Jump to content

User talk:Chzz/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Plz help

Following your tips on how to give references, I created an article named Mela shikar. But it has been tagged as possible copyright violation. Being inexperienced I dare not to deal with it again. You plz help rescue the article. (this version also) - Xeteli (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I see in the article history that the notice was added as follows;
18:10, 31 August 2009 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (rm unreliable source (facebook), Plagiarism, and noting that this article may be a copyright violation of the newspaper articles referenced)
I expect that they are concerned that some of the text is taken w:verbatim from the source(s). If you know which bits they mean, then the answer is simply to paraphrase the source rather than copying the exact wording - please have a look at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. If you are not sure which bits are a problem, then it would be best to discuss it with the user who flagged the problem, ie on user talk:NuclearWarfare. I hope that this helps, cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your help with my problem. But I need the help from an admin of en.wiki to be sure. Thanks. --LittleTony (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user talk, watch for replies on User_talk:LittleTony#Please.2C_HELP.  Chzz  ►  21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. BTW, if you'll ever run for admin I'll vote for you, be sure of this.Sincerely.--LittleTony (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering....

I was wondering can you close this debate Most Overall Number One U.S. Singles as a merge? The Source of Wikipowers (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Above user blocked; The Source of Wikipowers (talk · contribs) (note plural) is clearly The Source of Wiki Power (talk · contribs) (blocked for Abusing multiple accounts: Kelvin Martinez on 27 Aug) - evidence in AfD for Most Overall Number One U.S. Singles where user states "I created this page"  Chzz  ►  00:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello Chzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

  • PROD removed from Export Promotion Bureau, by User:ThaddeusB, with summary '(contest prod - organization is clearly notable with over 3000 news hits (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Export+Promotion+Bureau%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a) - will cleanup & source article ASAP)'
  • PROD removed from Introducing Ke$ha, by User:76.120.212.193, with summary '(no edit summary)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Note: re. Introducing Ke$ha, reinstated PROD, see User talk:76.120.212.193  Chzz  ►  01:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Looks like the delete was already done. I'll read some more. Thanks again. :) --EricPZ (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello Chzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

Note: Now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micah Solusod  Chzz  ►  21:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: 'under construction', but no sources added yet  Chzz  ►  21:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Administration

Chzz, it appears you are most modest and humble indeed. However, I beg you to reconsider: Do you not yourself deem Administration a worthy reward and goal? Would it not help Wikipedia as much as you yourself, if an experienced, active, reasonably civil and constructive editor were to be sysopped? Come, at least you must see others, too, believe you should be one. In all honesty, no offense, I am not trying to be particularly "kind", but simply deem you to be an excellent candidate. Possibly not on all matters do we see eye-to-eye, but I urge you once more to comply with me on this one. Chzz, why you are already not an administrator, I cannot be sure, but I personally find it to be a mistake. At once I shall nominate your name, doubtless backed by dozens of others whom have benefited from your help, input and guidance, and you will get what you justly deserve. However, the nomination process appears to be long and complicated, and apparently requires your own consent. Kindly grant it, Chzz, if at all you are willing. Again, please reconsider! Soccerrox62 | Talk 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As above - thanks very much for the offer, but I don't want to, at least not right now. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Appreciate your response to my request for help. Thanks. WesternRoad 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WesternRoad (talk • contribs)

How Many Active Users

Is there a way to figure out how many active users Wikipedia/Wikimedia has? By active, I mean something along the lines of maybe 500 or more total edits, at least 10 of which are within the last month. Thanks! 8bit (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Special:statistics shows 'active users' defined as those who have done something within the last month. There are various external sites that analyze Wikipedia, but to get the information that you were specifically asking would require a SQL query.  Chzz  ►  04:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! It's lower than I thought it would be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The8thbit (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

re: edit of Thomas Clough Daffern page

Thank you for responding so quickly to the suggested replacement article. Please can you explain in more detail the issue with copyright, and also if the references just need to be re-stylised in Wikepedia format? many thanks Chzz (Iipsgpeditor (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)) (Iipsgpeditor (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Ref. Thomas Clough Daffern, see User:Iipsgpeditor/Thomas Clough Daffern  Chzz  ►  11:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem regarding copyright is, I googled for some of the phrases used in the proposed article and I found the exact same wording on various websites which are copyrighted.
There are other problems than just that, and the referencing layout, however. A core policy of Wikipedia is verifiability - that means that the reader should be able to check the facts by following the references. That's why we need to present facts given in reliable sources. A lot of the information in the article cannot be verified, and therefore would not be suitable for inclusion. Please review WP:FIRST and WP:BLP. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Meghwal proposed move

I have added a section to Talk:Meghwal for discussion of a proposed move to Megh (people). If there is consensus, I wlll do the move in 7 days. Please add your comments to the talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed that section a bit to use a 'Requested move' template, so that it is listed as such; see WP:RM. If it's uncontroversial after 7 days then yes, sure, go ahead and move it, per the firections there. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was not quite sure what process to use. I have no strong feelings on the subject, don't think it is controversial, but thought there should be some opportunity to comment. I notified everyone who seemed to have contributed to the article other than gnomes and bots. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Steven Griffith

Hello! You were helping me with the article that I created about myself. Was wondering if the "autobiography" label is permanent. Was hoping you could remove it so it doesn't look like I created the article myself. I know that's exactly what I did, but I would rather have the article removed than to have it perceived as self-promotion. Thank again! Steven 23:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleyhampton (talk • contribs)


  • When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time.
Hi there. I could edit it a bit, but I'd have to remove the mention of "Lander University" (I can't find a reference); also, none of the info in the 'career' section has references. Are there reliable sources available for any of that information?  Chzz  ►  23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Campbell Soup Company

You asked me to come to you if I have any more problems with the vandalism of the Campbell Soup Company article. The vandals are back, adding the unreferenced, POV section. Then they use my own revert comments as they revert their content back in. I'm really getting sick of this. Is there some way to semi-protect this article again? Thanks. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in case you hadn't noticed it, I just wanted to let you know that the same group is also targeting Campbell's Field. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Campbell Soup Company has been semi-protected for 2 months [1], Campbell's Field was not for now, because an admin didn't see evidence of sustained vandalism (yet) which I think it fair enough. I also don't see much point in blocking the IP, as it's just going to hop to a new one; I don't really want to put all this on ANI yet either, as it'll only feed the trolls. OVerall, this is pretty minor, so just keeping an eye on it should be OK; I'll try to document the history here more, later, in case further action is needed.  Chzz  ►  23:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Update. Campbell's Field has also been semi-rpotected, for 19 days.  Chzz  ►  10:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for your continued assistance. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 04:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mela shikar for DYK

Hi,

My article Mela shikar has been nominated for DYK by PFHLai. But some issues are there. Would you plz help me??? Plz have a look at the links below.

