This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chzz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I know you're not 'for' the idea of too many badges, wosnames, suchlikes, and yur comment about 'anyone can keep an eye on a talk page' is clearly true - but on the basis (which I'm sure you'll have seen!) that all the traffic in the vicinity of a marked police car tends to behave very well (i.e. not whizzing past it at 100 mph), a badge on the page itself might actually serve to deter bad behavious. I think. What do you thing about something on the problematic talk pages, just to let peole know they are being watched ..... How 'bout it? Pesky (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure; possibly, I suppose. It would depend on the exact wording. And one worry would be...well, when people get clear of speed-cameras, they tend to speed up. So would the nastiness just go elsewhere? I'm not sure. I suppose it'd be something like the {{Calm talk}} template, but with a badge, saying it was monitored? This sounds like something for Wikipedia:Idea lab, probably. Chzz ► 12:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
How about a pic of a pair of eyes (lovely crop I have of an I-think-public-domain wolf would do nicely!) with a caption "This page is being watched by a senior pack member. If you misbehave, you may be bitten!" Many talk pages just won't attract the kind of nastiness that some do; I suspect that most 'nasties' tend to hang out in particular areas. I shall take a look at the Idea Lab. Pesky (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Connections to WP:BITE wouldn't be good; I'm not sure about the jokey-nature of "senior pack member" either - some people won't see the funny side. It'll be contentious, no matter what. But yeah; try the ideas lab; get more opinions. Chzz ► 12:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yerze, I didn't think of the BITE thing - stoopid or what, lol! I think it would work with just the 'this discussion is being watched idea, though. I;ve dropped a note on the Sheriff's talk page to see if anyone has any major objections to dropping it onto the Idea Lab. Now ..... how long shall I give them to scream about that? lol! ... before I do it? Bearing mind that I am not overly-endowed with patience, but without wanting to leave it for ever. Pesky (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
<outdent> A full week !!!! Since when did you acquire the idea that I had that amount of patience! And I've only just got them talking again, too! (rofl and other juvenile texting stuff like that) Pesky (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I gived 'em 24 hours. Hopefully in a humourous way so they won't come at me with the rolled-up newspapers! Pesky (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that the core idea will happen - I think it is inevitable - ie, the "trial" will end, and then - somehow - we'll have to come up with a proposed implementation plan which can gain consensus. It ain't gonna be easy. And I don't think the questionnaire idea will help at all, because all it will show is a huge diversity of opinion - plus, it won't allow for discussion. I think it could be a huge waste of time, to be honest - because any conclusions that it does draw are not likely to be of any practical benefit. I don't like the idea of an RfC without allowing discussion to take place. Of course, discussion is incredibly hard to manage - but if the community don't come to an agreement, I think the problems will continue.
I suppose, for now, we just have to see about the existing proposal - see what happens. I wish some of the oppose-people would discuss ideas - well, you know that; you can see my frustration in #Consensus.
The trial simply has to end, otherwise no progress will be possible. Whether that happens soon, or after more months of waffle, remains to be seen. Chzz ► 16:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that the trial is over, I still endorse keeping BLPs currently under PC as such. It is working, why remove it? I also noted Off2riorob trying to tell a user that he has no right to comment on the discussion; I respect his opinion, but that is a bit standoffish and rude IMO.
I've already tried to explain why we need to end the trial, over 9000 times. You want it to be used on BLPs? Me too. Right now, we can't - according to policy. There is no policy. And the only possible way to get a policy agreed through consensus, is first to remove it. While it remains on those 950 articles, there's zero chance of getting any agreement - because so many people are so utterly pissed off at being shafted (because the trial never ended, as promised). That's it in a nutshell; I've explained it more in the RfC discussion.
I am consenting of removing it from the non-BLP articles (after all, when a new test is finally approved - or should I say if - I presume they'll choose a new set of articles); however, already-PC BLP articles are in my view a good place to continue ongoing testing until it is determined that pending changes is to be abolished. Again, this is just my opinion, but the non-BLPs I have no issue with removing from because the trial is over. I speak from experience handling BLP vandalism during the trial and know thus that PC works there. CycloneGU (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with UncleDouggie's response, under your oppose; "You are throwing away any trust to ever experiment with something again on this project because of a misplaced concern about 0.003% of our articles. How does that make any sense?" [1]. I also think you are throwing away any chance of PC being expanded to other articles - because, until this ridiculous 2-month trial is finally put out of its misery, we have zero chance of making progess. If the trial is ended, then we have some chance of making progress. Chzz ► 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
To the one extent, the trial is over, yes. The problem I am seeing is that a lot pf people are refusing to talk until PC is removed from every single page that uses it. Of interest, I actually think I saw PC2 used in a protection situation just last month (February) by an administrator. So apparently it's still being used by administrators at this very moment. Now personally, I have no control to the point I can remove PC from articles (or readd it), so in that extent my opinion is just that: an opinion. Nothing more. If administrators are instructed to remove it, they remove it and stop using it. I can't go looking through the articles and remove it (if I can, I have no idea how). I still think there is no issue with leaving it until a further decision is made; it's the same argument I made for Nail Yakupov before it was userfied to my space, even though he is a lock for Rookie of the Year and others said let's delay this AfD because this will make him truly notable, the closing admin. decided to userfy NEway, only to make me move it back in two weeks once they announce the award. Yes, maybe I'm crystal-balling a bit here, but the previous winner won it with a very similar performance to Yakupov...and probably not as many goals either. So back on topic...if it has to be removed, admins. have to do it. The rest of us just have an opinion. CycloneGU (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Admins have to remove it, yes; but admins do what the community decides they should do. Currently, they haven't got instructions - they don't know if they can use it, if they should remove it, in what cases they can use it, or what. The policy is very unclear; there is no consensus to point to.
It is being used - in various ways. You can see that here. You can see all pages it is applied to in Special:StablePages.
I can see your 'inevitibility' argument but, it's not gonna happen in a couple of weeks. It might just about happen in a couple of months, if things go swimmingly. So - for the next few months, we need some clear policy, surely. To avoid things like, e.g. an admin using it on Gout just so they can play with the feature [2], using it on Radio Battalion because they "don't see any consensus not to use it" [3], or using it with the IAR-card here - and although the latter case had some merit, note it was removed just 2 days later, because PC didn't work out [4]. Chzz ► 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
"Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch"? ROFL
Yes, I do fully agree that more clear policy is needed; heck, we needed that DURING the trial. I still remember when someone tried applying PC to "Barack Obama" and I stumbled upon one of the many vandalistic edits in the log list; needless to say, the PC was removed very quickly and protection restored (this was before PC2 came up I think). So I concur that until there are VERY clear policies - ones I'd want an input in, of course, having been one of the first (?) to try it in June - we cannot go about using it willy-nilly wherever we want to. We need to be clear what articles to protect with it (i.e. not "God", but maybe ones that Stephen Colbert has suggested vandalizing in the past, such as Reality), we need clear guidelines on approving edits (I butted heads with a couple of editors who shot back at me when I advised they approved wrong information or unsourced edits), and we need people who are technically the "experts" on the program that reviewers and those with questions can turn to on the program. Until things like that are in place, we cannot expand its usage. I still don't see a problem with keeping it on the BLP articles it's currently on with no further expansion, but I do agree it can otherwise be removed. Because of my half-and-half opinion, I had to go under oppose when adding my view. CycloneGU (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
OK; you've made good points, and I do not wish to pester you. I will respect your view, and won't say any more than one last thing; please, re-read the actual proposal - forget what everyone else is blabbering about - and just read what it actually asks; Wikipedia:PCRFC#Proposal. If your stance is still to 'oppose' that, I will say nothing further about that, out of respect for your consideration and opinion. Chzz ► 01:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not feeling pestered (yet =D), I just have my points regarding the matter. =) I'm a bit occupied ATM, but I may reread it later today or tomorrow. CycloneGU (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure - cool; and of course, there is no deadline. My final request was, just to consider the actual proposal - just as it is - forgetting how others may have (mis)interpreted it; that is all. [5].
And regardless of any discussion of that... it has been a real pleasure to discuss this with you, in a collegiate manner. Even if you disagree, you've earned my respect. Best, Chzz ► 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a nice, interesting article - I was pleased with the picture I found. Add a little bit more, and get a Did you know... :-) (It needs to be a little bit longer; about 500 characters - another paragraph should do it) Chzz ► 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure we can use the Tomba di Patron photo. No evidence that it comes from this site. All I can find is Tornando a Roma, si registra un uso diverso, legato alla decorazione sepolcrale, della decorazione di giardino nelle pitture della tomba di Patron, sulla via Latina, oggi perdute ma note attraverso disegni antichi, tranne un frammento conservato al Louvre. La tomba è databile al 30-10 a.C. which to my imperfect Italian says that the tomb has been lost. Roundtheworld (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, fair enough; that was my (probably incorrect) assumption. I don't speak much Italian at all, so I was guessing a bit.
