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'll try, ASAP. The specific scripts and things I used for that are not available to me right now, but I can find 'em - within a few days. Thanks, Chzz ► 02:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Great! I see you going through the songs right now. Question: do you, as the involved admin, have to be the one to change the cats in all the articles? Because if you like, I could help with that. Yves (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an admin.
I have a script thingy which can fix the links in all subpages (ie, it shows pages that mention the cat, and helps suggest the appropriate substitution, which I can save). Hopefully properly; and hopefully done within the next few hours; it'd be great if you could check over it though; cats can be a bit complicated. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Right. Sorry; I was confusing you for someone else. Well that's awesome; sure, I'll check it over. Yves (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm also correcting the links to the band name in articles, e.g. [1] - there's about 1100 articles (that link to the redirect). It shouldn't take too long (using AWB) but I'm trying to check each edit makes sense. Chzz ► 12:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent help about the pipe symbol and the translation - I am very impressed. However as you mentioned, "But, as the other said - there is no point, because we would never use that as a reference in a Wikipedia article. It is not an appropriate reliable source, and we do not use Google to translate things - we cite the original language, and the reader can translate if they want. Chzz ► 11:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)".
So I'm not sure what is meant by "...the reader can translate if they want." Does this mean that I don't need to include those two references.?? i.e.
Thanks again for your help and I hope you can help just a fraction kore so that things become more clear to me. --NehruR42 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The important thing to remember is, that a reference is to allow the person reading the article to check the facts for themselves.
Therefore - if you say "XXX is the Thai word for YYY" then you might use a dictionary to verify that fact - or, you might use a book written in the Thai langauge. In either case - you just point to the place where the reader can check it. It is not your concern to provide a translation.
If you cite a reference that is in Thai, then it is helpful to note that fact - which can be done in {{Cite Web}} with the | language = parameter.
When you add a new section on a talk page (such as here), please add it at the end, not the beginning.
Also, 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..
The fact that the article is listed on the 'missing notable pages' does not mean it satisfies the notability requirement. All articles must demonstrate "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" (WP:GNG) - and currently, the article does not do that; that is why I marked it. The solution would be to provide references to e.g. newspapers, magazines, books, or appropriate websites (e.g. CNN News, BBC, or whatever) but not press-releases.
Thanks for replying. It's amusing to see that Wiki is working in the opposite direction to the rest of the internet, where newer content goes at the top, but sure, duly noted.
Artluce didn't even have a stub so I figured that something was better than nothing and notability was provided by linking from other authoritative sites that were relevant to the topic.
Unsurprisingly, CNN doesn't feature any information about niche topics like Italian Industrial Design companies.
Wikipedia can be a bit hard to get used to; stick with it though, it's worth it. Thanks for understanding.
Re. the article - the core idea of Wikipedia is, to present info that is 'verifiable' - ie, that can be checked by the reader. We don't say "THIS IS TRUE", we say "This is a fact.and here is the reference to a reliable source."
Hence all articles need to demonstrate 'notability' - even if you and I know they are "notable", that doesn't mean they satisfy the Wikipedia notability requirement - please look at WP:VRS.
I appreciate your adding a reference, but, it still needs improving. But that is all the 'tags' at the top are for - to highlight that it needs work. We need to see where each fact comes from. So, it says, Arteluce gained renown in the 1950s - OK, so where can I check that? What happens if another person edits it, and changes it from 50s to 70s, or from 'gained renown' to 'gained a bad reputation'? I hope you can see why we need to insist on references for all facts.
That is often one of the hardest things for new users to understand - but, if we allow any information - without it being verifiable - then anyone can write anything. That's why we need references. See also WP:PILLAR.
By the way... does 'Manc' refer to Manchester? (I happen to be in Manc myself, at the moment).
Your response to my "adminhelp" request regarding the editor survey
1. Thanks! I figured there'd be a page somewhere.
2. The Wikimedia site is, in fact, the first place I looked, but it said non-admins could not have accounts there, so I had continued my search. I'll think about whether I want to post with my IP address or just forget it. Either way, your link was the precise kind of thing I was seeking, and it was appreciated. Lawikitejana (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you deleting contributions due to BLP violation as one of the pages is on my watchlist. You might want to take a look at
this one as well. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I didn't actually delete anything - I cannot; I'm not an admin. I just alerted others, and when they acted, I notified the user.
I did the same re. the diff you mention (Ryan Giggs), and it has been oversighted now.
Apologies for that. I should have checked a bit more closely. :) There's one more I've found here so I may as well give you a heads up about it. Thanks for the suggestion re: the email. I'll keep this in mind for any future incidents like this one. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thx for your commentary on the pending article referenced above. I am a bit confused though at your comment of not establishing notability. Note the links in the article to three theories which already have their own Wikipedia entries -- each references Dr. Bryant's articles; in effect by accepting those entries which are supported by Dr. Bryant's articles, Wiki has endorsed his theories as worthy of inclusion, yet somehow the creator of those theories is not? As for the fact that the references are his own, those articles are from the most prestigious journals in the communications field. Does the presence of the 50+ peer reviewed journal publications not establish notability in and of itself? The existence of 26 published academic textbooks? If the references cited the journals themselves, or the organizations that awarded textbook honors does instead of the articles and books themselves does that confirm notability?
Hi. 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.
The existence of other Wikipedia articles does not confer 'notability' in Wikipedia terms; also, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.
An article must establish notability of a subject through several independentreliable sources. If someone writes a hundred books, that does not necessarily mean they pass the 'notability' guideline (anyone could publish 100 books); they become 'notable' if other people have written about them.
So, whilst the references you've given are fine to show that the person has published all those things, it needs just a little more to satisfy the notability requirement - see WP:VRS. For example, if there are some newspaper or magazine articles about him (interviews, or suchlike).
I hope that helps to clarify, but please feel free to ask me about anything else - and to resubmit the submission at any time. Best, Chzz ► 02:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: if any of those publications in journals include a biographic portion (not written by the subject), then those can be used to verify info about them - that's fine. It's just that the article needs more than just things written by the subject himself. Chzz ► 03:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
(sorry to clutter up your user page, is there a proper procedure for multiple talkbacks regarding same user/issue?) 78.26 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Qi logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible to block users, if they're disrupting Wikipedia - after warning them, you could ask an admin to block them.