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xeteli#Mela_shikar
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Mela_shikar

- Xeteli (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think all you need to do is re-word any parts that are copied verbatim from the source - change it into your own wording. If you need to know which specific parts are a concern, please ask Nuclearwarfare (talk · contribs) on User talk:NuclearWarfare.  Chzz  ►  17:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall Coliseum

Have you looked at the start of my Cornwall Coliseum article? Please help me with it.

Evangp (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I did have a quick look; at the moment, there are no sources at all. The most important thing is that the information has to be velifiable - so you need to find some good independent reliable sources for it, like books or newspaper articles.  Chzz  ►  17:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions?

In re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Physicians' Council for Responsible Reform, I'm trying to maintain some sort of neutrality despite source text allegations that the PCRR is essentially a fraudulent organization. I think the sources speak to the notability of this group per WP:CORP, but they are, at the same time, hostile witnesses. So, as an editor, I'm at a loss for words. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. It isn't necessary to be 'nice' to be neutral - there is nothing wrong with citing any reliably sourced information, for example XXX is a murderer, etc. Having said that, in this case I'm not certain that the sources are entirely reliable - they certainly are very negative. In the interests of balance, and also to flesh out the proposed article, please take a look at this (the last para), and this, perhaps? Good luck with it, I hope this helps.  Chzz  ►  17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is we know from the other sources that those press releases are essentially phony. Price is picking different lists of 100 doctor names out of the phone book; there's no one list. This would be like me calling up my local paper and telling them I may have already won a million dollars from the Publisher's Clearing House, because that's what my junk mail says, and they put that in an article. Ah, I guess maybe that is the point... thanks for the feedback, I'll see what I can do. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm getting in edit wars over an AFC. Apparently, registered editors don't want to publish it, but they are happy to edit war over the content? This is getting silly. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh, your counter-example is pretty bad. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Baccus or Bacchus?

Hi, which spelling is right? I've just made a set of redirects to your George Baccus & Sons, then realised that there's an "H" in the Googlebooks version, and in most of the wikihits I can find! PamD (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, yes, totally my mistake, it is "Bacchus" with an H. I've moved the article and redirects. Many thanks.  Chzz  ►  14:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Talking Football

Hello Chzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Talking Football has been removed. It was removed by AceMcCloud with the following edit summary '(Adding a few internal links from an online link suggesting tool.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with AceMcCloud before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Note, deprodded w/ edit summary "deleted the {{prod}} as I'm working on refereces" - tagged as unrefd, advert and npov; also may need UAA, Badge talkingfooty (talk · contribs)  Chzz  ►  21:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Image permission clauses

I am getting more and more confused about the submission of images. I spent a lot of time contacting the author for the permission. And yet i still dont understand the rules. Can you kindly tell me some easy way to search for free images? Hamza [ talk ] 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize. Because Wikipedia is 'free', we want other people to be able to copy it, pretty much unconditionally. Therefore, we try hard to only use pics that are free of any copyright conditions, other than a quick 'attribution' (ie the name of the person who took it). We can't use stuff that is licensed as 'OK for non-commercial use', because lots of people copy Wikipedia stuff and put it on pages which have adverts, and that counts as 'commercial use'.
One way to find stuff is to use 'flickr', search for something and then click on 'advanced search', and check all the boxes under 'creative commons', ie 'Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content', 'Find content to use commercially', and 'Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon'. Sadly, this often results in very few hits.
If you want to get a solid permission, I find it easiest to ask the copyright holder to please send the text from user:chzz/help/myboilerplate (with the name filled in and the pic attached) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
On the bright side, there are lots of fabulous free pics, like the one here; have a look at commons.  Chzz  ►  05:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello I am a supporter and fan of Brian Choper and the New Klezmer QUintet. I have been working on their articles and have recently uploaded photos but am unsure of which tag to use to ensure the copyright security. Could you please give me some advice on this issue.

-Thank You rlemus--Rebecca Lemus 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC) --Rebecca Lemus 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)rlemus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemusmail (talk • contribs)

Ref. File:Khband.1.jpg, File:Bchoper2-1.jpg
It really depends on where the images came from, and what their copyright status is. If they are your own pictures, then it is fairly easy to fix; if they belong to someone else, we would need their explicit permission to use them. Please let me know where they are from, and I can advise more.
Also, there seems to be some problem with your signature - although your name and your name appeared, it did not show me your user name, and lacked links. When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  16:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


The photos belong to the Brian Choper Management Team. I was given permission to use them as a fan. Please help me figure out what license to use.

-Thanks Rebecca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemusmail (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK; we need explicit permission from Brian Chopper, then; I understand that they might have given you permission, but that isn't 'transferable'. We need permission from them. Can you get them to please email the text in user:chzz/help/myboilerplate, with the pics attached and the name/date filled in, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ? If you can do that, we can file their email away, linked via an OTRS number to the pics.  Chzz  ►  03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I had the email sent out. What will be the next step? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemusmail (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. - if you're having problems with it, ask me further.
Regarding the pictures - I just asked a person with OTRS permission to look for the email - they found an email about the image "File:Bchoper2-1.jpg". We moved the file from Wikipedia over to commons, which is where all freely-licenced images belong; commons images can be used in just the same was as images on the English Wikipedia, but they can also be used by all the Sister projects - ie, if someone wrote an article on French Wikipedia, they could use the same file. Therefore, in future please upload things there, at commons:upload. (The exception in 'non-free images' with a 'fair-use rationale', such as logos). The email was filed and an OTRS "ticket number" was assigned to it, which you will see in File:Bchoper2-1.jpg. That file (shown here) is now fine, no further action is required.
If you get permission for the other pic, let me know - it's easier to find if you can tell me either the email address that it is from, or the exact subject line used.
Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the help. When I look at the photo online, I notice that there is still a tag on there which says that it is a eligible for speedy deletion. However on the File:Bchoper2_1.jpg it says that it has been approved. How do I transfer this? Also when I get the next photo approved could you bring my attention to the step by step process of getting that to The New Klezmer Quintet page.