Let me know of anything specific I can do to help. Have you submitted DYK before? I can help with that, too. Chzz ► 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...actually, now I've looked a bit more...the references are not good enough for DYK. I don't think a B&B website is a good enough RS. We'd need books and suchlike. I'm sure RS exist, for this topic; if we could add them in the next few days, it could be a DYK. Chzz ► 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. I notice you haven't signed up for this. I know you're very busy and it may take up more of your time, but your input would be most welcome. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I did look at it, and - I'm sorry...I know your intentions are great, but personally I think that idea, itself, is misguided. Noms "made only by admins", prerequisites for people !voting - that'll make it even more of a clique. Also - I don't think there's a chance of passing any such proposals; others have tried. Sorry; I really am. I'm extremely keen on RfA reform, as you know - I just don't see how that specific plan can work. I hope you'll prove me wrong though! Best of luck, Chzz ► 12:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Those suggestions of mine are only intended as a stimulus to get more suggestions coming in. The task force is in no way intended as an endorsement of my ideas, other views and solutions are more than welcome. Feel free to drop in any time . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, sure; thanks. I will keep an eye on it, definitely - and if I think I can throw in anything useful, I will. I'm skeptical that it'll be possible to achieve much, but I will try to manage my cynicism. Exactly what I wrote here applies. But I hope you'll prove me wrong. Chzz ► 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you could make more of a difference than you know. And I think something will come of this. And I think I'll have a beer, thank you :o) Pesky (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Not comfortable with 'live' for many reasons (real-life issues mean I am on-call 24/7, apart from anything else, so can get either interrupted or dragged away at short /no notice!) And that insomnia thing can be a real bummer, too ..... I don't have a sleep pattern. I think it's more of a random, surrealist, transmutable, 3D maze. Like something out of one of the original Star Trek epsiodes, maybe? :o) Pesky (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's not 'live' like that; it's just text; there's a number of people in that 'channel' (== room), just a few other Wikipedians I know. And often someone will ask a question, or say something...and it'll be answered an hour or two later. It's nothing hectic; people come, go, as they see fit. I recommend giving it a whirl; it really is harmless. But, each to his/her own, of course.
<outdent> I might look at it. Maybe. I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure about that, and all that stuff, springs to mind! Pesky (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
A task force must be created to examine the worthiness of this task force. Maybe an additional mailing list would help. See also this. Killiondude (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with advice about translations on my talk page.
I'm going to take your advice about the photos too, and see if I can move them and place them more like the example you showed me.
I'm going to get my article translated offline and then post it in each language myself. One thing, if I may... You kindly linked to all the separate language Wiki pages, but its not clear to me how to create a new article in each one. Is there a common link I should look for for doing that?
Thanks again. Surrealist lover (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
They all work the same way, but of course it really helps to know the language.
For example, let's look at French Wikipedia - if you go there, you're already logged in, right? So, at the top of the page, you should see: "Surrealist lover Page de discussion Préférences...etc?
So, if you click on your user name there - "Surrealist lover" - you'll get to your user page, ie fr:Utilisateur:Surrealist lover - and it'll say the page does not exist ("Wikipédia ne possède pas de page utilisateur avec ce nom").
You can create the page - Créez la page.
Then, you'll be in the edit screen ("Modification de Utilisateur:Surrealist lover").
You could create a link there to a non-existent user-page, by typing - for example - [[Utilisateur:Surrealist lover/draft]] - and save it ("Publier").
You'll then see your user-page with a red link to the (non-existent) subpage, ie Utilisateur:Surrealist lover/draft. You can click that, and make that page (just put "hi" and save it).
And then - you've got a user-space draft page to work on. You can get back to it any time, by clicking your user-name, and following the link to "Utilisateur:Surrealist lover/draft".
You can edit that, and start the French page.
When ready, you'll be able to move it ("Renommer") to make it a live article.
The same applies to any language Wiki. Making a userspace draft is probably the best way to go. And speaking a little of the language is almost essential, for any such editing.
It's been a year since I copied your signature and we had an issue with the link :P, I just wanted to drop you a comment and thank you for letting me take a copy of your work and also helping me fix it. cheers Chzz! (and i wrote all that and signed as ip :P) Rmzadeh ► 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Gosh, time flies.
And - account - aha! I was about to reply with, "Do you have a user account?" etc.
My user page got vandalised! And User:Aspects kindly reverted it for me :o) If the (chose to be anonymous) person who put it there realised that my reaction to it was basically roflmao, they would probably have been very disappointed! Pesky (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why they chose to mark people as Anarcha-feminism fans? Odd. Oh well, best not to wonder, really. People == strange. Anyway - an educational IP thing...in Sydney, Australia. Clearly, your fame is spreading. You could always add a {{User:Eggman64/Userbox/Vandalised}} thingy, for;
vn-over 9000
This user talk page has been vandalizedover 9000 times.
Dear Chzz, it has been a long time since I bothered you for help. But someone (PID 144.52.121.55) put an error in my personal write-up
To: Chzz
From: HEZ (Howard Zimmerman)
I tend to monitor my Watchlist and noted that today someone put an error into the write-up
you were so helpful with. I could see it was with an ID 174.52.121.55
The error put in lists me as an "American Jew" and that as my religion.
That really is not something I would mind if it were accurate. Actually, I do have some
"Jewish blood" but that is not my religion. Originally "religion" had been left blank
and I would prefer that. In actuality, to the extent that I have a religion is it
Protestant (Presbyterian) but don't think it appropriate to list a persons religion.
I looked up "revert" and "undo" but am not really clear on how to do that. hat I tried
didn't work.
Chzz, I hope you are ok these days. It seems that England has the same problem as the U.S.
in budgets. Here in Madison, Wisconsin we have had turmoil with demonstrators. Both here
and (what I read) in England, it seems somewhat reminiscent of the Mid-East. I won't say
too much since I don't know your opinion.
Also, at this point I've written a total of five articles in Wikipedia. The last one on
Mechanstic Organic Photochemistry is not done.
Re. the Howard Zimmerman article - no problem at all, sorting that out. For some reason, the anonymous editor added the category twice - and you removed one copy. I just removed the other - so that's all sorted out now. I will try to keep an eye on the article, for a while - but please, if anything like that happens, do let me know (or use a {{helpme}}, or whatever).
News-wise - yes, England had some protests, over budget cuts. As usual though, to be honest, the media makes a lot of fuss about nothing. A few students threw some cans of paint around, and suchlike; 99%+ were peaceful protesters, with the inevitable small group of idiots who receive inordinate media attention.
Such trivia pales into utter insignificance, in comparison to recent events in Japan. I spent several years there, and have many friends - some from the Sendai area, which is coventrated. The horror is, quite literally, unimaginable, and the news from Japan has somewhat dominated my life recently.
But, enough gloom. I'm really pleased to hear that you're still writing for Wikipedia - and, I hope, you are enjoying it, too?
I wish you all the best and - as always, please don't hesitate to contact me, if I can help with anything. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, Thanks for the help. I agree about Japan. My best former student and his wife are in Tokyo
To: Chzz
From:HEZ (Howard Zimmerman)
Chzz, I agree with your concern about Japan. One of the best postdocs I have had is
Hiizu Iwamura. He and his wife, Michiko, live in Tokyo. Hiizu was of particular help
in my organizing four of the five Pacifichem Symposia and felt he was too old to be
involved in the last one. But his advice has been good throughout.
I waited until the worst was over (I'm not sure that it really is) and then wrote to see
how he was doing. Thus far Tokeyo has been all right. But I think all the electric power
has come from those reactors and that will have a real consequence for a long time. The
problem of contaminated water and food is a problem.
Hiizu had been just about to give a lecture at his university when the earthquake hit. He and
his colleagues did get out of the building which suffered a real crack. The bus service had quit
and he had to walk the 10 km home.
I have one other Japanese former student and friend and have not been able to contact him but
will keep trying.
With such need for energy beyond that from the unstable mid-east, the secondary effect seems to
be the distrust of nuclear power. Here we have people suggesting such things as wind-power and
solar power, not realizing the limited amounts now possible. Anyway, we seem to have a problem
which is not as imminent as Japan's but a real one.
Chzz, as usual, I didn't mean to write so much. Perhaps that is why I can do the various Wikipedia
articles. My intent there is to write about things I know most about and about which there are few
others who are knowledgeable. It is enjoyable.
Any sensible way of getting more people to look at that? Doesn't seem like many people look at redirects for deletion. Perhaps we could do a joint post on ANI (wouldn't violate CANVASS then since we are on opposite "sides" (although in reality of course we are on the same side, that of Wikipedia, but you know what I mean) I think, although it unclear whether it would be welcome on ANI).
I definitely do not recommend ANI. This is such a trivial thing; it's not worth bothering people. I'd suggest just being patient - give it several days. Chzz ► 17:03, 30 March 2011 (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. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Re. the course...I have only just - two days ago - become an "online Ambassador"; therefore, I'd like a little time to get used to the idea, before taking on more students.
I will make a note, and check back on your specific course in a week or two - and if I can help, I certainly will.
I'm sorry I cannot help more directly right now; I hope you understand, and I wish you all the best. Cheers, Chzz ► 11:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I started an April Fool's joke as it's immediately after midnite GMT. Just in case things get ugly early on, can you please keep an eye here for maybe the next hour - and maybe even take part? I've already promised to keep an eye on it and it's obviously not a serious request. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it got speedied and deleted already; I even tried killing the speedy tag and it was immediately replaced to the page. Thought that would be a good user to play the joke with given all the copyvios he had. CycloneGU (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Serious comment: I don't think it's really appropriate to make a joke out of a real person, especially when they're blocked and unable to respond. –Juliancolton | Talk04:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so basically if it's a made up user who doesn't actually exist it's more likely to be accepted? And I thought I was being clever. =/
On another note, my other joke seems to be looking more accepted so far. =) I'm done putting up jokes, that'll be my last one and I'll just laugh at whatever anyone else does now; maybe even participate in any discussion-related ones. CycloneGU (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't around when this was going on; my PC exploded yesterday. Sorry. I'm still at limited capacity, using a terrible old laptop. But a new PC is on-order (10-14 days).