I guess you're asking about Gregaga (talk·contribs)? That user hasn't done anything for a while, but I'll try to watch out for more edits; I note the previous warnings.
Apologies re the signature, I did not quite understand the meaning of the four tildes for the signature. Anyhow, I have added some additional references, including citations of interviews highlighting Dr. Bryant's contributions and testimony before the US Congress as an expert in the fields referenced in the article. May I ask you to review one more time and advise if this would be adequate? Thanks again for your counsel.
has appeared before Congress [..] on numerous occasions - maybe 'several' instead of 'numerous' ?
There are several unreferenced claims; there's lots in the 'Education' section, plus the entire 'Personal Life' is unreferenced. I', especially bothered about the latter, because of the named children - they should definitely not be in an article - see WP:BLPNAME.
Finally, just a style-thing; in the list of his publications, instead of putting the headings in italics (ie ''Books'', they should be a 'level three' subheadings, === Books ===. And the books should use a 'bullet-pointed list', by starting each line with an asterisk. And, and, the book titles should be italicised. Example,
=== Books ===
* Bryant, J.; Anderson, D. R. (Eds.) (1983). ''Children's understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension'' New York: Academic Press.
* Zillmann, D.; Bryant, J. (Eds.) (1985). ''Selective exposure to communication'' Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
* Bryant, J.; Zillmann, D. (Eds.) (1986). ''Perspectives on media effects'' Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Translated into Spanish in 1995.)
Books
Bryant, J.; Anderson, D. R. (Eds.) (1983). Children's understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension New York: Academic Press.
Zillmann, D.; Bryant, J. (Eds.) (1985). Selective exposure to communication Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bryant, J.; Zillmann, D. (Eds.) (1986). Perspectives on media effects Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Translated into Spanish in 1995.)
So - the last part is not critical, it's just style - but the other points are important. If you can address those, then I think it could be accepted. Hope that helps, and feel free to ask more, if you have questions. Cheers, Chzz ► 08:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I have a way to be persuasive. That vote is from someone who originally reverted the same redirect in March and used tickets being on sale presumably as a reason to keep, and now is voting to redirect.
As for the student articles you left links to on my talk page, I see that the one has come along quite nicely. I didn't end up going back to the second, it made for interesting reading for sure but I didn't see myself as a good person to suggest improvements to that one at the time, and with new events never got back around to it. Does that student still need more opinions and assistance?
And thanks for the barnstar; it's on my userpage now (right under a link to what I thought a humorous comment of mine in a deletion review). =) CycloneGU (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a bit of a problem, with these WWF future-events, and the insistence on making them and then saying 'but, it WILL be notable' - and their project group is quite numerous. For a little background info, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor Series (2010).
Re. students - yes, they could definitely use any advice; I spoke to Elizabetsyatbu (talk·contribs) earlier, and she has another week to keep working on Education policy in Brazil - and is very keen on getting any feedback at all; I think it has probably improved since you saw it, so you might now have more ideas about it. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not great at userspace things. The basic problem is, that if you are zooming that much, the captions plus the user-boxes simply do not fit (with standard margins between). On any page, having images alongside a box (ie the userboxes) causes problems - that's why we avoid it in articles.
You could make the captions shorter, or make the boxes narrower, or make the images narrower than standard thumbnails, or put the while thing into two divisions of defined widths - but all of those 'solutions' will cause problems for people on different browsers.
Personally, if I was really bothered about it, I'd just put one image underneath the other. But then, personally, I wouldn't have all those userboxes! Chzz ► 12:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the userboxen are the problem. I'll have to deal with those. They're fun but the don't really do much for the encyclopedia. Svanslyck ► 13:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
For rallying a bazillion people to comment on the Education policy in Brazil page, encouraging me to improve my article, and making this a great experience. Per my professor,"If there was an example of how this project would ideally work from my perspective, this is it." Thank-you! Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
As George Bush allegedly once said, "How many is a Brazillion?" Hee hee.
Hey Chzz. Thank you for all your help. I may have an hour or two later to help out; if a list of things I can tick off is left on the review page I can certainly sort them. Regards, - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]06:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(In response to your earlier message:) Sure, I got that. I was just in a rush earlier (and indeed still am). In fact, if you pass the article tonight, would you mind clicking here and removing the HTML comment around Quisling? Before midnight, obviously :)
(In response to your message just now:) yes, as far I can tell we can just remove the word "joint". Cheers and thanks for all your hard work, - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]16:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Cup thing - yep, I will do (if possible; which it should be)
Second sentence - yep; but, I'm more bothered about the latter part, about this 'state'. Don't know what it means.
And please do look at the infobox issue with 'prime minister' (as stated on the GA1) - that one is puzzling me too.
Sorry, missed that part of your query. I think the term Dahl uses in eventual "economic union". I seem to recall someone commenting that this was the first modern sentiment for the EU, so I probably misread it the first time and have changed it now according.
need some assistance please! My page was declined due to not having footnotes, however I read in the citation policy that in-text parenthetical references were appropriate, which my page features. I understand that footnotes are preferred now. I have to present this in class this afternoon for an assignment. Would it be possible to give me a 24-hour conditional approval since it does contain in-text citations and then tomorrow when I get more time, I will create footnotes?
Hey Chzz! I fixed this guy's citations for him, set up as Harv-type so that when he can play with citation templates they should work properly. Meanwhile, I think this is ready to be OK'd - don't you? :o) Pesky (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
To Pesky: Fine - great; of course. I only wish I'd had the time to do that myself.
To Mike d261: I'm sorry if you got the impression that a 'decline' was a permanent thing; it's really supposed to just say what needs fixing. We cannot 'accept' something conditionally / short term though, because a live article is live. You're right, that parenthetical references are acceptable (according to the policies) - my concern was more that I couldn't tell where facts could be checked.
Also apologies that I didn't respond more quickly; unfortunately, there are lots and lots of 'Articles for creation' - yours was one of about 60 that I reviewed earlier.