Thaank Here are the tildesRebecca Lemus 18:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemusmail (talk • contribs)

Also, The email it is coming from is brianchoper@gigsforyou.com. Rebecca Lemus 18:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemusmail (talk • contribs)

Hello again. Sorry about the confusion re. deletion, I'll try to explain;
You uploaded the file to Wikipedia. That's fine, but, we prefer to put copyright-free files on Commons, which is a separate wiki. Commons files can be used on Wikipedia in just the same way, but they are also available to our Sister projects, such as other language Wikipedias. Therefore, the person who processed the OTRS permission uploaded the file to commons, and flagged the copy on Wikipedia for deletion - and it's now been deleted. However, because the files on commons can be used in exactly the same way, it did not affect the display of the file in the article.
              • Now I had looked up the file on Commons and I found it. Also..it says it (the Brian Choper photo that is above on this template) is a candadite for deletion no that it is deleted...What exactly else do I need to do for this file..?
Now, regarding File:Khband.1.jpg. I asked another OTRS volunteer, who found the email, and attached the OTRS ticket to the file, thus solving the licencing problem. In this case, they did not choose to move it over to commons, so the file remains on English Wikipedia for now; it could always be moved later.
To add it to the article, I think the best thing would be to add an "infobox" to the article. Please take a look at Masada (band), and the box at the top right. That uses something called "Infobox musical artist", and you can see the documentation in Template:Infobox musical artist. You could either copy the blank code from there and 'fill in the blanks', or you could edit the Masada article, copy from that, and change the various parameters as appropriate. It is this part;
{{Infobox musical artist
|Name = Masada
|Img =John zorn masada.jpg
|Img_capt = Masada performing, c2005; L.-R. Joey Baron (dr), Greg Cohen (b), Dave Douglas (tr), John Zorn (sax)
|Background = group_or_band
|Genre = [[Klezmer]]<br>[[Experimental music|Experimental]]<br>[[Jazz]]  
|Label = [[Tzadik Records]]
|Associated_acts = [[John Zorn]]<br/>[[Electric Masada]]<br />[[Naked City]]
|URL = 
|Current_members = 
|Past_members = [[John Zorn]]<br />[[Joey Baron]]<br />[[Greg Cohen]]<br />[[Dave Douglas (trumpeter)|Dave Douglas]]
}}
If you struggle with this, let me know and I will help further. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Now I had looked up the file on Commons and I found it. Also..it says it (the Brian Choper photo that is above on this template) is a candadite for deletion no that it is deleted...What exactly else do I need to do for this file..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemusmail (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I think that, for some reason, you're seeing an old version of the page. Try clicking on this link to purge it;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bchoper2-1.jpg?action=purge

Also, try bypassing your cache by pressing CTRL and F5 (if explorer or firefox)

The file is actually fine; the tag is there, and it's all OK.  Chzz  ►  18:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Three more questions. (for now) One: I still find that the warning for deletion shows up on the actual Brian Choper article. What else could I be missing? Two: I put a musician box on the New Klezmer Quintet site and I have a question with the photo there. I typed in the file name in the slot for photo and when I click on that title on the article it says that I need to upload the photo. How do I transfer the photo that is already in the system..? Three: The new Klezmer Quintet article has a tag which says I need more articles to link to it. I already have many highlighted blue links. Why would that still be ab issue and how can I properly resolve it and get rid of the note at the top of the page.

Thanks!:) Rebecca Lemus 22:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • On Brian Choper, that text is actually in the caption of the pic, so please edit the page and change it to something appropriate. Look for this bit;

[[Image:bchoper2-1.jpg|thumb|alt|Brian Choper|{{deletable image-caption|1=Monday, 7 September 2009}}]]

...and change it to something like this (putting in some appropriate caption, mine is a guess);

[[Image:bchoper2-1.jpg|thumb|alt|Brian Choper|A picture of Choper taken in 2009]]

  • The problem on New Klezmer Quintet was, you mistyped the filename as "khband_1.jpg" instead of "Khband.1.jpg" with a capital-K. Filenames are case-sensitive. I've changed it, and it now works fine.
  • It lacks articles that link to it; if you go to the article and click on "What links here" in the toolbox on the left, you'll see that currently there links from the List of Klezmer bands, Brian Choper, and Fred Jacobitz articles. An article is only considered an orphan if it has less than 2 articles linking to it, and when it was tagged as such, it probably lacked those incoming links. Therefore, I just removed the {{orphan|date=August 2009}} from it.  Chzz  ►  22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That was very helpful. Another question On Fred Jacobitz page I inserted an image fjacobitz.jpg which also recently approved by email for wikipedia. In my records that is how it is spelled. When you get a chance could you check that one for me to..? Thank You Rebecca Lemus 23:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemusmail (talk • contribs)

Another question..when you are available.

On the Fred Jacobitz page when I linked New Klezmer Quintet which is an article that does exist, it came up red which meant that it was not a real article. What may have been the problem here..? Thanks Rebecca Rebecca Lemus 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • When you write messages on talk pages, could you please type in ~~~~ at the end of your message; that will automatically add your user name, with links, and the date. You should literally type in four tilde-signs, not your actual name. Just put ~~~~.
  • I can't find any record of a file uploaded as "fjacobitz.jpg", either in your contributions, or using other searches.