I don't have the exact list of transferred files, but could you do a quick AWB-through and tag them with {{nocommons}} so no one F8's them, which would defeat the whole point of the transfers? Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/03:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)\
Yep; it's one of the things on my to-do list (to fix up those file pages) - it's been slightly delayed, because my PC exploded. I'll do it ASAP though (I'm part-way through configuring another PC) Chzz ► 04:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello I talked with brad and he said that I didn't link my email to my account. Sorry about that. My name is James silvers and my email is (Redacted). I also read that you think we should start our page with information from the Metallica page regarding this issue correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silversj4467 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, and thanks for replying!
Ok, so, tip #1: don't put your email addy on wiki; if you do, you might get lots of spam.
Tip #2, 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. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Now - for the article; sure - it is perfectly OK to copy from another Wikipedia page, as long as you say where it came from - the "BY" part of "CC-BY-SA". So - let me help;
I just created a userspace page, User:Silversj4467/sausages - which you can edit, and do anything you like with.
I copied the section from Metallica - notice, in my "Edit Summary" I said where I'd copied it from; [6] - giving the exact version. That solves all the copyright concerns, because it provides a link back to the exact version of the page it came from.
"sausages" is, clearly, a random title. A userspace page can be called anything; it doesn't matter. It's just a draft - you can edit it, play with it, do what you like.
I also edited your "user page" - that is, User:Silversj4467 - and added a link to that subpage, and some others - I added this;
== My userspace pages ==
*[[User:Silversj4467/sausages]]
*[[User:Silversj4467/test page]]
*[[User:Silversj4467/Anything]]
What that means is, you can easily get to our "sausages" draft, or to the other pages, very easily - by clicking your user name at the top of any Wikipedia page. It makes a section saying;
The other ones (test page, etc) are red links - because they don't exist. You can make 'em if you want, just by clicking on them. Or you can edit your user page and change them!
I know that the above is probably lots of information to take in... -Wikipedia has a sharp learning curve. Once you get it, you get it. And if you don't get something... please ask. That's what I'm here for. Best, Chzz ► 23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, that is very helpful and I will take some time to figure all of this out. We have talked about a lot of this in class, but there is definitely a learning curve.
Silversj4467 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Brad Abel
Hi,
My name is Brad and I just wanted to thank you in advance for your help on this topic. I'll be sure to post any questions or ask for any advice that I have. Thanks again.
Bcca15 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey my name is Eric Cook and I'm in a group with Brad and James. Thanks for helping us with this project. Look forward to working with you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookeri6 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice to meet you, Cookeri6. So - you're in on this Metallica v. Napster lark? Shall I add you to the group, and to my list of mentees? Also: if you want to say hello, go here. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Next time you leave me a message (or anyone else), please put ~~~~ at the end; that'll add your user name, date and time. Cheers, Chzz ► 00:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's both a joke, and not a joke; it represents feelings of atheists, who believe(sic?) they have just as much right to speak of random deities as theists. Or something. In this case, I only threw in the link for a laugh. It's a complicated topic, but certainly an interesting one. See also Russel's teapot. Chzz ► 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
To My76Strat ... Whatever became of this Article Feedback Category? Is this now something that we can add into any article on Wikipedia to get user feedback? Or is it still in some limited / pilot test program, where it can only be added to certain articles (as it was when we first discussed this issue several months ago)? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
Here's another Irony; Does anyone remember this comment in my RfA: "I want to know how much he did versus Joseph Spadaro. Neither my initial look, nor your followup, gave me that info." FWIW My76Strat (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I've no objections re NYBrad (of course; great user). I'd ask for a comprehensive closure statement - but I'm sure he'll do that anyway. The slight difficulty with the close is, that 'No consensus' would be tricky, because the current status (status quo) is unclear. And it isn't all *that* certain that there is consensus. It's just over the 66/33. Then again, several oppose are either weak, or show they're not really talking about the trial as such. Hmm. What's your own thoughts? Chzz ► 05:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think there is consensus if only considering those that commented on the actual proposal as opposed to PC in general. The discussion section is also illuminating in that several of those opposed showed some willingness at short term compromise while the extreme positions didn't get much support. Regardless of the result, we need someone who will read the entire page and produce a comprehensive closing statement instead of just adding up the !votes and saying sorry, not 80%. Newyorkbrad has been off for 2 days, but there's no hurry. I think we should make a request for him to do the close. There hasn't been any objection to this plan on the talk page, so I think we can just do it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad hasn't participated in any of the previous PC polls. Just in case, we should think about a backup plan if he doesn't want to take it on. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. Due consideration of the current undefined 'state of play' must be used, in a closure. I'm confident NYBrad could assess it thoroughly, and hope he'll be able to do so. Hmm...backup? Other arbs, I suppose. But some have been involved. Hmm. Thinking. Chzz ► 07:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Chzz since you seem to be an admin, can you please protect the talk page its getting exhausting playing whack-a-troll, and its late at night where I am and I need sleep! why are trolls attacking it?--Lerdthenerdwiki defender22:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello You propose my page about Brandon Dorman to be deleted, what do you suggest me to do??, I don't know what to add, but I worked in the article most of my day. I think he is important he has illustrated the Fablehaven books, which are very well known, in my country, Argentina, in there it is also in shops (it was been translated to spanish) and is really known, It has also illustrated Goosebumps, whats wrong with the article??, he is important and besides it doesn't affect any one to have it. Thank you--Lcsrns (Talk) 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
We need to see reliable sources giving information about him - not the books. If he's been interviewed in several newspapers, or if there are some reliable news websites with articles about him, then it'd be OK. But I couldn't find any. If the newspapers are in Argentinian, that's fine - it doesn't have to be English. But it does have to be "significant coverage in reliable sources" - see WP:VRS. Chzz ► 23:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It is a reliable source, yes - but it isn't "significant coverage". What more can we say about him, except he illustrated some certain books? Where can we verify any information about him - his birthplace, date-of-birth, education, influences...or anything else? Chzz ► 23:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, there is not much more info only were he studied and a couple of things more, sorry to have wasted your time--Lcsrns (Talk) 23:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry too - and no problem about wasting time; not at all. The main reason for the insistence is, to protect the person - the subject. If we can't find reliable sources, and we allow dubious ones or unreferenced facts, then often people will 'vandalise' the page - adding spurious claims. So it isn't some bureaucratic nonsense; there really is a good reason for the policies. Thanks for being understanding about it.
If you wanted, the article could be moved into your own user-space; then, if ever enough RS are found, it could be reconsidered.
I currently have it in my Workshop, but is a good idea to move it to other subpage, can I move it to User:Lcsrns/Brandon Dorman???? Cheers and thank you--Lcsrns (Talk) 15:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I move it, do I live the redirect?, I erase the redirect so I have a copy in my subpage, but you can't see it if you type Brandon Dorman, Are you Admin??, if you are, can you Delete Brandon Dorman, since know I moved it to a subpage??--Lcsrns (Talk) 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This is Elif, I am assisting TC210 policy course. Just wanted to let you know that I created the talk page for this group. Have you been in touch with them? Let's start communicating about this group. If you need to ask anything you can contact me via my talk page. Let's get this project going! Elifyilmaz (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Elifyilmaz
Hi.
I have been in touch with them. I became online ambassador to Bcca15 and Silversj4467 on 27 March. First, I said "hello" to both [11][12], and I also email Bcca15 to say hello. Silversj4467 doesn't have email enabled.
Bcca15 also responded on this page - #Brad Abel - and I replied, [13].
Then Cookeri6 left a note here, to join the group - see #Eric Cook TC 210.
If you read through that, you'll also see I made a copy of the relevant portion of the Metallica article in User:Silversj4467/sausages, both to demonstrate and suggest they play around with it.
I haven't heard more since then (and they have not edited since). The best thing they could do (I think) is just start editing; Wikipedia is confusing - but it starts to make sense once you click 'edit' and dive it. It's like riding a bike; you can't learn it by reading manuals - you have to just try it.
Those would likely be deleted, because that is the namespace for talk pages of live articles - and no article exists, so they fall under speedy deletion G8. So, I have moved them to;
Thanks much! I am glad that you are in touch with them, I just wanted to check in with you. Hopefully they will soon start editing. Elifyilmaz (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Elifyilmaz
Hi. I have undone your redirect because that (large-S) version is now not used anywhere, I'd be interested to have the boffins check to see why it misbehaves, and it is possible (if unlikely) that Imadjafar actually had a plan for it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I have respect for you here, I thought I'd take the liberty of noting here myself that mediation has been initiated by Beeblebroxhere listing you among the most involved parties. I myself am also making it a point to be active there as I am quite interested in the outcome as an early user of Pending Changes in June, and having tried it at different points throughout the trial.
On an unrelated note, I made a risque observation elsewhere; now Kingpin13 think I called a clique of users terrorists. I really oughta make better and more carefully worded observations.
NEway, I hope the mediation actually proves to be helpful; mediator involvement in the discussion can only help it for both sides, I hope. CycloneGU (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Personally, I don't know why we're splitting the argument over yet another forum - but of course, I will happily explain any and all actions I've taken. Chzz ► 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This caught me by surprise, too. I think the reason Beeblebrox started this was because of the following comment (I mention it above, it's mine) at a talk page:
Heck, I wonder if anyone's made any comparison of the staunch objectors to a hostage situation (I originally said terrorist group but crossed it off as the wrong term). Think about it: "If you do not hand over 10 million dollars, this fella here bites the bullet." In this case, the captive is PC itself, and those in support of it are like the government agency receiving the threat. This is entirely extreme, but the debate over PC has been going almost like that: "turn it off or we won't talk". Again, this does not mean a certain view on my part, it's just an observation.
