principle here is to assume good faith since anger is disruptive and unhelpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No anger shown

Anger has not be shown by me, simply a lack of weasel words. Again EDITORS who use bots should make sure they do not make wild and false accusations, since it should be a principle of good faith that an unwarranted accusation is not made, automatically or otherwise, without applying consideration. Chasnor15 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Note that the discussion seems to be going well. Do you know how to find it and contribute? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went to your page which produced two threads and one conatined the Princess Louise, which I knew well, but it's a little too far for me to be a regular now. I noted VKC, perhaps it was that interest which prompted your comments on BG. Chasnor15 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No bots used

Actually, I don't use bots or tools for AfD - I use the three-step Wikipedia method outlined here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. I don't know why you've had trouble finding my user name as its on all the edits I've done, and also on the AfD nomination for your back garden article. As with all Wikipedia articles, remember that all editors have different opinions on whether an article should be included or not - even after reading the WP guidelines. In this instance, my opinion differed from yours on the article. If the consensus reached on AfD says keep it (which it looks like it will), then I have no problem with that - it's not a personal attack, merely my view on one of x million articles. As always, anyone is free to disagree with any changes I make, and I hope you adopt the same principle. CultureDrone (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I did read your defense of your article - and exactly what 'wild and false accusations' (see your comment above) did I make ? CultureDrone (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletions

I've seen your comments on the deletion of back garden. I wanted to point you to the wikipedia policy WP:AGF, which some have mentioned to you already. Specifically; don't take it as a personal insult if someone nominates an article you created for deletion. Wikipedia has stringent guidelines for inclusion, and editors don't all agree on what fits where- that's why there's a discussion. It's pretty routine for articles to get nominated. Just take it as a reason to clean the article up even more. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wanting to give you a heads up; if you're too harsh on the deletion debates you might get in trouble for incivility (see WP:CIVIL). BTW I'm less than forty years old and none of my older relatives are into computer science, so I doubt I'm related to your FORTRAN instructor (it's an odd coincidence, as I'm into computers myself). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme beer has been redirected

An article to which you seem to have contributed, Extreme beer, was tagged for proposed deletion ("prodded") a few days ago by an author who thought the term was a neologism. I have since redirected it to beer as a logical place in which the term can be described. Sourcing should be no problem as long as blogs and forums are not used. The term seems to have gained traction, but there is not yet enough for a standalone article. B.Wind (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of King's Cross Conservation Advisory Committee

The article King's Cross Conservation Advisory Committee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced. Fails WP:ORG. Fails WP:GNG. Tagged for sources and notability since March 2008.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LordVetinari (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of South East Regional Industrial Archaeology Conference

The article South East Regional Industrial Archaeology Conference has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable 1-day annual conference. No associated organisation. Fails WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ClaretAsh (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2011 (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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dining rights for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dining rights 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/Dining rights until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sheriff U3 talk 06:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]