Thank you. I have sorted things out. I regret the obvious hastiness that caused my oversights. Thank you for bringing my attention to things I did not see.I went and many mini edits that I had missed earlier. Here are teh four ~ ~ ~ ~ (but touching) at the end. Please let me know if it does not come up. I have been making a point of adding these out of respect. Thanks again. Rebecca Lemus 14:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlemusmail (talk • contribs)

No problems, re. the articles.
I'll mark this part as 'done' so that it can be archived, and help with the 'signing' thing on your own talk page. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Seeking advice on my Cyberculture course

Chzz,

Thanks again for all your tremendous help. My course is now at WP:School and university projects/CS345 . I welcome any comments on it since you last saw it Aug 19.

I do have one question. I moved the article from my sandbox but now my sandbox redirects to the School page. How can I get my sandbox back so I can use it for other purposes?

I did some editing myself as you suggested, nowhere near enough, and changed the assignment (see "Getting to know Wikipedia") accordingly. Your advice about that was very good.

I wanted to address 2 of your suggestions that I didn’t respond to previously.

You suggested WP:HELPDESK instead of WP:QUESTIONS. But QUESTIONS includes the HELPDESK and more.

You suggested using live help. The class is nontechical folks and the link in QUESTIONS is a tool that I think is more user friendly.

All the best, Len Lenshapir (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding redirects; I could just fix it, but I think it's worth trying to explain instead. If you click on User:Lenshapir/my sandbox, you will indeed be redirected to the project article, but note that at the top left it will say this, in small letters;

(Redirected from User:Lenshapir/my sandbox)

That link is a bit special; it has a parameter on the end of the URL, "&redirect=no". If you then click on it, you will be shown the actual redirect page, which you can then edit it in the normal manner. At the moment, it contains just one line, #REDIRECT Wikipedia:School and university projects/CS345. If you remove that, it will no longer redirect.
Regarding your project, and your comments re. questions/helpdesk and IRC, that's all fine, of course, up to you. I had a quick read through the project, and it looks broadly OK; best of luck with it, and please do let me know if I can help further. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chzz, Thanks so much for all your help. I could not have done it without you. Lenshapir (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Hannah Saaf

Hello Chzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Hannah Saaf has been removed. It was removed by Data added with the following edit summary '(okay i think i understand the complaint, it should be about the event not the person, i will work on it)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Data added before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Ongoing discussions with the creator, re. amending the article to be about the events, not just the person, etc.  Chzz  ►  22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Skyscraper

The Skyscraper project is real Please don't delete it. go to [www.skyscrapersim.com]

elevatorman138 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC) < (talk • contribs) elevatorman138 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I am not claiming that the software is not real - I personally love physics sim games - but, to have a Wikipedia article about it, it would need coverage, such as reviews of it in the newspapers or something. I can't find any, and (out of interest) I can't actually seem to connect to the website either, sorry.  Chzz  ►  16:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with image in Wikimedia Commons

Hi, I have a similar issue as Rebecca. I uploaded an image to Commons and emailed the image plus the permission of the owner to the correct email address. However, it's telling me that they will delete in 7 days if I don't change something, but I can't figure out what it is. I've tried asking questions in numerous places, with no answers. I'm sure I am doing something wrong.

File:Arie F. den Boer, Fred Edmunds, and Victor A Tiedjens.jpg

This is what the Nikbot said: This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added: (10 September 2009). If you have created this image yourself, you can choose to license under one of the allowed licenses at the licensing page. If you did not create it, you must usually ask the copyright holder for permission to release it under one of the allowed licenses, and the written permission (or a link to it) must also be provided on this page.

I have permission from MassHort, per an email, which was forwarded yesterday with the image to the email on the upload page. What else do I need to do?Calnut (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What do I need to do?Calnut (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the tag on File:Arie F. den Boer, Fred Edmunds, and Victor A Tiedjens.jpg to 'OTRS pending', which means that the email has been sent; at some point, a member of the OTRS team should connect the email to the pic - you should not need to take any further action yourself.  Chzz  ►  20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Chasys Draw IES

Hello Chzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chasys Draw IES has been removed. It was removed by 196.201.218.77 with the following edit summary '(Added more content from developer's site)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 196.201.218.77 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chasys Draw IES

Would you considering userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete it from main space completely.

The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework the article and maybe wikipedia will get a longterm dedicated editor.

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Of course, I don't mind anyone working on anything in their own user space, but something can't actually be undeleted unless it's been deleted. I suppose the author could MOVE it to their userspace, and tag the subsequent redirect for deletion or something. I don't mind how the article is removed, I just don't think that it is currently an appropriate article, due to the lack of reliable sources. Let me know if there is anything that I can do to help.  Chzz  ►  02:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
:) that is really fabulous. The guy who created it seems like a nice guy. I will userfy it then speedy delete the redirect. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The Helping Hand Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Chzz, for his dedication and eagerness to helping new users. Thank you for helping build the project one editor at a time. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible wp:privacy policy violation

Seems User:Alarichus [[2]] admitted that he has access on other logged user's i.p.. Actually, I dont see how he officially per wiki policy gained this kind of access peeking on i.p.s, but seems we have a clear wp:privacy policy issue, per wp:Personal security practices.Alexikoua (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I already told you that I did not violate any part of the guidelines. Factuarius actually revealed his ip accidentally,[3]. --Alarichus (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you were a polite-desent user you had asked for sockpuppet investigation, making fruitless assumptions, referring to registered user's i.p.s leads to nowhere.Alexikoua (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a sockpuppetry investigation, and we simply cannot be 100% sure that he is sockpuppeting. There is a large possibility, but because of the many statics and the few isps, we can only refer to it as a "possible sockpuppetry case", which is the exact term I have used. --Alarichus (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been a sockpuppetry investigation??? Sorry I see nothing, have you ever made a sock. inv. request? Your history contribution does not agree as well.Alexikoua (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You can also use the #wikipedia-en-spi. --Alarichus (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Did it, I',m sorry wp:spi has a tottaly diferrent conclusion on that, seems obvious you made up all this.Alexikoua (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Forgive my question, but I must ask - does this have anything to do with me? Did you want help with something?  Chzz  ►  13:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png in higher resolution?