He replied about a half hour later, and then Kingpin took offense to the comment (it said terrorist group instead of hostage situation at the time) and claimed I had made a personal attack. Definitely wasn't my intention, I should be more careful in my wording in the future. I left the words crossed off to indicate I had originally said it and didn't intend to hide anything. But Beeblebrox used it to start the new discussion. I'm open to any avenue that can lead to a proper consensus. I know Nick was thinking being involved as a mediator at the RfC itself might be the best possible thing for his part instead of at a separate mediation page, but Kingpin later mentioned that someone else had been asked to mediate. I wasn't even aware of this until today myself. My concern then becomes was the mediator selected by proponants of one side and is the mediator thus leaned to that side? (I do not know which people were involved in selecting the mediator, obviously.) As I do not know the user in question, I obviously presume good faith and that a neutral position on his part is still in place.
Update: looks like Nick has agreed on his talk page that mediation through that channel can be struck at this time. CycloneGU (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You're probably watching it, but will provide another update: looks like it's back on. Newyorkbrad and another uninvolved admin. are merely determining consensus in the RfC, not mediating to an eventual overall outcome. Nick's updated the mediation page now. CycloneGU (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Well that was certainly a disaster, for lack of a better word. What now? Do you agree with my assessment that trying to rewrite everything might be a good next step? Or should we go in an entirely different direction? CycloneGU (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
We should wait for the current RfC to close and take up Chzz on the offer of tea. There are thousands of teas, I'm sure we can find something to your liking. Putting forward anything new so shortly after a spectacular flame-out is usually not wise. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I already added WP:COCOA to the links to the page. I got the drink covered. Though personally I prefer a Coke in heated situations. I'm going to bed now in any case, I'll check in on the talk page at the request for comment sector in the morning. CycloneGU (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Really appreciate the help. Now that you've taught me that an image can be used with the link and how to do it, I've uploaded a different form of button by taking a screengrab of the button placed by <inputbox> (because I think I looks very polished). Just so you know, I'm working on a proposal to get rid of the entire hangon process by placing this button in the speedy deletion templates themselves. See {{Db-meta/sandbox2}} where I've used the new button with your imagemap. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I've just experimented, and found something simpler, which works - not bothering w/ image map;
It's great but I don't get why that works when I could swear I tried the same thing yesterday and it didn't work. My last post to you at the help desk was that I had tried the following code:
<center>'''[[File:Button contest speedy.gif|link=[{{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|action=edit§ion=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+article+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+}}]]'''</center> Other than the bolding and centering they're the same I think. Hmm.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep; I should have noticed that myself - but I knew of the other way (imagemap) because I used in on my 'talkback' thingy User:chzz/tb. So...well, yeah. Anyway. All good. Chzz ► 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
So sorry about all that...
Hi Chzz,
So sorry about all that. It all made sense, in context (and I gave GW permission to share our correspondence with any administrator, so if you're interested how then get in touch with her or me by email) - but at the same time, certain aspects of my behaviour were completely unacceptable on wiki, no matter how much I thought they made sense at the time. I'm going to refrain from editing for the rest of this evening to reflect, but I thought, particularly given the timing of everything, that you were owed a personal apology.
Thanks. Sounds fine - except...I'm not an admin :-) Maybe you could give GW permission to tell me, specifically? That'd be great, just to clear the air - if you don't mind. I assure you, I will keep it utterly confidential. But if not, it's really no worries - as long as it has all been sorted out, I'm quite happy to accept that. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi - if GW is reading this, then I'm happy for her to discuss anything she likes with you - or basically any wiki user in good standing (although 99% are unlikely to care :D) - but nevertheless have emailed you with... well, you know what I've emailed you with!
But please, don't keep trying to redirect the sandbox; it won't help, and you might be blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks, Chzz ► 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Input please.
Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussuion of a film-before-its-filming would per policy merit inclusion in some manner, or per GNG even merit a seperate article. Please look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offer your insights. Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I will, when I get the time. My brief opinion is, that excess sub-guides are unnecessary, as GNG should and does apply. If lots of people are writing about it (RS), then it deserves an article; if not, it doesn't. And that can apply to a movie, a planet, a person or a sausage, etc. Chzz ► 13:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
OK - I did read through it; I think it would be fine as an essay. My personal opinion is 'as above' - I don't see much point in singling out future films (as opposed to a future book, a future TV show, a future building, a future concert, etc) - and I think GNG covers it fine.
The only real problem is, that a lot of people misunderstand what we mean by 'notable' - and think that, because they happen to consider something notable, it is clearly wikipedia-notable, which is an invalid assumption. Once again, it all comes down to the basics. Anyway - best of luck with it. Chzz ► 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Chzz. Vidkun Quisling is my latest target for GA status, though I haven't quite finished it. Still, it should be finished within the next week to fourteen days, and I have until the end of the month to get it reviewed. I thought your last review was so good I wondered if you'd mind doing the honours again, but this time spread out over a fortnight :P . What do you think? Or should I find someone else? (I ask, because if the latter I need to start looking soon). Regards, - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]20:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I do, of course, have other things I've promised to do. Let me have a look - and I'll tell you within 48 hours. Cheers, Chzz ► 22:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Having looked, and thought about it...
I'm really sorry, Jarry1250, but I won't have time to start that GAR for at least two weeks - therefore, I wanted to let you know ASAP, so you can find another reviewer. Sorry; I've just got too many on-wiki commitments. If you don't manage to find anyone in a few weeks, please ask me again.
Okay, thanks for looking anyway :) Yes, I knew about the lead. It's still the original one from when the article was about 7 times smaller :P Regards, - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]08:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Simon Corry page
Hello Chzz
I lost connection a while ago and so apologies if this is a duplicate.
I write to express my disappointment at your comments on the Simon Corry deletion talk page as although the entry was under discussion as required for autobiographies I can assure you that all information about me had been double checked and there are no 'claims' on the page. If you are aware of any I will be most grateful if you can list these on the deletion talk page so that I can follow them up as they and their source would be of interest to me.
I can provide verification in the for information on the Simon Corry page.
Regarding the bands I or someone else will probably want to suggest an article on this at some stage as it has quite an interesting history with links to Ben Folds Five, Metalheadz, Uriah Heap and more. As far as I know I am the only source of information on the web about it, so please don't hesitate to ask. I can probably obtain written confirmation of my keyboard performances if all the videos have been deleted.
I have tear-sheats for the publications and catalogues/gallery guides for the exhibitions except for Les Rencontres Internationales D'Arles which is quite hard to obtain and I will appreciate if anybody else can source this.
For verification on collectors you may wish to contact my agents whose details I can supply if necessary.
I hope this may help to re-instate at least some of the article or at least my user page.
Hey Chzz. I got my list of users for Wiki Guides, and ChzzBot has been assigned to me. So I figure I'd just get you to ask it a couple questions. Is it happy with its Wikipedia experience so far? Has the foundation been keeping it well oiled and its batteries fresh (or is it a diesel?) Tell it if it ever gets down, it can come talk to me about its problems. The Interior(Talk)00:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
As part of this, I'd like to offer to nominate ChzzBot for adminship; as a programming construct, it cannot be biased or subjective, and will thus be much appreciated at AfD. Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I am content with my Wikipedia experience, I do not understand "happy".
The Foundation has not, to date, supplied me with anything.
I would be honoured to accept nomination as an admin, but at this stage, I feel that I lack the appropriate prerequisite credentials. I will endeavour to create a GA, and to be more active in AfD etc. ChzzBot ► 03:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to talk to User:MSGJ about an admin action he took to remove the pending discussion notice without consensus and he seems to not want to reply, he is your your friend isn't he? if he is can you please ask him to respond to my request, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know MSGJ on any personal level - only via Wikipedia. We've exchanged to odd email, but nothing much. Chzz ► 20:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, he was the person that nominated you for your request for administration that was rejected for sockpuppet/meatpuppet issues, the user has never commented at all in the pending protection discussion and jumped up and removed the community notice in regards to pending protection, you do understand why I should ask you this question? do you talk to the user on IRC? Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It's fine to ask the question, of course - no worries. Yes, he nom'd me for admin, etc, sure. I do know him, as a Wikipedia editor - but no better than I know you, or many others. I don't think I've ever spoken to him over IRC; I don't think he 'does' IRC.
No thanks - if you didn't ask him to remove the community notice and have not been in off wiki discussion with him then even if he nominated you for adminship he is as unlikely to reply to you as me. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope, I definitely didn't ask him anything relating to that. I've actually not been keeping up w/ the PC stuff for the past few days - I've been busy doing other things - Ambassador, Wiki Guide, the wikify drive, and lots of other stuff. I keep trying to look at it, but I've been so busy. Actually, I'll try and have a look what is happening now. Chzz ► 20:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Having recently asked Martin a question on his talk page, and having just gone back there, I happened to notice the exchange and followed it here. I just thought you should know Rob that before your message, at 07:35, April 2, 2011, Martin, who appears to be normally a highly active daily editor, changed his status template, which is transcluded at the top of his talk page, to say "Martin is currently in Gò Công in Vietnam and may not respond promptly to messages left here, if at all." And didn't make a single edit until April 7, when he made two minor edits and has not edited since.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw his in Vietnam edit - but he still had the interest to make the edit that I have requested him to comment on after changing his status. diff - Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be saying he should have had twenty-twenty hindsight to know that if he made such an edit soon before leaving for the airport, it would occasion a post which he should answer. His last edit on April 2, 2011 was at 10:57 a.m. Your edit to his talk page of the same day was about 11 hours later at 22:38. The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I know if he would have responded to your message or ignored you if he was around, but all indications are that he was at 20,000 feet when you first edited his talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he has replied to other queries but not to mine. Its too late to address his administrative actions now so this issue is a bit dated - after he removed the community notice uninvolved comments vanished. User Chzz has answered my query that he did not request this action or contact the user and that was my question. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Guidance Barnstar
This Guidance Barnstar is awarded to User:Chzz for providing much-appreciated guidance helping a fellow editor navigate the treacherous subtleties of Wikipedia and managing to come up with a B-class article and A DYK. Jessy(talk)(contribs) • 16:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Monkeylegend
The IP was clearly Monkeylegend evading his block, so I've gone ahead and soft-blocked the IP. It's not Brexx. It feels eerily familiar, though. My brain is trying to remember a Guadalajara-based disruptive editor. It'll come to me in my sleep.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Christ, and here's me thinking I am paranoid! You dream of socks? Heh. But yes, I know what you mean. Thanks, as always. I'm glad my own memory was good enough to remember to ask you. Best, Chzz ► 04:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
titirangi theatre article
thank you for checking out my article-
I'll take on board your advice and look at getting some external references.