The 'wiki code' for refs is actually very simple - you literally put the reference directly after a fact, in-between <ref> and </ref> - like, for example,
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>
...and that is it. The rest is automatic. You can see that specific example in User:Chzz/demo/simpleref.
It would be great if you could add more references.
Also it'd be nice to add further wikilinks (to other articles) - there's some in the first part, but nothing in the rest.
Dearest Chzz, please forgive my slowness, I am recovering from major surgery. I have edited for Wikipedia for years and am very far from being a warring person. It is a joyful day; live and let live. I hope you're enjoying it, wherever you are.FClef (talk)11:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for good wishes, Chzz. I'm mending slowly. I intend to paraphrase both the sections I imported the stuff into, giving the Beeb reference - feel free to add in.FClef (talk)11:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting me re this article, Chzz, but I regret, I have to agree with others that it doesn't warrant a separate article. The detail is already in the Wedding article, hopefully concise and with references. It hardly warrants the heading of "Main Article" inasmuch as there is more in the Wedding article than in the spinoff. Moreover, there is no precedent for a separate article. I therefore would regretfully support a deletion in this case. I am sorry, because you have been very nice to me. But here's something for you:
There may be no clear precedent, but then again, there has never before been an event viewed by 2 billion people.
An article requires "significant coverage in reliable sources". There are, as of now, about 20,000 such sources. In approx. 10 hours, every newspaper in England will have intricate details regarding the dress; of course, thousands of international publications too. Every aspect of it will be documented in reliable sources, from the detail of the daffodil on the bodice, through to the way the veil reacted to the wind.
Wikipedia aims to collate the "sum of all human knowledge" - with the caveat that the information must be verifiable in reliable sources.
The world media attention is entirely focused upon the event, and the dress is a fundamental part of that.
Feel free to !vote as you wish. I am absolutely convinced that, in a year from now, this article will be significant and notable. I hope that it will also be well-reference, well written, broad in scope, and that it will present the facts available in a neutral manner. That is more likely to happen if it receives input during the next few days.
Hi Chzz, I've just finished to translate the article Artmedia from the Italian Wikipedia. You find it here: User_talk:V.fanis1
Before copying the article into the main namespace, I'd like somebody to improve English.
Could you please have a look at the article and let me know if there is something you could do? thank you very much!! vera --V.fanis1 (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes; happy to do so.
I moved it to a user subpage, User:V.fanis1/Artmedia. That is a 'userspace draft'; you can work on it there. That keeps your talk page free for messages.
{{translated page}} belongs on the talk page of the article when it is live, not on the article. (You may already know that; I'm just pointing it out)
one of the first and most important scientific projects concerning the relationship between art, technology, philosophy and aesthetics. - this is quite a strong claim, and it's likely someone will say "According to who?" - is there a specific reliable source that says it? I know 'ref 1' lists some further events, but that doesn't actually verify that it was the first, or one of the most important such events. Possibly, this needs to be 'toned down'. Maybe easiest is, just remove "and most important".
Tip: when working in user space, don't have the article categories - otherwise, the userspace page is in the cats. So, in future, when you're working on a draft, either put a colon in front of the cats;
[[:Category:Contemporary art|Media art]]
[[:Category:New media]]
[[:Category:New media art]]
...etc...
...or, put a 'comment' around the whole thing,
<!--[[Category:Contemporary art|Media art]]
[[:Category:New media]]
[[:Category:New media art]]
...etc... -->
I've done the latter. The "<!--" and "-->" will need to be removed when it is live. I'm just mentioning it for future userspace work.
I fixed [3] some minor formatting; blank lines, double spaces, removed a space between punctuation and a ref in Università degli Studi di Salerno (Proceedings, pp. 96).<ref>
I'm concerned that the second part of "Beginnings and international events", and all of "Continuous debate between artists and theorists", is unreferenced.
Re. reference 1, In addition to the 10 editions... - a) where is this information from? b) Would it be better to add this in the article itself - perhaps under a section == Other events == ?
I made some other edits, which you'll see in the history - grammar (mostly fixing some prepositions, nothing much), and a bit of de-linking, etc. - hopefully my edit summaries will explain; if they don't, please ask. Remember, you always need 'and' at the end of a list; e.g "Sausages, beans, egg, chips, and peas." (whether you need a comma or not after 'chips' is a matter of personal preference. I prefer one.
In the translated title Electronic performativity and the art system - there is no such word as "performativity" - would "performance" be OK?
I changed some wikilinks in "Key areas of investigation" - see what you think. "Aesthetics of virtual" needs disambiguating; I don't know quite what it means.
Aesthetics of technological flux - I don't think flux is the right term here; I suspect it is about technological change, and progress? It might be appropriate to wikilink Technology development or Emerging technologies
In general: your English skills are excellent.
I have not 'proof-read' the references. I'll try, some time. Also, I'll ask someone else to check my proofing.
The main concern (before making it live) is the lack of references for some parts, which I mentioned above.
When you do move it to a live article, remember to submit it as a Did You Know...
Thank you very much Chzz!! your corrections and comments have been very useful..... I have just two questions: 1) how can I start the new article Artmedia (presently if you type Artmedia, you are led to a football team article....); 2) how can I copy the article into the main namescape without loosing the information about your contribution).
I see, yes; normally, you could just move the page yourself, and that keeps all the history; however, there is a redirect from "Artmedia" to the football club "FC Petržalka 1898", because it used to be called "FK Artmedia Petržalka". A 'redirect' is a one-line page; you can see it here. Non-admins cannot move a page over an existing one.
Therefore I suggest;
1. Add the following (or something similar) to the very top of your draft, as the first line;
{{for|the Slovak football that was formerly called Artmedia|FC Petržalka 1898}}
That will display;
For the Slovak football that was formerly called Artmedia, see FC Petržalka 1898.
2. Then, when you are ready to move it to a live article, ask an admin to move it for you - mentioning that you've added that 'hatnote'. You can get admin attention when needed by putting {{adminhelp}} - followed by your request - on your own user talk page.