Hi. You wouldn't happen to have a version of File:326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png in higher resolution, would you? I've got a boat named Don't Panic and I want to make T-shirts for the crew using this image. It would be a very cool shirt! A higher-res version would print better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You can find all the many images of her in Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. The 'don't panic' was added by me, using photoshop, to File:Wikipe-tan_holding_sign.png, which is 1,250 × 2,300 pixels and might be good enough for your T. Good luck with it; shout me if I can help at all. Nice name for a boat.  Chzz  ►  16:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Cool, that's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Making rice

I was torn between a prod or a redirect, in the end I went for the prod, but to be honest I don't really mind if it's prodded. Just thought I'd let you know I had redirected it in case you hadn't realised. Also, if you'd like the prod to remain I'll remove my edit, if thats okay? Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Redir is fine, prob better; it was created whilst I was writing the PROD, and I just removed the PROD, left the redir. Probably the best outcome all-round, because the user will also have an explanation of why too. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, we should really get a CSD for "how to" guides ^^, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I didnt know you were Finnish (or did you just stumble upon the article and decide to help?) -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re. Saaranpaskantamasaari
I'm English. I just stumbled on it, noticed the debate, and thought I'd enquire a bit further.Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Troutman 9/9/9

Chzz,

May I ask you to take another look at the Troutman draft? I've taken out all the primary references, the best I can tell, and tried to address all other concerns you raised last time.

Please let me know what else needs to be done for the article to go live.

Thank you very much again,

--Burkeguy 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)

  • When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time.
  • The word "professional" is (I think) redundant in the first line, "an American professional author", that seems just puffery really. The term is used a few more times too; "designs professional resumes", "job searching for career professionals" - I know the latter isn't about her, but it's still "business-speak", and rather meaningless.
  • "small, woman-owned business" - 'small' is opinion, not fact. Also, is the 'woman-owned' part covered in the ref? It seems an odd phrase.
  • "Thanks to her first book [...] Troutman helped popularize the format" - I'm still not happy with this phrasing; it's not encyclopaedic, and no matter how many references there are, it's a really hard thing to verify.
  • "Other Troutman federal career publications" - this is unreferenced
  • The part about "Monster.com" is also unreferenced
  • "www.washingtonpost.com’s Federal Diary Live On-Line, www.federalnewsradio.com, and www.fedmanager.com, and has led workshops on Federal Resumes and KSAs for 40Plus of Greater Washington" - most of these could be linked to our articles about them, I imagine
  • The para beginning "In the past, she has belonged to, at various times..." is unreferenced.

 Chzz  ►  23:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Steven Griffith

Thank you for your message. I appreciate your attention. I have a question - does everything have to be refenced outside of the scope of Wikipedia itself? Or can everything be referenced to another Wikipedia artcle? In the article, Lander University is highlighted and redirected to a Wikipedia aticle about Lander. I'm not sure how else to reference it unless there is a redirect to the Lander University website. Also, pretty much everything mentioned in the career section can be confirmed at the IMDB link. Hope this helps and thanks again. StevenColleyhampton (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Wikipedia itself is actually not a reliable source - because it is a gatherer of information, supported by references. Therefore, you should note 'cite' another Wikipedia article. If the facts in that article are supported by appropriate references, then you should look those up, and cite them (if they cover the facts).
You can, of course, wikilink to other articles, but such links are not references.
If there is no suitable reliable source for uni attendance, then perhaps that fact should be removed.
IMDB is not a good source; yes, it is used on many articles, but also it is often inaccurate. Certainly, on it's own, it would not be considered significant coverage in reliable sources (per the general notability guidelines).  Chzz  ►  13:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: geopiety

I removed your delete nom. If you had even bothered to investigate the term, you would have seen there are many journal articles and entires in books on the subject, and it can certianly be expanded to included many discussions on how geopiety effects other fields like geopolitics (just one example). I know many people do this besides you, but I do get tired of people nominating new articles for deletion before there's been time to expand them. Otebig (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I did actually investigate the term, and I considered it against the policy that I mentioned, WP:DICDEF. I could not find appropriate resources about the thing that it denotes, and the current article just shows usage of the term. My search through scholarly articles showed talk of the 'concept', listings in dictionaries, and discussions of the term. I don't see any information about the topic other than defining what the term is; if it can be expanded, that'll be great. If I thought that I could have made the article fit the requirements, I would have done so.
Regarding nominating things before they have a chance to expand - there are two important points here;
  • Firstly, Wikipedia is live, all the time; hence, new articles need to meet the appropriate, agreed criteria as soon as they are created. This is easy to achieve if the article is first made it your own user space. For example, you could create a page called User:Otebig/test page, and write an article there, with no references at all. It would not be deleted. You could work on that for as long as you liked, and then, when read, move it over to the live area. You can thus avoid these problems; see Wikipedia:User page#How to create a user subpage.
I'm curious - in the 14 minutes between when the article was created and you put up the prod, where did you look for information? Which scholarly articles did you look at? Which databases did you use? What definitions did you find? These could in fact be helpful for the article. Otebig (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Initially, I used Google news search (all dates), Google Books and Google Scholar, and followed some of the links from those.  Chzz  ►  20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

M50

Is it your policy to revert first and wonder why later? Sarah777 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight

The Wikipedia Spotlight Barnstar
I have decided to give you this barnstar for everything that you have done for Spotlight. Cubs197 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re

Thank you! Saturn star (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Helping Me

The Helping Hand Barnstar
For helping me in so many different things. You are the only editor, who has spent over half an hour actually explaining things with me. It was really helpful, and it really helped. Thanks ! warrior4321 02:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Btline help

No worries! Btline (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Sorrow!