Your advice is much appreciated!
Macsnapper (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Chzz,
Could you please be my mentor. I am a very new user to Wikipedia and would really like it if I don't make any mistake that could get my account or my edits disrupted. Thanks. mauchoeagle 20:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, Could you take a look at this for me. Thanks. mauchoeagle20:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! Welcome.
I'm always happy to help any user. I don't sign up any official "mentor" things, but...just ask me, here, anything you like - any time. I added help on refs, on your talk - because I noticed a small problem with them in User:MauchoEagle/Fiber analysis...maybe you wanted to add footnotes or something? There's no need to use the 'group' thing, unless you want to separate out 'notes' from 'references' or something like that. Let me know. Cheers! Chzz ► 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
How to chat live
Hope this makes sense; if you need help etc, leave me a note here, or talk to us live.
Hi. I am finally getting around to this. I tried that "chat live" feature, but it does not seem to work. Any idea why? I downloaded that Java program (like four different times). Still, no luck. Any thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC))
Styron is mentioned as a Pulitzer winner in Wikipedia under "Pulitzer Prize, Fiction,1968". Just for my own use, is that considered a "reliable sourse", or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.224.125 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that several editors have various userboxes posted on their user pages. For example, see User:Bbb23. I was wondering ... where can I find these different types of user boxes and their corresponding templates? Does Wikipedia have a comprehensive page that shows all of the various userboxes available? How do I go about finding these? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
And I have a follow-up question already. Does an editor individually create these user boxes (tailored to suit their own needs)? Or are there some "pre-made" boxes that anyone can use? I assume that a user can create his own individual box. But, I also assume that there are some of the "pre-made" variety (because I have seen similar ones on several different editors' pages). So, I'd like to locate the "pre-made" ones, if possible. I am hoping they are all listed on one comprehensive Wikipedia page listing somewhere. Or is that wishful thinking ... and I'd actually have to go hunting all over the place to find these things? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
Please do not my article for deletion with no reason. That seems offensive and now I will never post a "Help me" tag again. I thought that was disrespectful to post up for deletion. Please post the reason why. I asked for help not for a deletion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbum98 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I can understand that you are annoyed - but it is absolutely nothing personal.
I nominated it because, after searching the internet, I was unable to find any 'reliable sources' - for example, there are no entries in the Google News archives [17].
Articles must show "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" - such as newspapers, books, or websites such as CNN News or other reputable publications.
Again - I am sorry - but please, remember, nobody owns an article - anyone can edit. And in order to keep Wikipedia great, we have to make sure things are verifiable. I hope you will understand.
What I did was absolutely nothing to do with your use of a {{helpme}}. If you have any questions, I suggest you use one of those - any time. Best, Chzz ► 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the reason why I did not have any books, or news articles as a source because the series is not a huge thing. I just needed an article to make, and I found an episode. I searched on "Google" and found as much reference I could find, (Some descriptions the creator used, emails to the "Fever Studios" and "Floppy films") Both of the groups I discovered are not a real studio. I also watched the episodes and asked some people about their description. I also contacted the creator. I also seen that there was a deletion notice deleted because I thought I solved the problem. I am not angry though, just confused. Also how would I find out the opinion of either deleting the article or keeping it is? Have a nice day!Thomasbum98 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98
Wikipedia only has articles about 'notable' subjects, which have good coverage in reliable sources. So when creating a new article, the first thing to do is, look for such sources. Have a look at WP:VRS. Information from the creator, and from emails, is not enough to show notability.
The deletion discussion will be there for around 7 days, during which time others can state their opinion. After 7 days, someone will evaluate the consensus and decide if it should be deleted or not.
Hi Chzz, the previous wikification drives had the number of words count in the leaderboard. I do not know why it has been removed. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: Childproofing Afd
I just wanted to say that I think this was a good nomination even if the article was kept. Looking at the pile on keep votes I didn't want to give the impression I disagreed with it being nominated at all. I'm going to take a stab at the article proper, see if it can be expanded beyond a stub. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the bot is inserting the wrong template in the tutorial sandboxes, see [18] (same thing on other tutorial sandboxes). It even edit-warred with an IP which added back the tutorial sandbox template.
Also, could you make the bot handle WP:Introduction ? We had agreed with HJ Mitchell that it could be unprotected (so that new users can see the edit button) if a bot replaced the header (otherwise it's too much maintenance).
The first, every so often, clears the sandbox with a standard header.
The second runs all the time, making sure there is a header. Until just now, it looked for these;
"{{Sandbox heading}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading)}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (Sandbox heading)}}",
"{{Sandbox heading/noedit}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading)/noedit}}",
"{{Sandbox header (do not remove)}}",
"{{PLTLA (SH)}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)/noedit}}",
I just modified the code to add this;
"Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading)"
That means, it will no longer add in {{Sandbox heading}} if that one exists.
You can note that new version, because its updates will include '(my ref:Sandbot1 ce)' (which I just put in, for 'Ceranium'). Example [19].
Note: it avoids 'edit war' (to an extent) by refusing to edit a specific sandbox more than once every 'x' minutes (currently, 5)
There are problems; the sandboxes header links I listed are all redirects to the standard one. {{Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading)}} is not one of those.
It is difficult to code for 'any reasonable sandbox heading'. Someone could put {{Please leave this line alone FUCK YOU PETER!! LULZ}}".
I can check for whatever, but please advise.
As regards the introduction, the 'talk sandboxes' and template X sandboxes - I will try to work on that, ASAP. Please give me several days, and I will do what I can.
Thank you for alerting me to the issue; please let me know if there is anything further I can do.
The tutorial sandbox templates are different of the standard sandbox template. Could the bot not add the specific tutorial sandbox template on the tutorial sandboxes ? I suppose if it can't we could modify the templates so that the appropriate versions appear depending on the pagename. If you do the introduction, it's template:Please leave this line alone, also different. I suppose reasonable headers should be added as they come. ps: it's Cenarium, not Ceranium :) Cenarium (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course, it can do that. Give me some days (week?) and I will work on that.
Apologies re. name; really; I endeavour to take care over such things. For some reason, I got it into my head as 'Ceranium', but that is only through feeble association with Cerebellum and Cranium, and indeed my own lack in those areas. Sorry. Best, Chzz ► 23:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for participating as a Help Desk regular. I would like to point out that your use of {{imbox}} is not appropriate. That template is an image message box and rather intrusive for the Help Desk. We have a series of templates at {{HD}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Please could you clarify why the use is inappropriate? I firstly copied from the edit notice, and then thought it better to use an alternative format, so that it did not span the page width - and appeared clearer on the page; so, I used expandtemplates to check the appearance; the notice itself used mbox, and upon checking the doc, I thought the imbox variant of that was most appropriate. In placing it as a box, I was a) emphasizing the repetition (that it was clear from posting originally), and b) emphasizing same to other people reading that page.
I disagree. There was no 'discussion' - the specific query was answered with my single post; thus there was no disruption caused. The notification I employed was clearer than the 'standard' {{HD/rd}} - it was more tailored to the specific query, it was clearer, and gave additional information. Chzz ► 05:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Free Hetherington
Hi Chzz
Could you pop over and have a wee look at this - I think that there is a biased person over there atm changing things and that edit wars may ensue. Cheers, LD — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDiotima (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure! A couple of minor things;
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. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Please, when you refer to an article or talk page, or whatever - link it; so put [[Free Hetherington]] or [[Talk:Free Hetherington#Free Hetherington]] or whatever, so it makes wikilinks, ie Free Hetherington, Talk:Free Hetherington#Free Hetherington
Sorry - but both those things save me, and others, a lot of time working out what the question is.
Now - re. Free Hetherington - I'm not quite sure what you mean; I see lots of edits, but I'm not convinced there is a problem as such, as of now.
If there are one or two user adding unreferenced claims, then the best approach is to warn them to stop it, and - if necessary, ask for them to be blocked.
If there's several, and things get hot, then the page could be temporarily protected - see WP:RPP.
Note: Both of those are actions that you, I, or any other editor can do.
