Please comment at the bottom, and create new sections for new topics. If I comment on your talk page I will look for responses there; if you comment on this talk page look for responses here. -- Chondrite 23:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk: Archive01

Turn up at a festival, front yourself and your sources and have the debate and I am certain that you would have a hard time explaining yourself given the time and trouble you have gone to disrupt the Cannabis article. No doubt anyone who is that mean does not respect the meaning or nature of the very article you editing. I don't really care because serious publications have gone above and beyond the limitations you personally set. (Simonapro 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I am still not sure what Simonpro is on about, and while if I ever do figure it out I might change my mind until that point you certainly have my support in terms of the changes you are making, SqueakBox 20:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, SqueakBox. Thanks, Chondrite 04:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Harassment WP:HA "Wikistalking".

WP:HA

I left you well alone and you choice incivility, vandalism and now harassment. (Simonapro 16:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have not been incivil, have not engaged in harrasment, and have not engaged in vandalism. I request that you withdraw these accusations. -- Chondrite 19:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple. Stay out of my life on wikipedia. Stay away from articles I work on. Do not ******** harasse me. Stay the **** away? You got that? Message clear? STAY THE **** OUT OF MY LIFE(Simonapro 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It might help if you could explain (in a civil manner) how you think you have been harassed. -- Chondrite 19:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are troll. You follow me to other articles edit them and then apply false sources to copyright citations. You then slander real people and edit their articles to troll them more. Like I said turn up at a venue and try it. (Simonapro 07:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Chill out and dont threaten other users, SqueakBox 07:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1], Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chondrite, SqueakBox 07:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the AN/I report, as well as your comments at the sockpuppet case, they are very much appreciated. Chondrite 08:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on that page a little bit, somewhat loosely afterthe fact following some things you proposed on the talk page for cannabis cultivation. I was hoping top get some feedback from you, since I agreed with your post there, about how well what I am doing is working for the page, and also if there are any deeper cuts I should make of some of the product placements there. I'm a bit shy of taking out too too much, and I just wanted your opinion. If you get a moment to peek in there and drop me a note on my talk page I'd much appreciate any feedback. ;) Resonanteye 08:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the feedback. I will try to hit it again in the coming days. Resonanteye

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the shiny new mop Ryan, I think you will wield it well! Chondrite 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I gladly award you this barnstar for patience, calmness, persistence, and reasoning. Keep up the good work. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it quite eloquent. Would you mind saying similar on the other comparable AFDs I've listed? There's a bunch at User:Andrevan/Deletion under the "Ongoing" category. Andre (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andre, that's nice of you to say. It seems that a lot of people involved in AfD discussions involving notability might not appreciate the letter or spirit of the notability guidelines, and so I have been trying to clarify them. I am limiting my participation in AfD to discussions that have not received many comments. If many of the articles that you have nominated fit that criterion, then I will probably comment. Thanks again, Chondrite 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? By count alone, it was 5-3 in favor of keep. Yes, voting is evil, but I'll only apply that when there is a fantastic argument made for the minority - I don't see such an argument in this case. Besides, burden is on the delete side to delete an article and there was clearly no consensus to delete it - at best, you could claim No consensus but that defaults to keep anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can always go to WP:DRV but what would be the advantage to getting a no consensus ruling instead of keep? Would they even bother debating that distinction? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, I've weighed in on the AFD page. Andre (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha. I just saw this page and thought you should know about the multiple accounts listed in the talk archives and history of Heaven's Stairway. —Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. All seems to be quiet on that front (at least for the moment), so I'm not too motivated to go excavating through old talk that will only end up giving me a headache. If you're aware of any specific accounts or IPs used, please feel free to add to the case or mention them here. Cheers, Chondrite 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look tomorrow . —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to the message you posted on my user talk page.) I understand that you are commenting on my negative (and partly irrelevant) expressions regarding Wikipedia's deletion policy, but at least I tried to express it in a so polite way as possible. Very unlike the time I made this [ hate-picture] after a frustrating fight of getting an article about a famous (though "not notable enough" quoted from a moderator) demoscene artist accepted on Wikipedia. Anyway I praise you for being polite back when pointing out the possible improvements of my a bit harsh opinion contribution, I respect that. I haven't checked if you are a mod or not, but if you are, you must have been aware of your policies and I therefore issue this recommendation to you. Be tolerant and try to see articles from a contributors point of view instead of always from the ruling and administrative POV. But most important of all, take criticism as a constructive input on improving Wikipedia. Especially when it is addressed in a positive way. I don't mean to harm Wikipedia at all, I simply love the project, plain as that! I just want to be able to get satisfied with seeing also smaller articles spared for deletion if there's a value in them. By being very restrictive you only force limitations and scare off good people. Personally I see no difference in artist greatness between a celebrity like Hollywood-actress Amanda Bynes or a smaller but recognized foreign one. -- Karmus (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BVE Trainsim (2nd nomination) Ikip (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project! Activity has been a little slower lately, but it would be great to see more contributors working together to improve content. Feel free to add the project page to your watchlist to remain up-to-date with current discussions, goals, etc. on the talk page. There are many articles to improve so thanks for your interest! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was happy to discover that you had created the project. I was a contributor in the subject area years ago, but have not been active for a long time. I look forward to participating. - Chondrite (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chondrite. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chondrite. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]