Good day (or evening)! I didn't receive any message from you so long... And now I want to moan about my probleme: somebody annihilated my article "List of Transformers: Armada episodes season 2"! Why? I am so sad... It is cruel! --User:He-l-en1959--Mirabella Star 17:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry that you're sad; please don't be - look at it as an opportunity. Remember that any edits can be undone, nothing is lost, it's all there in the history. Even a deleted page can easily be undeleted (see WP:USERFY.
Looking in the article history, I see that the person who changed it back was TTN (talk · contribs) with this edit; note the edit summary, "Readd the episodes. This needs to be trimmed rather than split." - of course, on Wikipedia, people all have different opinions. Maybe they're right, maybe not, but the thing to do is, to discuss it.
You should start a discussion on Talk:List of Transformers: Armada episodes by making a new section at the end of that page, and explain what you think, about how it could be split into separate articles. Then, put a short note at the end of the users talk page, User talk:TTN , and ask them to "Please see the discussion in [[Talk:List of Transformers: Armada episodes]]". Then, see what they have to say; discuss it with them, and see if you can come to some agreement in how to make the article better.
I really hope that you will do this; although the process often does seem cruel, in the long-term, it often makes articles better. Good luck with it; let me know if I can help further.  Chzz  ►  17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your consolation. But I had put a lot of work to this article...and it turned out to be in vain... As for TTN (talk · contribs), I wrote to him (or her) already. But for remaking the whole article according to his (or her) counsels i need much more help. May I count on your help? I'll be glad if you will assist me (if it will be not difficult for you, of course)User:He-l-en1959--Mirabella Star 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I will help if I can. I'm not that good at list articles, and I know nothing about the programme - but I might be able to advise. Do you remember what I suggested before, about adding some factual info from reliable sources? I think that would be the best way forward with it. Perhaps you could add facts such as when it was aired, if it is available on DVD, that sort of thing? Just an idea. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

SPLAT!

Hey Chzz.

I was wanting to put a hold on the deleation of the SPLAT! page i created. I know it is not very good, but the reason i wanted to add it was that there is very little information about radio annalyisis programs on the net that is easily available, as i discoverd when i was trying to look for a program to simulate a radio link. While i knew there was software out there (i knew my friend used one, which i later found out was Radio Mobile) i had great difficulty finding any information on the topic. I know wikipedia has sections dedicated to comparisons of media players, peer to peer clients, as well as other items i would consider very obscure, so i think that wikipedia should at least have a webpage on the topic of RF Modeling.

I would like to point out that i am not an expert in the field and would therefor appreciate the assistance of other wikipedians (or just other browsers) in expanding the topic. If a page is up it seems a lot less daunting to add/correct information than to create a whole page.

my only other contribution to wikipedia was the addition of the company website REPower, which was slammed with a not notable before i had had it up for a week. As you can see with the assistance of others, it is now a decent page. I understand that you dont want pages of crap in wikipedia, however tagging stuff with a "cleanup needed" or "additional information needed" tag rather than a deleation tag i would expect would help you grow a better encyclopedia.

Could you please tell me how to add catagories to the SPLAT! page as i feel it would help link in people who know more about the topic. also is there a way to browse the catagories that it can be added to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean2074 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for writing and explaining that. Don't worry, I'm not a crazed deletionist.
To avoid having articles about anything, we - the community - have a threshold based on verifiability, which means that the information must be able to be checked in reliable sources. In the case of this article, as you said, there is almost no info on the internet - I did look, and I couldn't find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source" (per the general notability guidelines). If there were a couple of newspaper or magazine articles about SPLAT!, then we could use them as references, and all would be well, but I don't think there are any.
However, there may be an answer - we could make an article about RF modelling. There seems enough coverage of it, e.g. Google News and Google Books. If an article could be written about that topic, then it could contain a mention of software.
Something else that you might find useful is, you can make subpages in your own user space - such as User:Sean2074/test. You can work on a 'proposed article' there, without it being live, and can add sources and get it into shape before moving it to the live 'mainspace'. This is a great way to work on a new article; you can even ask others to check it over for you.
The easiest way to have some user subpages is this; edit your user page (not your user talk page), ie User:Sean2074 (which doesn't yet have anything on it), and add some lines like this;
* [[User:Sean2074/test1]]
* [[User:Sean2074/test2]]
* [[User:Sean2074/test3]]
* [[User:Sean2074/RF Modelling]]
* [[User:Sean2074/Something else]]
Of course, the names can be anything you like. If you do that, they will all be red links, because they don't exist - but you can click on them and make the pages. Having the links there, on your user page, makes it easy to get back to them, by just clicking your user name at the very top of the screen.
In answer to your questions about categories, there is no very simple way to find them; personally, I usually search for similar articles and copy the appropriate categories from those. However, in this specific case, I do think that the article will be deleted.
I hope this makes sense; please do ask me for further help - and I can help you to write an article if you like. You might also want to get help by talking to us helpers live, with this - give it a try and say 'hello'.
Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow Up

Hello, you responded to a previous request for help on my talk page; I have added a follow-up question there and hope you can offer further assistance. I attempted to place the "help me" icon/template on my talk page but can not figure out how to do this (despite being given detailed instructions by another user). Thank you, --My Best Shot (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Answered on users talk page  Chzz  ►  05:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Brenda Webster

Thanks for the help with the Brenda Webster article. I was trying to save the article from CSD, but the editor keeps going back and re-adding information I remove, adding non reliable sources, and is generally editing the article in completely the wrong direction. I thought I'd give the author some time to become familiar with guidelines on Wikipedia, and provide more reliable third party sources before taking further action, but please feel free to chime in, as I can't seem to get the author to respond to any of my questions or comments. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I noticed what was happening. I thought that some specific tags might help, but we shall see. Worth a try, anyway. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Uploading an image

Hi, Plz see this Photo. This is the photograph of Gautam Kalita taken from a public felicitation function. I want to upload this file in my article. Can I do that? If so, what license tag should I fix?--Xeteli (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I don't think that we could use that picture. We can only use images which are available for free use (including commercial use), so they need a clear license. I cannot see any license information for that picture, but I imagine that it is a copyright image. Without a clear statement of permission from the copyright holder (releasing copyright), we cannot use it. You could perhaps write to the organization and ask for permission - see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
There are certain exceptional cases where a non-free image can be used, but that would not apply here, because it would be possible to get a free picture of the person. Whether one can be found is a another matter. I had a look on the internet, but I couldn't see any suitably-licenced pictures of this person. It is often difficult to find appropriately licensed images for Wikipedia articles. Sorry I couldn't help more.  Chzz  ►  15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight.