Hi Chzz, sorry to bother you again. I wondered if you could contact the oversight team about this edit if you think it could be problematic. Someone's stirring trouble anyway. I asked for admin help on the issue last night, but didn't do a great job of explaining exactly why it could cause problems so my request was declined (see here). It was suggested, however, that I should contact the oversight team. I'm not set up with an email account to do this yet (I don't really want to use my main account and haven't worked out how to create additional addresses yet) so thought I would mention it to you as you were involved in the incidents a feew days ago. Hope you don't mind. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Addendum, now I've looked: Oh, yes - that edit; actually, I noticed that when it happened; I decided that it wasn't worth bothering about it (after a bit of thought). There's been some discussion regarding superinjunctions elsewhere, and whilst it seems logical to monitor things, I don't think we need to go crazy-over-the-top in regards to them; the trouble with excess-oversight is, it makes it damn hard for us all to see what has happened.
However - having said that - that was my personal conclusion with regards to that diff (that no action was necessary); being as you have raised concern, I will now check that with a member of the oversight team - and I'll let you know (or they will). Cheers, Chzz ► 13:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. Just spent the last hour or so setting up an email account specifically for Wikipedia, and have emailed them about the latest activity re the articles. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Great, OK; I also communicated with them via email, and the discussion is ongoing. At least I'm assured that they're aware of the situation. Cheers, Chzz ► 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles for creation/Jennings Bryant - followup v2
Hi,
Thx for your continued guidance re the submission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jennings_Bryant. I will revise per your comments and send a note when ready for another review. It may be a day or two, busy times. I appreciate the counsel, thx for your time. (Also, please advise if I'm not using the "reply" function here correctly on the talk page.)
Fine - no problems. And your replies are fine, but, I have two tips/suggestions;
When you reply regarding an existing topic, you could do so in the same section, instead of in a new one - indenting your comment with a colon character, as I have done here...and then using two colons, and three colons, and so on. Thus the conversation forms a 'thread',
This is a message. ~~~~ (written by 'User:Example')
:This is a reply. ~~~~ (written by 'Chzz')
::More here - and this time, the reply has two more lines;
::Here's one, and,
::here is another. ~~~~ (written by 'User:Example')
:::And here is another response. ~~~~ (written by 'Chzz')
And also, instead of putting the full URL of a Wikipedia page (as you did, above) you can just put the title between [[ and ]], to make a wikilink - so you could just put "[[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jennings Bryant]] and it will appear like this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jennings Bryant
Interesting. I moved the page and deleted the redirect in one edit, but then found you had deleted the redirect at the same minute, I think the software split the difference of our simultaneous edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought you were (don't really keep track of these things nor do I spend time at RFA). Do you need someone to nominate you? Of course, I haven't looked at your edits in depth to see if you admit somewhere you know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, but I can't think of anyone I've ever interacted with here who seems more of an ideal candidate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I often consider it, and am asked about it quite regularly - recently, in User talk:Chzz/Archive 29#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz. The main reasons I have not done it are, a) I hate the DRAMA at RfA, b) whilst I am fairly certain I'd pass, out of 80,000+ edits there's always going to be one or two concerns - and it doesn't take much to derail an application, c) laziness; in that I cannot be bothered to carefully check my contribs, come up with great examples, carefully word the nom, and so forth. The latter, I've started working on, a little; I began collating barnstars in User:Chzz/bs (and got as far as Aug 2009, so far). I did have a previous RfA, which was pretty nasty - and despite doing nothing wrong, I suspect some people would query the 'sock' stuff on that - indeed some will never accept my 'story'. I carefully took on-board other issues on that though - I've been much more careful in CSD, and logged them all in User:Chzz/CSDlog. In conclusion...I don't know; my biggest fear is, that it'd all go horribly wrong, and I might be put off Wikipedia altogether. Chzz ► 02:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Ugg, I didn't realize you had had a prior RfA, and sorry about how that went. All bogged down in that sock stuff. Were I in a similar position I would think long and hard about putting myself through that again. Yes, I think you would ultimately pass, and yes, I think it would be a very unpleasant dramafest despite the obvious merit of your edits and knowledge.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I knew the name, and that it was someone who'd disappeared, and vaguely knew it was 'something about gangsters'; I looked at the article, and having skimmed it, I remembered I'd heard of that MythBusters episode too, where they looked for him. I think I saw that episode once. Chzz ► 11:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, I had a question for you about a page I'm trying to edit for my class. Need to know how to add a reference to a protected reference list. Let me know if you can help. Cookeri6 (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
On 3 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that dressmakers working on Kate Middleton's wedding gown(pictured) changed needles every three hours, and washed their hands every half hour? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titirangi Theatre.
Chzz- thanks for looking at my article for creation! and for your advice about adding references. I've added some new references. Am I heading in the rght direction? It is quite difficult to find online references for that kind of organisation, even though they have a significant presence in their community.
All advice welcome and keep up the good work!
Macsnapper (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, Titirangi, it's pretty there. I used to visit occasionally when I lived in Mt. Welliington, once upon a time. I'm in England now though (and I'm English)
Yes, definitely heading the right way. It would be nice to reference all facts. For things like "can seat up to 95 people" you could use the primary source of the theatre itself, if the info is on their site. Primary sources can be used for simple, neutral facts - just not for anything 'promotional'.
'Stuff' is OK. Anything in any newspapers, like the Herald or anything?
The "Productions" part is still quite promotional - e.g. "caters for ranging tastes", "highest quality", "cost-friendly, easily accessible and intimate environment" etc. - not appropriately encyclopaedic (and also, of course, not referenced)
Probably best to remove the name "Heather Mogridge" - she does not appear to be a 'public figure', and as such we have a "presumption in favour of privacy" (WP:BLPNAME).
"West: The history of Waitakere" - can you add the ISBN to that reference?
Most important is, to try to add a couple more good, reliable sources to make sure the "notability" cannot be challenged.