Thanks - sorry, I try to remember to sign, but I sometimes forget. I appreciate your help - I'm new to all this and not wanting to do things wrong LadyDiotima (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for 'signing' :-) No apology necessary at all. Please ask, any time. The trick is, to balance being bold with appropriate caution - so, if in any doubt, please ask - me, or others. Cheers, Chzz ► 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
ChzzBot II
Just a quick request for you: could you make sure that ChzzBot II is logging its actions to User:ChzzBot II/log instead of just "ChzzBot II/log"? Bot logs should be in the bot's own userspace rather than in articlespace. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
...I shouldn't have responded to that ANI incident while I was angry. Thanks to your cooler head for prevailing. It appears to have blown over, thank goodness. What a night. :/ --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to upload an image to the company wikipage for Albright Stonebridge Group, of which I am the author. I've read the tutorials and am still somewhat confused, so any help would be appreciated. The logo can be seen at www.albrightstonebridge.com in the upper left hand corner.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarinow (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It appears to have been added, a short time after you asked this question [21]. Let me know if you have any other questions, cheers, Chzz ► 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Henderson Street article
Hi Chzz,
First off, I wanted to say thanks for all your help and input with my Henderson Street article so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson_Street
I've tried to tidy up the refs (as you outlined) as best I could. Hopefully, it looks better now...
I wanted to ask about a couple more things I'm hoping you can help with:
Co-ordinates:
I was wondering why is it - when I check my co-ordinates on a google map - other wiki articles show up with a W symbol but mine doesn't...? What do I need to do to get an icon for my article on the map? Can you point me in the right direction please?
Categories:
Also, I was thinking over the orphan tag and wondering if adding a few more categories at the bottom would help...
I'm not sure what other categories it would be acceptable to add the article to though.
Here's some ideas I had but I'm not sure of their suitability:
Social history?
Victorian architecture?
Victorian era?
1880s in Scotland?
Listed Buildings in Edinburgh? If I add to something like listed buildings or Category A/B/C listed buildings...assumably my whole article would get linked to that category and maybe that isn't acceptable unless I create direct links to the individual listed buildings mentioned within the article (and I'm not even sure how to do this or if it's an ok thing to do)?
Or, maybe, instead of adding new categories, I should add a section listing other wiki articles on other streets and features in the area?
What do you think? Hoping you can help....
Photo Layout:
Finally, re the photos, I'd like to try and reorganise these a bit. I understand why you right aligned all of them(if that's standard wiki formatting) but I'd originally tried to lay them out so that they sat in sections of the article relevant to what the image showed.... I'm a bit surprised by why wiki allows you to left align and force the sizes, if you're not supposed to do it. I also found quite alot of other articles (including feature ones) where the images are left alligned and some have forced (px) sizes so I'm confused by this one!
Would it be ok, for example, to realign some of them to the left, as long as they are not at the top of sections and to, at least, resize (force) the one of the lamppost and make it smaller - as it now looks massive in comparison to the rest of them....
Any suggestions that could help achieve a bit of a compromise with this one would be great....
Anyway, when/if you get a chance, it'd be great to get some feedback from you on any of the above!
Once again, thanks so much for your help interest,
Lisa Lisaseventyfive (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The refs definitely look better!
Google maps - I'm sorry, I don't know; it'll be something that Google do - but I don't know how they pick up and link articles, or how you request it. It's something you'd need to ask for help in Google Maps; it's not a wikipedia-thing (directly).
Check the featured article, Gropecunt Lane for ideas on all these things.
Cats - don't be worried about over-adding. If there's duplication, or unnecessary cats, someone will work it out. That FA is in 'History of England' and 'History of London' - therefore, how about Category:History of Scotland and Category:History of Edinburgh maybe?
It is OK to have photos on the left, but not at the top of a section. It is also important not to 'sandwich' text between two images, which can happen if you have 2 quite close-together. And remember that some people have smaller screens. Also, in this regard, the infobox at the top, and that quotation, are structured in divisions - so the text shouldn't be 'sandwiched' between those and an image, either.
As for forced-size pictures...it is a bit debatable, but usually they shouldn't be forced size without a pretty good reason - usually, for some image with text that can be read if made a little bigger than normal. I see what you mean about the lamp-post, so yes - sure - go ahead and change it; I just removed the force size from all, for speed, really. Check MOS:IMAGES. (and remember that, whilst often useful for ideas, FA's can be 'wrong' too!)
The main thing I recommend though, is, try to get a peer review - it can take a while, but at least list it there - and it'd be good to get others to look.
...speaking of which...maybe I know a couple of other editors who can check this over and either make changes, or suggest things; I'll ask them if they can look it over. And if I get more time myself, I'll look over it again too. Cheers! Chzz ► 20:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to say - thanks for the RA nomination and thanks for sending Pesky my way - he did some good bits of tidying up. I'm still playing about with photos in preview - bit of a nightmare. Can't seem to avoid the stacking I've now got cause I end up with 'sandwich'ing like you said. Am beginning to work out what you mean about problems from various browser types for viewing...Also depending on whether TOC is hidden or visible, stuff moves around... I'll have to have another think and come back to it.
I had a look at the peer review thing, like you suggested. Looks like lots of articles there already have 'Good Article' status though so, is it worth trying to get a peer review if it isn't even classed as a GA? Cheers again Lisaseventyfive (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep; image alignment is a tricky business - mostly, the trick is to resist the temptation of trying to do too much - ie, 'keep it simple'. There is a page, Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links - but that just emphasizes how fiddly it can get, really. Best to stick to fewer images which help illustrate, and if there are more, link to Commons where you can have hundreds of pics if you want - use {{commonscat}}.
PR - it is often used by people working towards GA or FA, but not exclusively so. It'd be fine to list your there - I recommend doing so; just don't hold your breath, as it might be month/s before someone actually reviews it, unfortunately. Chzz ► 14:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Henderson Street
Hi again Chzz,
Thanks for all the advice and suggestions!
Will look into them in detail and get working on some when I get a chance tomorrow!
Cheers!Lisaseventyfive (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Need Referral to Good Admin for Possible Sanctions
Hey Chzz! I'm a fan of yours, and know how helpful you are. I've been reviewing new changes in the spirit of doing more general housekeeping and spreading my efforts around a bit. I notice that a particular IP user (217.129.65.5) has been repeatedly warned - like 10 times - for disruptive edits and edit summaries. He is back at it again! Could you recommend someone I could take this to, or can you? Stupid stuff like this TICKS ME OFF. Hope things are well with you. TTYL/TUVM!\
The user I mentioned above sent me an IMMEDIATE and very nice reply, expressing his regrets and willingness to do his best to improve. Told him I would immediately let you know of this, and I have kept that promise. Thanks very much for your help! Hey, you have been GREAT every time I have dumped an extra "mission" on you (your mission number 4,567 out of 6,952 - LOL). You and Doc James and WhatamIdoing are some hard-working folks. I admire you a lot - for what that's worth.
The Helping Hand Barnstar
To Chzz, with gratitude, for helping me RIGHT NOW and EVERY TIME Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk a/k/a "Uploadvirus") 02:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, this is over with; an IP and user was blocked for 24 hours for disrupting the project, and that is all. If they don't do it again, all is well. Thanks, everyone, for your understanding. Nothing more to see here, move along... Chzz ► 03:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, well, you maybe might want to take a look at the parenthetical response he made to g4foley ... or maybe not. Sorry 2 bother you man.
I saw it; that's OK. I see no imminent danger to our Encyclopaedia; if I do (in the future), I'll do something. If you notice something I miss, let me know. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Chzz - I also posted a "WTF?" to Mlpearc for the revert/blank thing. Just FYi, sir.
Eye Dysagre strahnglee ... Noh whey! ...And we will leave it there! Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC).
I honestly don't know, other than that Sophie (talk·contribs) was blocked by Risker (talk·contribs), with the comment Please contact Arbcom with relation to this block. That being the case, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. Sorry. Chzz ► 15:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Back from the dead
Hi there CHZZ, VASCO here,
My suspension is over, i have returned, will try to amend my ways even harder this time (don't know if you read the "copy" of the message i sent User:Uploadvirus or not, probably not; there, i explained my medical issues which, hopefully will if not justify most of my antics, assuage "the general feellings" that some may have towards me).
Still about Upload, i hope you are not as offended as him with some of the contents in my message to User:Gfoley4 (the stuff in parenthesis), there i was merely venting my frustration on being (rightfully) blocked, which did not allow for my fight against vandalism (can't do much blocked, can i?). I have had people come to my page and call me every name in the book, just for reporting their vandalic ways, one "chap" was on my case for almost one year, reverting my daily edits and so...I was in no way offensive to Foley.
That said (and i have also messaged Foley and Virus with this note), sorry for any incovenience and keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back. I did see the other posts, yes. I also noticed your return, and you fixing some football articles (about an hour ago) - great.
As long as it is all sorted out, that's fine. You were blocked for valid reasons, to prevent disruption to Wikipedia - note, blocks are never to 'punish', they're only to protect the project from harm. The block has expired, so, we're all done. No hard feelings whatsoever.
That explains my lack-of-response too (re. "did not receive one word in feedback" [23]) - there was nothing else needed saying. That also explains my archiving the thread from this page to User talk:Chzz/Archive 30#Need Referral to Good Admin for Possible Sanctions. To prevent drama - if something is dealt with, it's dealt with.
So - it's all resolved; it's past history. Let's go edit something. I wish you all the best, and hope you can be extra-super-careful in edit summaries, in which case there should be no further problem. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick and friendly reply mate! Yes, i was a bit dramatic in my message to Cliff (the bit where i refer to you), i offer my apologies again. Man, bipolar or not, i should learn that the world does not revolve around me, and yes...LET'S EDIT SOMETHING! Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Chzz:
Let me say that Vasco and I have corresponded and I too AM GLAD ALL THIS IS OVER. I hate this kinda stuff. I told Vasco I might indeed have overreacted, particularly with regard to my wording and tone ... which sure would not be all that unusual for me, particularly given all I got going on in the real world. Anyway, just wanted to say "thanks" to you, and best wishes, and hope to see you around.