Hey Chzz. It looks like the spotlight channel has... well...pretty much died. We chose a new article in the summer months, and since then, nobody has edited the article. Should I be removing the SP templates off of that article?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 10:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arr. Shiver me timbers. I be a wishin' that the spotlight idea was a'workin', but I see no activity - so, aye, I think it'd be best if-as you could remove 'em. Arr.1  Chzz  ►  15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I wish it would have turned out better. It was such a strong Idea for a project.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's ME

I Have Returned I Am Bob the VI (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Geoffswoodwork

I'm trying to complete the entry for the Wikipedia Page Woodworking. See your: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodwork_for_Joiners_and_Cabinetmakers_for_Beginners_and_Improvers#cite_note-amazon-0 I cant see to work out how to get back talking to you? Geoff www.Geoffswoodwork.co.uk

Found bulletin board but you weren't there. We nearly completed last time but needed verification of Review. Your Prod:Feedback at Talk:Woodwork for Joiners and Cabinetmakers for Beginners and Improvers seems to suggest we could now create? I also have: http://www.instituteofcarpenters.com/files/108669EB-55A1-405F-BA9F-9C1100E9B70A.aspx/Click%20Here%20to%20Read%20the%20Lastest%20Issue%20of%20Cutting%20Edge%20Magazine.pdf Page 16 You can contact me at Twitter as Geoffswoodwork

Hello there.
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time.
I did actually create the page; it's been live for some time. It is Woodwork for Joiners and Cabinetmakers for Beginners and Improvers.
It is (currently) very borderline on the notability guidelines, so if you could add sources that would be great. For info about how to do that, please see user:chzz/help/ref.
Good luck with it; I hope you'll be able to improve the article. Of course, give me a shout if you need help. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Manipal bug

Since you redirected Manipal bug to Blister beetle because of verifiability issues, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manipal bug. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  17:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the aid with the chat! I dub you as my official helper on en.wikipedia :P Mparu (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

GeoffsWoodwork

Further work has been done

Please have a look at the Discussion page. I have left some more material to improve Notability and xref reviews. See the Discussion at Prod: feedback at [[4]] Geoffswoodwork (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Geoffswoodwork

Thanks for assistance.
BTW
Is Chzz an Administrator or Mentor?

Expanding Stub when I expand a stub can I delete the tag?

Wiki Observations !!!! etc If the author adds the required information, can the author remove the entry? Or who can and How?
at Geoff Malthouse
Geoffswoodwork (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again.
Regarding the above, there's no need to make a new section if you have 'follow-up' questions. It's easier to just edit the same section and add to the end of it - and it's also clearer if you indent with colons (:).
Now, to answer;
I'm not an admin, but then again, that is not a big deal; all users on Wikipedia have an equal say in it, and (in theory at least) the role of an admin is just to carry out policy-based actions. For example, anyone can mark an article for deletion, and if there reasoning is based on policy, then an admin will come along and click the 'delete' button for them. I encourage every wikipedians to participate in areas such as deletion discussions and admin elections.
Regarding the removal of tags, indeed, anyone can remove them but Wikiquette means they should only be removed if the issues have definitely been addressed. In the case of that article, i have just removed the added paragraph and the bits added to 'external links', because a) it was not referenced, and b) it was written like an advert; it did not maintain a neutral point of view. Sorry about that, but if I had not removed it, I'm sure somebody else would have - and it might well have been tagged as an 'advert' and nominated for deletion or something.
Someone who is closely involved with a subject such as this has a conflict of interest, and because it is so extremely difficult for such people to maintain a neutral point-of-view, it is strongly recommended that they do not edit the article directly, but instead make suggestions of the talk page and see if other editors agree. Please read the business FAQ and WP:BESTCOI.
I hope that you might work on some other articles. I will, of course, help in any way I can. cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Chzz.
Fabrictramp has checked the page and removed the remaining tags.
I have made some remarks in Talk:Wood warping for a start?

Geoff (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds fine. Let me know if you need help.  Chzz  ►  19:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Click23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What is up with people altering the Henry Ford page?

Srsly?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.30 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean, "why is it being vandalised"?  Chzz  ►  14:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
** cough ** - [5]. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops, ta. timing fail. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Transformers Again

Hello! I miss you already! I have begun to make the "List of Armada episodes" as a table, and the "Season 1" is almost ready. I hope I'll complete it soon. You may see it yourself if you want (and if it is interesting for you, of course) on the page User:He-l-en1959/my Armada and tell me your advices and comments. Yours. User:He-l-en1959--Mirabella Star 17:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks OK, but I still think that the best approach would be to add references to reliable sources for verifiability. Any content that is unreferenced can be removed by other editors; the best approach to this (and all articles) is to reference good sources.  Chzz  ►  19:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Skyscraper Contact

Our fourm (Skyscrapers) the projectfounder rhayn is online and will answer your qustions. And I could give you his e-mail.Contact me if you want the link orthe email elevatorman138 00:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Elevatorman138 (talk · contribs)

Skyscraper Project

Was previously deleted following my PROD, then recreated same; now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyscraper Project.

This article does not meet notability requirements; there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  Chzz  ►  18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Go on

I think it's time to accept a nomination. Wikipedia has suffered for long enough without your skills as an admin :) Please say yes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much MSGJ; for now, suffice to say that I'm very flattered in your confidence. I am currently on holiday, and not on wikipedia as much as normal - but I assure you that I will give your suggestion due consideration, and will respond further ASAP. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I look forward to your (positive) answer. Happy holiday, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

i appologize

my professor at school adviced me to try it out. Nas is the man so is jayz.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathanga (talk • contribs) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Answered on talk  Chzz  ►  21:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Best Selling Artists and OR policy

Hey, thanks for all the work you do here at wikipedia, I always see your contributions on AfDs and see that you put in great work and have a good understanding of the policies here. I wanted to talk with you briefly about the List of best-selling artists worldwide as I recall you had a fairly balanced view on the matter a while back.