It appears you did not complete the AfD -
in addition to mischaracterizing the Daily Mail article as a "passing mention", piping WP:CRYSTAL as "future publication" to make it seem as though there was a specific rule on that, and ignoring the other indicia of notability in the article such as the current bestseller status, as well as ignoring the fact that the was only minutes old and I was actively adding to it, you did not list it on the AfD page or notify me. No problem with the notification obviously - your failure to notify me only caused my to lose information one time in one edit conflict - but more importantly, I believe you should either withdraw the AfD or list it on today's page. Please do so, or better yet, withdraw the AfD, as it is unjustified. Thank you. --Regards KeptSouth (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can remove a proposed deletion (including you), but preferably only when you have addressed the concerns. I notice that you added further references, but at present, personally, I do not feel that it shows "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". The full reason that I gave for the proposed deletion was,
This does not appear to be a notable book (see WP:NBOOK); it is a future publication. A passing mention in Daily Mail is not enough to show notability; the publisher is a primary source and splcenter.org is a blog, and does not appear to be a reliable source.[5]
Ok, sorry, I see where you did notify me - you started the prod while I was in the middle of adding to the article which itself was just a few minutes old- your posting of the prod, as I said created an edit conflict, and somehow perhaps the edit conflict caused the new message notice not to appear. I have never had a new message, without a message notice, but there's a first time for everything, I suppose.
I am aware of the "full reason" you gave for the prod - that you have personal feelings that there is not sufficient independent coverage. However, you did not address the other concerns such as the piping of "CRYSTAL" to appear as "future publications" and the other indications of notability I have discussed in the edit summaries. - Regards -KeptSouth (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it is, but I was pointing out that the policy or rules page was titled CRYSTAL, not "Future publications". Future publications are not mentioned in the article per se, and it seems to me that you are over-stating your case by using that term as a pipe. I am sorry that it seems you cannot simply respond to my questions - it makes these interactions unnecessarily complicated imho. KeptSouth (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I piped the link in order to try and make my rationale clearer. The page is not infact called "WP:CRYSTAL", it is called "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", and the section is entitled "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". The reason I piped it in my proposal was, to provide additional policy-based information to anyone considering my stated opinion. The specific parts I feel relevant include;
In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claim
expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. (in terms of the possible release of the book)
Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic
My concern was, that if this yet-to-be-released item did not already have significant coverage in reliable sources, then we shouldn't have an article on it. If it does, fine - no problem. And I reiterate - that's what the proposed deletion was all about. It's saying "hey, we need to fix this article, if possible; and if we can't, it should be deleted". I'd be quite happy helping fix it, too; indeed, I'd taken a note [6] to check back on it, before you'd even written directly to me. Chzz ► 08:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree you have stated you were concerned there was not significant coverage in RSs and have said you could find none. I had little trouble finding an additional 6 or 7, but you have challenged them for reasons such as a possible lack of employment contract between a journalist and the Washington Post, and the possibility that the Associated Press was a printer of press releases. That said, I hope we can cooperate on improving the article. KeptSouth (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
TNA Wrestling is a global wrestling company in over 100 markets featuring 12 pay per views a year their weekly flagship show "Impact" tunes in millions of people every week their pay per views is translated and broadcasted around the world EVERY TNA AND WWE PPV is noticeable I have no idea why NOW people want to start deleting the pages below is just all the links I can find about this article. Zanwifi (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
On 4 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nathan "Ned" Miller, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Nathan "Ned" Miller had two hit songs in the 1920s at the age of 22? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Chzz, I saw your template around and wanted to point out a slight correction that should be made in the salutation. Currently, your code reads:
Hi {{#if: {{{user|}}} | {{{user}}}, | }} !
which results in a comma followed by an exclamation mark: for example, "Hi JoeSmith, !" I think you meant to only have one or the other. Hope all's well! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's in User:Chzz/afc unreferenced - and I'm only trying it out on a few, by hand, for now. If it seems good, I'll suggest it as a bot, I thin. Thanks for your correction, which I'll do right now. All other suggestions gratefully received. Cheers, Chzz ► 09:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
...actually, looks like I'd already fixed that [9] before I saw the message - so, that'd be on an early test. Chzz ► 09:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it wasn't fixed, but it is now : ) Sorry I didn't make it clearer. Now the template will either say:
My initial observations into the submissions being tested are promising. I think a comment should be left on the pending submission that the submitter was notified regarding citation inconsistencies. My76Strat (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
They're just simple examples, and should hardly ever need to change; but hundreds of user talk pages make mention of them. Thanks, Chzz ► 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify's April 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive awards!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for participating in WikiProject Wikify's April 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive! The backlog was reduced by over 1,500 articles, even though about 1,500 articles were added to the backlog in April 2011. For wikifying between 62 and 92 articles, you have been awarded the Barnstar of Diligence! Your contributions through WikiProject Wikify improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and encourage their growth on Wikipeida, the largest English encyclopedia in human history. Be sure to participate in our next drive! For WikiProject Wikify, Guoguo12--Talk--02:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC).
Sorry, not interested in writing about Pippa's dress. I only write about notable things.. I'm known to stray into bizarre topics at times but my interest in them is rarely sustained... .♦ Dr. Blofeld09:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
No bother, Blofeld! Just thought I'd mention it; haven't even looked if it is N or not myself, yet. Cheers, Chzz ► 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
4meter4, having looked at the article: I do not consider Pippa's dress to be notable enough, in itself, to warrant an article. (That's my opinion, of course; based on WP:VRS - just, not enough, on that specific dress). However, I think a short section could be added to Wedding dress of Kate Middleton mentioning it. You could do that, yourself, or I could (or anyone else, for that matter). For me - I will add it to my (sadly very long 'to do' list); someone else (you?) may well get to it before I do.