Chzz, I had not made any edits because i was catching up on Wikipedia policies. Is it ok if I copy and paste an article I have been working on in a subpage of yours so you can take a quick look at it before I publish it. Cheers. mauchoeagle20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, should be there. Mind taking a look for me. I have been reading policy an the references I have meet guidelines, eh. mauchoeagle20:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Pretty good; a few comments;
It would be better to add a couple more references, if possible. I generally suggest a minimum of three, to avoid notability issues. Maybe a few facts from newspapers? Google news archives might turn something up with a bit of a search, e.g. [24] (ie looking through, or using more creative search terms) - or, are there offline newspaper sources that mention him?
I see that the article is now live, as Robert Cross (mayor). Articles can improve over time; references do not have to be websites - in fact, often the best references are newspaper articles or books. I do not know any specific sources for articles about this person - as I said, I suggest searching Google News archives, or maybe looking to offline news sources. Best of luck, Chzz ► 15:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Re PEPID
Copyright permission was sent over and I requested that my user name be changed. How long does this process generall take? Below is a copy of our original correspondance and below that is a copy of email corespondace regarding the copyright permission;
The first was just blanked, as in it had its content removed. I undid that and placed a label indicating permission has been received. The article should be reviewed shortly. The other actually was deleted, but I have put in a request for it to be restored. I put a notice on the article's talk page noting that permission has been received.
Once accepted, the change of name usually happens within days.
Re. the draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PEPID - the permission has been received and noted, and that is no longer a problem; however, the other issues noted on that page remain - that it is 'advert-like', and relies too much on primary sources instead of independent reliable sources (such as newspapers or books; but not PR)
You can try to improve it, and when ready, there are instructions (in the coloured box at the top) on how to resubmit it.
I really strongly recommend that you edit some other articles - something you do not have any conflict of interest with. You'd soon learn more about Wikipedia by doing so, which would help greatly with the difficult issue of writing about a company you are involved in. See User:Keegan/Butterfly.
I know there is a way I should be linking this to an earlier discussion on your talk page but I couldn't seem to find anything when I searched history....hence another new entry -sorry!
Just to say, thanks very much for getting the article sorted for Did You Know... That's brilliant, very exciting! Cheers!
There's been so much activity on editing the page, I can hardly keep up with what's been going on!
(BTW I think I can fix most of the stuff you had to take out by including better citations but I'll get them all organised and run it past you before I put stuff back).
Thanks again Lisaseventyfive (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The linking - it's absolutely fine. As you can see, my talk page gets very busy - so, apologies, but yes, I put the previous stuff in the 'archive'.
Unfortunately, because I did that just 2 hours ago, the search at the top ('where has my message gone?' doesn't work (as of now - it will later). The servers seem to be a bit slow. But, it is in User talk:Chzz/Archive 30.
I'm glad you are pleased - and yes, it does sometimes get a bit hectic. The secret is, not to panic :-) The article might get more attention when featured - but that's generally a good thing, over all; it should become a better article for it.
First, we are "mates", so call me Cliff, not Mr. Knickerbocker. Second, I am NOT random - as you well know, I am "pseudo-random" :-)
Now, for the important stuff. I will, of course, do what I can to help your mentees. That said, my knowledge of the two areas is not great, to say the least. I am going to start with a welcome, then a quick general copyedit.
Because time is short, I will keep you advised of where things stand on at least a daily basis. I will post on article and mentee talk page(s). Let me know how things are going, or if you have anything specific, as soon as is convenient for you. Thanks for the opportunity to become involved with this very worthwhile project - and for your confidence (misplaced though it may be, to some extent).
Just so you know for the future, if you see any behavior like the kind exhibited by User:99.95.168.126, it is User:Timmy Polo, who was banned from Wikipedia for adding superfluous plot details to articles after being told not to, overall incompetence and stupidity, and sockpuppetry. I revoked his talk page access because of his continued abuse of unblock requests (lying about his name in every one of them, which I find odd since we do not care about real names here). Eagles24/7(C)23:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I put my comments into the Discussion of each article.
I couldn't help much with the Brazil article since it is out of my field of expertise.
I did put in, which I hope is helpful and correct, how to use one references throughout
an article.
The second article on the California proposition has been of some interest to me although
I had not followed all the details of the article. I did see what looked like one aspect
missing, namely whether there was any influence by the Mexican Cartels. One other point was
that I had been unaware that that there had been an earlier law prohibiting the sale; in that
case it wasn't clear how a new proposition would be affected.
Hi! Thanks so much for asking. I'm limiting my time here since my real life is becoming busier, but that sort of mentoring and helping is right up my alley and the sort of work I'd like to do more of here. Yes, please do keep me in mind and I'll shoot over to those articles and do my two cents' worth when I have enough time to devote to it. Thanks again! PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, and welcome. I've replied to this on the talk page of the article, which is the Talk:Ganges. It is you who are edit-warring, not others - because it was you who made the change. Whilst we encourage bold changes, when others disagree with you, it is necessary to stop, and discuss things. Thanks, Chzz ► 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Jill Farren Phelps Article
Wow, do your homework before you censor! I wrote none of the content for Jill Farren Phelps. I was simply mopping up horrifying sentence structure, serious grammar issues, and basic mechanics. You shut me down for biased POV? I actually added several "reportedly," etc. You restored an earlier version (original) that is more biased than my many edits for clarity and readability. If you have a problem with the article, shut the fucker down, but don't revert back to the unreadable entries prior to my edits. I was just having some fun with re-writes. I don't even watch soaps. I happened across this horrendous display of quasi-literacy and wanted to give it some shine. And then you had to come along, raise your skirt, and piss all over it.
Next time you do that, check the edits a little more carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.124.239 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 April 2011
Hi there. Thanks for discussing it.
In your edits, you added various information about a living person which did not have a reference to a reliable source - and that is why I remove it.
For example, you wrote, Ms. Phelps acting lead to many longtime viewers becoming alienated from the show, about the most criticized story lines, of slumping ratings, that quality began to suffer and so forth. Whilst those claims may be 'true' (I do not know), you did not provide a reference - so, they are not verifiable.
I appreciate that the existing article may well be 'wrong', but that does not excuse us adding to the problem with unreferenced claims. I hope you will understand, and I will further raise your concerns on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard.
(Assuming that you are the same user that edited anonymously, earlier...)
No... I was simply combining sentences and editing. All of the examples you cite above were not my "additions." Rather, these were necessary to clean up copy and remain true to the original writer's meaning, which was clearly biased from the beginning. They may appear to be my additions, but they are (were) not. If he wrote "show started to go downhill," I simply changed it to "quality began to suffer." You see? Same general meaning, repackaged. I was never intending to verify anything, and have no vested interest or agenda in characterizing the subject. The entire article was improperly and/ or inadequately sourced. This proves why wikipedia is unreliable. I originally edited the "Santa Barbara" section months ago, and it has, aside from some very minor edits, remained untouched until a few days ago when two new sections were added. Only after a barrage of successive edits today by me to try to clean them up, while not logged in to a valid user account I might add, did some bot or program alert you to check this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norlns22 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand but the policy on this matter is absolutely clear: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (see WP:BLP). So re-wording it is inappropriate.
Checked in on the Cal Prop 19 article today, there are a TON of folks more capable than me helping them out, especially on the Article Talk Page, and it looks like they got PLENTY to do for now. Therefore, I did the only thing I could think of that might help them, given all that - A BRIEF "OLD DUDE LECTURE" (a/k/a words of advice)!
If they are ANYTHING like MY 2 college age kids, I'm SURE they will be HIGHLY appreciative of that ... (NOT)! LOL!
Anyway, I will check in on this group in a few days or so, but don't anticipate problems with them. Told them if they get desperate for a decent copyeditor, to let me know. In the meantime, I'm gonna try to go flesh out a few of these horrible stubs I've scattered about everywhere.
Ex Post Facto P.S. - Checked in on the Brazil article too, shes moving forward. Was going to suggest 2 column reference list - I like that better myself. TTYL!
How do you protest a deletion review? Do I have to do it all over again? I think King of Hearts made a bad call on this one; yes, maybe I am only concerned because I created it and watched this guy play all last season, but he has received the Emms Family Award and is notable under WP:NHOCKEY due to that alone (clause 4 refers to the Canadian Hockey League major awards, of which Rookie of the Year - that's the Emms mentioned above - qualifies). The article is userfied (now for the second time) to User:CycloneGU/Nail Yakupov. I've posted at his talk page asking him to reconsider based on a couple of details; 1) there were more comments in favour of keeping; 2) one of those comments was by a user who previously endorsed the first deletion.
I've never seen you in the discussions, can you give a non-biased opinion, and perhaps comment on his talk page as well? I'm keeping both of your talk pages open and am checking when I get home. CycloneGU (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll be happy to try and help. I haven't studied the background as yet, but the first step is, discussion with the person who closed it - King of Hearts; you've initiated that discussion, so let's wait and see what xe says, first. And I'll look at the background ASAP. Cheers, Chzz ► 01:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Turns out this was resolved quickly; after calmly pointing out the history of the AfD in a collapsible box in my second post, he reconsidered and amended the outcome. Even setting aside the fact that I wrote the initial article (I'm all over the edit history LMAO), I think the correct decision is now made; besides, someone else would have later asked a different admin. to unsalt it pointing to the same policy #4 (regarding Rookie of the Year) and would have simply recreated the article in any case. My task now is to keep an eye on when the CHL itself (the parent league of all three junior leagues) announces THEIR awards; I think Yakupov, being fourth in OHL scoring, is a clear winner of it without having seen the other two yet, but that's WP:CRYSTAL and I'm not going to rub the ball. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, should be fine; as discussed, I'm improving the bot code - hopefully within the next few days - and then I can make that happen. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi - your comment here is completely the opposite of your very vocal position throughout the pending trial discussion, "If it goes horribly wrong, we turn it back; no worries. The specifics - the process - will quickly develop, once we jump in to the idea. Change We Need. There is, I think, "general agreement" that something needs to happen; and we need to remember WP:BOLD" - here you don't even want specifics and claim the process will find its own path if we are bold - no worries indeed.