It seems that since the time I last contributed to the discussion the article has becomes, in my view at least, a mass of original research. A new column has been added for verified sales for The Beatles, Presley, and Jackson which is composed entirely of numbers that editors have compiled. The sources provided don't unambiguously state the claimed numbers but rather each number is one generated by editors adding all the sales for individual releases in a given database. Worse is that "Total certified sales" number at the bottom adds all these editor-generated numbers up compiled from different databases - a clear instance of synthesis. There are other details about the page which make it seem out of step with OR guidelines - the notes section is expansive and grievously includes the first-person "we" in discussing the methodology for the numbers.I would try and change these faults in working on the talk page, as I do with most pages I work on, however the dedicated editors who have made these changes simply overwhelm with massive walls of text - most of which don't actually cite policy. I feel extremely discouraged seeing such an important page out of line with policy, knowing that I cant change it as the small group controlling the page is much more dedicated as to the amount of time they are willing to put into debate. Im just curious as to your opinions on the matter and if you can suggest a recommended course of action, or if you think like I currently do, that its a battle that's just not worth fighting. Thanks! Solid State Survivor (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree completley with what you wrote; I have been monitoring the page, and I am also dismayed at the OR content and the inappropriate 'notes'. I previously removed an inappropriate section from the article which detailed how it should be written (ie the types of ref to use, etc). I am also concerned about all the caveats at the top of the talk page, which the editor who wishes to 'control the page' has made sure stay there, as opposed to the archiving of other discussions. At present, the article and the talk page do not conform to Wikipedia policies. I also fully cognizant of the problems trying to discuss anything on the talk page. I feel that something should be done, but I'm not sure what; a note on WP:ANI does not seem quite appropriate; how about asking the Mediation Cabal for help, what do you think?  Chzz  ►  19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this - I assisted in writing some of which was mentioned above and I'm pretty darn sure I've never done anything on the talk page of the sort. More than welcome to accept criticism as the page is in serious need of improvement - it clearly has it's issues. In relation to the talk page messages at the top, all you have to do is read down the first comment in each discussion and see just about every single post comes from someone with no idea who is trying to use unreliable sources to prove that their favourite singer has these inflated figures - I would have honestly unwatched the page if that top post was not there, it would probably be unbearable. As for the certification adding, 'Total' is the wrong word, but WP:OR says that calculations and adding are quite fine, and since that's all that has been done, I don't see the problem. In the end, this page is quite different from others, whereas we have so many conflicting sources, there is obviously no right answer, as well as there being sources that claim others are inaccurate, even providing evidence that figures have come from openly exagerrating publicists and so on. We need a basis and the certifications provide this, perhaps the article page is not the place for them, but that was the consensus (/compromise) - and if you aren't game to post on the talk page then it'll probably stay that way. Feel free to contact me on my talk, it'll be nice and quiet there I assure you. :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with jumping into the gauntlet that is the talk page, and I'll do so when I get the chance - after all, that's the appropriate forum.
I do understand the specific issues regarding this article, but I don't see why it should have any kind of exception from policy, and at the moment it is very un-wiki with all the caveats and footnotes. Every article on Wikipedia is 'according to the references we've given', and it would get silly if every cited fact had reams of caveats; all we can do is report the verifiable facts.
I tried hard to mediate during the Michael Jackson figures debacle, but it was difficult, because nobody would give any policy-based arguments and many users insisted on posting reams of text rather than making concise arguments.
I think that the facts could be presented in an encyclopaedic manner, same as any other article - I am very much in favour of the arguments in WP:TIGER.
My hope is that, like many articles, it will eventually become a good encyclopaedic article. Right now, I do have many concerns about it. One important point is regarding WP:OR - yes, it's fine to add up simple numbers, for example when quoting the population data for a town that is presented by the government in separate wards. The problem comes when adding info from disparate sources, and indeed in determining which ones to add, which are appropriately 'credible', because this is of course a matter of opinion.
Anyway - I just wanted to briefly state the above; this issue is on my 'to do' list and I'll try to move things further when I get the chance. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest Deletion of Article I posted Sir A T Pannir Selvam

Hi,

There was a proposed delete message from you, and I felt I should contest that. Sir A T Pannir Selvam (Sir A T Paneerselvam) is notably referencef in many other Wikipedia articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanjavur under people of Tanjavur and also Justice Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Party_(India)

I have included other references as well. Let me know if this suffices to prevent deletion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Villager21 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ref. A. T. Pannirselvam
The problems with the references are as follows;

1.http://www.answers.com/topic/thanjavur

2.http://www.baaa-acro.com/archives/accident_1940.htm

  • This makes no mention of the person

3."The Hannibal Files", Brian Bisley, Innisfree Publishing Co. 2001 (A novel)

  • A work of fiction is unlikely to be an appropriate source

4.'British Aide Lost on Airliner'. The New York Times, Wednesday, March 6, 1940

  • Is this article actually about the person? Is it available to check anywhere?

5.Justice Party India

  • Wikipedia itself should not be used as a reference, see WP:SELFREF
The fact that other Wikipedia articles might mention the subject does not help to assert notability; each article needs to pass the general notability requirements under it's own merits, ie it needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Are such sources available?  Chzz  ►  02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
User added book refs, assumed to be signif coverage  Chzz  ►  18:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  18:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Revolution of 1954 (Hawaii)

So what did you think of my first big article?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Article was created by Hawaiian Candiru (talk · contribs)

In general, it looks good. My main concern would be if it constituted original research - more references would help with that.
I've made some minor modifications, but the main thing I did was to change the referencing style to 'Harvard-style' - I hope that you will agree this style suits the article, because it removes the duplication of the book details for references that are used several times with different pages. This style of referencing is frequently used on featured articles. If you have problems following it, just let me know.
I suggest getting a peer review performed, and then moving it towards 'Good article' status. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with OccamzTalk. However InvestingPennyStock.com seems like a good resource site about penny stock investing. It got loads of information about topics like penny stock, penny stock scams, risks, discussions. So I think this is a good site to be added as a external link in this page. Just removing links to good resource sites in the external links section without much clarification does not help a reader who is after more information.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyInvestor (talk • contribs) 05:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links  Chzz  ►  05:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done UAA, Blocked for spam  Chzz  ►  17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz/Archive_14&oldid=1145870537"