A brief mention perhaps... Don't worry people have a history of nominating notable articles for deletion on here. Even bin Laden's right hand man Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti is up for AFD!!♦ Dr. Blofeld21:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thought you were reassigned? Oh well, today's a new day I suppose. Regarding your disbelief of the sources, on WP we go by RS, not OR, but in case you want to debate that or have any new concerns, I will check back later this afternoon. - Best regards KeptSouth (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I stepped back from the previous discussion; I honestly thought that removing the claim re. Amazon would be non-controversial, since it is a simple fact, shown on the Amazon website, that the book is not in their list of best-sellers, regardless of what sources might claim. No, that is not OR; it's just common sense fact-checking. However, as you seem to dispute it, I've mentioned it on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Where's the Birth Certificate?. Best, Chzz ► 12:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Example of similar: A few days ago, Sky News, BBC, and other 'reliable sources' were stating that there was a post-mortem picture of Osama bin Laden available on the internet; the photo was fake, and dated back to 2009 - as could be seen from cached/archived web pages. Should we have reported that it was real, in accordance with our reliable sources'? Of course not. (ref. Talk:Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden/Archive_1#picture) Chzz ► 13:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
A statement that a book is a bestseller is not similar to a statement that an inflammatory, classified photo has been posted on the internet. That said, I believe your objection to the reliable source that said the book was a pre-order bestseller, should have been taken care of by the additional reference I added. Is that correct?--KeptSouth (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm simply trying to establish whether, in actual fact, the book is on the Amazon list of best-sellers, that is all. I accept the fact that several sources state it is, yet I am puzzled because I cannot see it listed. Chzz ► 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose your indirect answer to my last simple question means you are still disputing it. Here is a link to another article, subtitled "Birther book currently at no.1. You might also want to look on Amazon.com and click on learn more. learn more. --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't see till just now that within 6 minutes of my adding back the Amazon.com statement, you had filed with the notice board. Obviously, that was unnecessary, as I provided another source, and now a third. I guess I will have to respond over there for my actions of re-adding reliably sourced material, providing additional RSs and explanations that counter your original research. I should also note, that in the message where I informed you of the change, I said I would check back and respond if you wanted to discuss this further, but again, you filed an unnecessary dispute with the notice board before I responded here. I just saw the dispute you filed, and I will answer over there as soon as I can.-- Regards KeptSouth (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to set up ChzzBot II for periodic clearing of pages in my userspace? Lets say I have a Sandbox as a subpage of my userpage, is it possible to set up this bot to clear it regularly like WP:SANDBOX? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Right now - no, it can't. However, I plan to improve the code, and then it will be able to clear any page, with whatever template/heading is required, at any chosen time interval. I'm not quite sure when I will be able to do that, but I will try to let you know when it has been done. Chzz ► 04:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research
Hi Chzz/Archive 31,
Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!
I see that you nominated it, before I'd read the note. I didn't know it'd been made live. I will try to look at it ASAP; unfortunately, I've been having problems connecting to the internet. Chzz ► 04:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, I'm struggling here. Could you possibly jump in and help me out? Would be most appreciated. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
At the moment, it's not clear that it shows notability, given the sources; some don't mention the company, and others may not be RS. I'm not sure what you want me to do; there might be further sources in e.g. Google News [13]. It looks like the author plans to do that, so possibly it should be given time - and it's already tagged for the notability concern. Chzz ► 04:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks yet again, Chzz! I guess what I should have written was "Chzz, I'm struggling here. You're much better than I am about explaining the whole notability/NOT:ADVERTISING/WP:COI thing to new users. Could you possibly jump in and help me out?" I think the matter is now resolved. I haven't scared offEC Cyclopedia and xe has resolved some possible problems with the article. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments on United States aid in Sudan
Thank you for your comments on our wiki page, "United States aid to Sudan", please see our response on the discussion page of our article. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mango42 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 8 May 2011
Hi, I was just updating links for the over-20,000 views category, and noticed that your hits over the 2-day period exceeded 20,000. (It really was a great hook.) Congratulations! Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thanks for your help
Chzz,
Quick thanks for your guidance, I hope I have now covered everything but I'm sure you will let me know if not.
I left a note on the discussion page for Kate Middleton's wedding dress regarding the global-wide misinterpretation of the Royal School of Needlework's press release regarding their involvement and the lack of actual Carrickmacross lace in the dress. Firstly, apologies if you are not the editor who created the article and secondly, I guess I should be brave and change the paragraph in the design section myself, but I have no idea how to!
I work in the embroidery field and have close links with the RSN so am happy to elaborate further.
Editing it yourself, to improve it, is the recommended approach - "be bold" - just remember that everything should have a 'reliable source', such as a book, newspaper, or something. It's quite easy to add those; just put it directly after the fact itself, between <ref> and </ref>;
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
He likes tea.<ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>
I am extremely sorry for vandalizing the article Toaster. I will never do it again. I promise. From now on, I will write polite, nice, and kind articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox12255566 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
User making false accusations of vandalism and reverting valid edits to article
This user is under the delusion that they are an editor or Wikipedia administrator and is now making false accusations to other users and threatening to ban people when they have no such power.
This is the article I am trying to improve yet this user keeps undoing valid references and edits to this article:
Then, (politely) add a note on the user talk page of MikeWazowski, which is User talk:MikeWazowski, e.g. "please see the discussion on [[Talk:List of film production companies]] ~~~~." (putting the page title inside double-square brackets makes a wikilink to it)
Then wait for their response. If they respond, discuss it with them. If they do not, we have other ways of sorting this out - see WP:DISPUTE.
But please note, the important thing is, don't edit war - even if your edits are perfectly correct. Stop, discuss it, and once it is clear we can go ahead. If the article is 'wrong' for a few days, it doesn't matter.
Please try discussing it, and wait a few days; see how it goes. If you still have problems, ask again.
I do not understand the question; this seems to follow a lengthy debate, and without spending hours looking through it all, I can't make a judgement. If some of you could make a clear, new section saying "THIS is the dispute, THIS is what is suggested, THESE are the rationales for/ against" then it's just too long for people like myself to offer opinions. Let me know if it is possible to summarize the actual issue. Cheers, Chzz ► 21:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The issue relates to British Isles naming dispute and trying to strike a balance between use and non-use of the term. It is a term that draws controversy and questions over its appropriateness in certain contexts, particularly on Ireland- and politics-related contexts (as well as the question of whether it is correct anymore at all). In real life, it's widely acknowledge that the term is problematic in some contexts and use or non-use is adjusted or tempered as appropriate.