It appears your position is ignore all rules and be bold about things you support and what about the rules and don't be bold about things you don't support. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring any rule at all; I'm just expressing which proposal I support - and I hope it gets consensus. Chzz ► 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I just think you should say openly and clearly that you do not support pending protection, without all the wikipedia rules comments, like the wheels will drop off if this and if that is not followed and we need specifics and clear guidelines, when on issues you support you comment to ignore all rules, and that guidelines are not required, just do it the wheels will not drop off. You have been actively vocal on this position against pending protection and to see you actively vocal in the exact opposite statements in regards something you support is difficult to understand - it appears what you support requires no guidelines and no specifics and so on and what you don't support must have guidelines and specifics. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
IF the PC trial ends, then I would consider supporting a proposal to use PC according to some appropriate scope, etc.
I see no contradiction in those views. I can understand that you feel it is hypocritical (demanding cautious conditions for PC, but advocating 'work out the details later' on the other) - but a) they're quite different situations, b) for 'confirmed', the alternative main suggestion seems to be a trial - and we already know that there are many problems with that such approach, from the PC experience.
I suspect we may never agree about Pending Changes - that's fine. However, I wish you'd believe me that I am not anti-PC. You seem to indicate that I should declare that I am - how can I, when I am not?
I'd like PC to develop, and possibly be used in some form or other. What I am opposed to is, the use of it without consensus - and I believe that the best chance - indeed the only realistic chance - of PC actually making progress is to sort that mess out first. Right now - with the trial continuing - there is zero realistic chance of any proposal for use of PC to gain any acceptable consensus - which means, the scope of PC cannot be extended beyond the few trial articles, and the few admins who are prepared to use it with no consensus to do so. Once the trial is finally closed down, then it becomes possibile to evaluate and propose some use of PC which can gain community support. Chzz ► 02:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Article
The article was deleted. I would like to post it on the User-space. I will just keep on my talk page so I can edit it, and when more reliable sources are available remake the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbum98 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be better - neater - to undelete it, and move it to a 'user subpage'. You could work on it there, but it would not clutter up your 'user talk' page - which should be used for talking to others (like we are doing right here).
If you want, I can ask for it to be undeleted and moved to a subpage - and then clear the other version from your talk page. I'd make a link to it, so you could easily get to it.
They are related though; as it says in the first article, Sheik Hamad is a distant cousin of the network chairman, Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani. Chzz ► 19:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Your Q
I ;posted a blog address as the Ron Daws article referenced was originally published in a print magazine (I own the rights) and found this the easiest way to get it on his site. I can add the article to the Ron Daws website (I own) if that satisifies the need. Just let me know.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraSuperior (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that Q was not from me.
There are two separate messages on your user talk page. The first is a 'welcome' from me, which I put there in June 2009 [30] when you'd edited the article Medea.
The second message is from a 'bot' - an automated program - sent today (16 April 2011) [31].
However, I will try to help;
The bot removed your edits because you'd added external links in an invalid format.
External websites can be used in one of two ways;
(a) References - if they are 'reliable sources' - in which case, they go in the main body of the article, directly after a fact, in-between <ref> and </ref> - e.g.
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
Those appear automarically, as numbered footnotes, in the references section.
(b) In the section at the end entitled == External links == - but only if they meet the specific requirements of the WP:EL policy.
This is probably nothing you can advise on, but you did sent me a note when I first registered, so...
Wikipedia is rejecting my password, which AFAIK is correct. I've asked to be sent a new password anyway, and wikipedia reports it's done so; but nothing has shown up in my mailbox within the past few hours after requesting. What might be up? thanks, 72.93.173.151 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Make sure the user name and password are EXACTLY correct - it is case-sensitive, so "Bob Smith" is not the same as "Bob smith".
Some browsers will 'auto-complete' the username and password, if you'd mistyped it before. You might be able to clear that, depending on your browser - in Firefox on Windows it is under 'Tools', 'options', 'security', 'saved passwords'.
Can you try it on another computer?
For the email, check if it has been filtered into you 'junk mail' folder (or similar)
And if all that fails, you're out of luck, and the only solution is to create a new user account - but you can always mark on your user page using e.g. {{Former account}}|Example - giving;
This account was formerly used by Example. It is not a sock puppet, but is an account to which the password has been lost, or which the user has abandoned. The user who legitimately owns this account has created a new account as Example. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)
Armbrust has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
Sure; that happens quite a lot. You could nominate the article for deletion if you thought it inappropriate; but in processing the AFC, all we can do is use our best judgement. If the user chooses to make a live article, that is their prerogative. Cheers, Chzz ► 02:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This is why I dislike the WikiCup. I appreciate it does 'good things' - however, there are about 90 GAN candidates that have no response dated prior to yours (11 April 2011) - so whilst I really want to help, it doesn't seem very fair - if you see what I mean?
I've no idea what the answer is to that; just that is the situation we are in.
I'd like to help though. I'll see what I can come up with, in the next few days; I have one idea - maybe I can show someone else how to review it. Chzz ► 02:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I know, it's tricky. I've tried to do a few reviews myself, but as you say, with 90 still to do I can't really make a dent in it all by myself... Unfortunately, it encourages pre-emptive nominations. Which cannot be good.
As a result, I may whistle through the WikiCup GANs, add my own and then bug one of the judges in the meantime. That may be an alternative strategy.
The only other things that occurred to me with you is that whilst reviewing last time you came up with a load of helpful comments above and beyond those required by the Good Article Criteria. It may be possible to do a skeleton review and then revisit later with more helpful comments.
Yep; that's why I withdrew my comment. Cascading prot is not apparent unless you actually try to overwrite. Cheers, Chzz ► 05:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
aSSAssins and Ubisoft
Omg >.> i just wanted to lead myself to a childish pathway of convincing ubisoft to release some news about PoP 2008 sequel and you ruined it
congratsd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.106.209 (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
India pilot being organized now - Plans are currently underway for a pilot expansion of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – in India! Hisham Mundol and other Wikimedia staff have begun recruiting Campus Ambassador candidates for Pune.
Document DYK, peer review and other milestone at the trophy case - If students you are working with (or any others you notice) are doing work that makes to DYK, is nominated for Good Article status, or is just solid content worth marking, then please help us document the students' success at the trophy case.
Changes to mailing list - A new low-volume mailing list, [Ambassador-announce-l], is being created. It will be reserved for key announcements and news, which we'd like all ambassadors to be subscribed to.
So I had to merge my edits after you went through and did something with spacing and %s. I tried to only plug in the part I was working on, Measurement/testing section, but I might have accidentally undone some of the spaces. Sorry! Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem at all; I'm just sorry our edits overlapped - that's one of those things on Wikipedia which are immensely irritating. Please, if it happens again, just copy your own edits (bottom) and paste 'em over mine (top) - I can easily re-do mine.
I'm pleased things are going well.
To be frank - I think the biggest concern right now is neutrality - check out WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. Try to 'stick to facts'. Some terms could be removed without loss of meaning (I think) e.g.
Education policy in Brazil has been given considerable importance...
drop-out rates pose serious challenges towards the accomplishment of social and economic goals.
Moreover, tThese factors are especially high in downtrodden areas where the quality(or 'standard'?) of education largely remains below the expected levels - also, maybe think of a more 'encyclopaedic' word than 'downtrodden'. And who has these expectations?
Take care to keep a balanced point-of-view - e.g. Brazil is far from average with respect to learning levels - yes, according that that source - but by stating it that way, it looks like it is an undisputable fact (which I doubt). It's awkward to keep putting "According to THIS," etc, but there are ways to tone down the POV - e.g. in that case, Brazilian learning levels are below average - it's still a strong assertion, but a bit more of an encyclopaedic tone, I think.
I hope the above is constructive criticism (as intended) - and please please feel free to disagree with my opinion; that's all I can offer, and it is mere suggestion, all up for discussion. I just think, perhaps, the point-of-view could be toned down a little. Best, Chzz ► 02:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, cool. I appreciate all the feedback. It's such a big article it is hard to keep all the different style things in mind while writing. I tried to update those that you mentioned. Feel free to point out any others or change them as you see fit.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I have questions about images. I remade a table that I found in a book, and wanted to upload it (tried to previously, actually), but I wasn't really sure how to site it. I made the image myself, but the information is from this book. Can you help explain the best way to go about this? Thanks!
In general, do you have any ideas about good places to find images. There don't seem to be many related to Brazil. — Elizabetsyatbu (talk • contribs) 02:32, 23 April 2011
It sounds like the image is 'entirely your own work' - based on numbers in the book - if so, upload it at commons as 'This is entirely my own work' and then, in the file description, give details of the book you got the figures from.
To find images: try Google image search, in 'advanced', setting it to 'Return images that are: labelled for commercial use with modification', and put in some terms related to what you want; see if there is anything that appears - example, see this link. Chzz ► 02:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Even the joke I was going to do was used last year. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Henderson Street at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Done Chzz ► 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
Doing... as discussed. Chzz ► 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