Since this template is used across several contexts (including political articles) the template had enabled users to change the title depending on context. A user has raised the question that doing so might be a violation of POV. He says, this practice marks certain articles as being "Irish" and others as being "British". Certainly, we all want to avoid a situation where articles are ghetto-ised out like that. At the same time, we want to treat each subject appropriately and to strike a balance. A "one-size-fits-all" approach is devilishly hard to find for that reason. In the past, both use and non-use have been considered as implying a comment on the correctness or incorrectness of the term. (Referring to a dictionary doesn't really solve the matter. A dictionary will tell you what a term means, it doesn't tell you how to use it. It is use and non-use in specific contexts that is the question. The definition is not in question.)
The issue is complicated by suspicion of editors motives, particularly the accusation that editors are politically motivated. --RA (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I will add that the allowing each page to set the title of the template is the solution that has been used since 2006. --RA (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Armbrust has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †
Thank You
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My 32 pupils have all logged on and will start editing Wikipedia and experimenting immediately. For the purposes of continuity, they will use this account. Thank you. --MrPurcellsClass (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely - Please, please don't share accounts. If accounts are shared, they're blocked. That's just the way it works. I'm sorry - but, that's policy. See WP:NOSHARE.
I'll help you in any way I possibly can - and, I probably can help, being English, being experienced in teaching, and being knowledgable about Wikipedia. But, I really must insist on separate accounts for each pupil; it really is a very important policy; each person takes responsibility for the edits that are recorded under their user name - and it is essential for the attribution part of the licence, to show who-did-what in page histories. Chzz ► 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:: It is lunch time now, so my pupils wont be editing for another half an hour. All of my pupils are using my own account as agreed when I e-mailed Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales last Thursday. Thanks for your acceptance of my viewpoint and your agreement between me and you regarding this situation. Thank You. --MrPurcellsClass (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
If anyone has advised you to share the account, they've made a misjudgement. In addition, creating live articles which do not conform to policy will not be accepted. They can make userspace draft pages under their own accounts - that's fine, great - but, remember Wikipedia is 'live' - people are using it, constantly, as a source of verifiable information. We cannot use live articles for testing, and the policies and guidelines apply, even in your class situation. I reiterate that I'll do everything I can to help, but, if the account is shared and/or inappropriate pages are made, there is nothing I can do to prevent your account being blocked. Best, Chzz ► 12:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me sir, but these children are children and children are learning all of the time. If they want to try and create a Wikipedia page, I believe they should. I, as a teacher, believe in the values of free speech. I have been in correspondence with Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia and associates and they said it was a great idea and the use of just one account he said was 'a great ideas, Mr Purcell! Go for it and don't let anyone stop you'. . So having the approval and Jimmy Wales, I shall continue unhindered. --MrPurcellsClass (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) We're all for free speach, however this site has policies and guidelines that should be adhered to by all editors. One of those, WP:NOSHARE, states that only one person can use an account. You already have a warning template on your talk page from a disruptice edit that was reverted, thus you are currently on a downward spiral to a possible block - Happysailor(Talk)12:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war
I have reverted your edit and added a comment to the talk of the page. Having now experianced two people that revert a good edit simply because they did not check it carefully... well, if I actually had been a new users I doubt I would have returned. 62.107.192.166 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply to this: I have no control over my IP address and it changes every few days. I could be wrong, but I believe this is what is called a dynamic ip and that most internet users have this. I have not kept a close eye on it, but I think the first five numbers (62.107) do not change. By the way: Rarely I have found that someone used the ip before me but then there has always been a big gap between the earlier user and me (like 6 months or more). 62.107.192.166 (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Chzz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The RFA is over and done with, even if we wanted to remove the admin bit, we don't have that power. Andrevan@04:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
So, 'crats decided to grant the flag, just hours ago; yet because they cannot now rescind the decision, it is not appropriate to discuss it with other 'crats? Chzz ► 04:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It's been almost 24 hours since the RFA closed, at 06:09, 10 May 2011. The discussion that was going on was not between bureaucrats at all, but simply users grousing about their dissatisfaction with the closure. That's not what BN is for. Andrevan@04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
My mistake; I thought that constructive criticism was welcome, and would not be classed as mere """"grousing"""" Chzz ► 04:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
To claim that a bureaucrat's decision is arbitrary is not constructive and displays a fundamental ignorance of how the process works. Andrevan@04:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Wow. I've just read how that 'discussion' was closed. And all I can say is that it highlights more effectively than anything else could possibly have done the 'arbitrary close' by involved and 'self-decided as superior-to-thee' parties, without any response at all to the point, let alone an understanding, open and frank response. The edit summary of "boink" says so much about the level of caring. "Don't like it? hide it!" That looks like a real DILLIGAF close. And if it results in yet another really useful member of the community being 'hazed out', so what? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
In the interests of full disclosure: I did take a short break [14] partly due to the above; however, I'm not good at proper 'wiki breaks', so I've restored my prior talk header. I'm still pondering about that incident, and other things that give me serious cause for concern, but I don't want to claim I'm on a break when I am manifestly editing. Chzz ► 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you know that double spaces and blank lines are no problem for viewing pages, but the blank lines in particular are helpful to editors. Is there a reason why you've decided to delete these in this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed it was at GAR, and was twiddling through it, looking to fix things as best I could. I think it's just habit, to remove that blank line, but I can understand that it's not necessary, yes. Sorry. I'll bear that in mind in future, and not do it unless it's part of other edits. Chzz ► 19:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
re unreffed AfCs
I really do like the idea, and would like to see it incorporated into the main AfC system. But how are you currently adding these to subs- just at a cursory glance? A few of the submissions I've looked at since have had this tag on when there are other glaring problems (copyvios, joke articles...) that are beyond resolution by referencing. I'm not sure what point there is to adding another step in these cases where more direct issues should be addressed first. sonia♫01:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The idea is to automate it. At the moment, I'm running a scripted program looking at all pending AFC's which have had no feedback yet, and which do not contain any "<ref" at all (case-insensitive); if the author has no talk page, I welcome (with either my own for registered users, or with welcome-anon2 for IP's), then add the help. It is 'semi automated', as in, I'm checking each one. I am accepting some 'joke' / vandal submissions, because I see no great harm in (when auto) 'welcoming' the odd vandal; especially if/when this is automated. It's kinda "the greater good"; the article will still be reviewed, later, and dealt with accordingly. The whole point being, that to actually check it - decide if it's a 'good' submission - cannot realistically be done quickly.
But, in my experience, users who submit will then often diddle around on Wikipedia for 10 mins - and then, often, log out and never again log in. If you catch 'em, with useful feedback, it can help.
The whole idea is, just to say - in a timely way - "thanks for submitting that, we'll look ASAP, but it'd help if you could add inline refs like THIS" - that's all.
I'm keen to work out the best way to do it, and to make sure it is actually beneficial - hence, it's just a little trial run. All suggestions, ideas, etc. are very welcome. It it can be refined enough to be acceptable, I can get a bot authorized, and make it happen routinely.
P.S. I just checked all the articles logged on that page, and don't see anything too bad? I know some are rubbishy; never gonna count as 'notable' - but even those, I see no harm in asking them to add refs, before/during the time while awaiting review. Who knows...some might add 'em - others might understand better why they're not accepted later. And even those declined, at least the users have been given a bit of an idea about the need for refs.
I see the refs as the critical thing; the three most important things in an article are references, references, and references. If the formatting is messed up, if they're not wiki-linked, if they have spaces at the start, no cats, no links, funny headers...that can all be fixed, easily. Chzz ► 01:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thought you were doing it by hand, which is why I was wondering what the point of doing so was. If it's intended to be fully automated in the future- well, it works, and it works well. Thanks for the (very sensible) explanation, and I'll keep an eye out for any modifications I can think of :) sonia♫04:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've already written code to do the job, but for now it just scans, suggests an edit, I check it, and say "OK" - hence, 'semi automated'. To have it automatic would require bot approval, and to get that, we need to work out what exactly we want it to do, so it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing; but "semi automated" is, I believe, acceptable (I've checked in discussion with the BAG), for this trial run; if/when we work out how to proceed, the code is already mostly written. Cheers, Chzz ► 04:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just curious as to why a bunch of people have been building an article at User:Chzz/Caesary since last July, and if there are any plans for it to become an actual article? I ask partly because I'm dealing with a new editor who seems to be very keen to create an article on the same topic (he's had one version deleted already and is currently blocked) - see User talk:Boredsohere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Odd! So it was moved from Caesary to my user-space in July 2010 - I can't remember why, but I'd guess I was helping out some user - perhaps Windrider07 (talk·contribs) who made it. I'd guess that, in helping someone, I wanted to look at the deleted page, and asked for userfy. I could probably dig through my log files and find out more - let me know if you want me to do so. And if you want to delete that page in my userspace, or blank it, or anything - that's fine by me. Cheers, Chzz ► 14:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks - don't think I need to ask you to do any more digging :-) I'll see how this other editor gets on and will probably do a bit of searching for notability, and probably either use that version as a base or delete it. Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's been speedied a couple of times, and it was recreated and then deleted at AfD after that version was moved here, so I thought it probably better to delete this version too. Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Two reasons, I'm a big fan and an advanced guitarist myself, and he looks rather like a younger Blofeld at least in the shades...♦ Dr. Blofeld09:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Template talk:TFA-editnotice. A similar edit notice has recently been developed at Template:New release editnotice. It is intended for films, video games and other prominent popular media items which may be subject to high levels of editing by newcomers around the time of their release date.
...so where are we now? I see a consensus has been analyzed as removing from all articles for the time being, a decision I can understand (even if I don't fully agree with it and still think the length of time coming to an agreement has a role to play on PC supporters). But with that said, is there currently a discussion going on that I know nothing about, or has that not been set up yet? I still want to be part of the discussions to make PC something that CAN be accepted by the community. CycloneGU (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
There could well be discussions going on, but none that I am aware of - other than, I've asked NewYorkBrad to clarify the closure on his talk page, and via email. I still believe that the trial must end before any progress is even possible. Currently. 339 article pages are PC-protected. Once that is finally sorted out, then anyone could start any kind of discussion, proposal, etc. I think it is going to be monumentally difficult, due to the bad feeling following the "trial" - but it might be possible, at least. That's why I pushed for the ending of the trial - because I was convinced that while the trial carried on, progress was impossible. If it ends, then there is at least some possibility of progress. Chzz ► 17:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I can respect that opinion, which I think is the same we discussed a month or two back. I might talk with a couple of the big supporters and see what they think the next logical step is; clearly, they want to discuss having PC eventually accepted, but I think everyone has different ways to move forward. Meanwhile, I consent there are problems with the implementation of PC that I was involved in testing (I haven't really tested the new one, I might actually watch for a couple of items in the next few days to see if I can test the current implementation before it's completely removed). Once improvements are completed, I do think that we can move forward with this thing. The problem is that some people will just have the opinion that we don't need it, and that group (possibly more than 20%, who knows) might never budge because they refuse to change their opinion that we don't need this usergroup called "reviewers" and that things are already handled just fine (they aren't, edits get overlooked quite easily on inactive pages, I've witnessed this firsthand)...if that holds true, I worry PC will never be implemented unless a way is determined to discount votes without a valid view (in my opinion, "we don't need it" is not a valid view for voting purposes, it offers nothing constructive to the discussion). Do you think we should wait until the 20th when it's fully removed before starting any new public discussion? Obviously talk page discussions can still occur. CycloneGU (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Mmm; I could say quite a lot, but, yes, mostly I think we should wait until the specific 'end the trial' is finally out of the way, ie when the count is zero (or, if there's some kinda of agreement about these 'exceptions'- I hope not). I'm waiting to see what NYBrad says, in response to the comments.
I certainly think discussion of PC should be kept nice and neat in one place. The logical place, I'd think, would be Wikipedia talk:Pending changes.
I think, probably, we need to step back and read over everything that's been said. I know...there's reams of it. But it does need analysis; putting the views into some cohesive and not too long summary.
One great difficuty is, in determining just what PC actually is - ie, it can be used in so many totally different ways. Confusion arises when people are saying whether they "support" or "object" to PC, because - in their head - some are thinking it'll be applied to 100,000 little-edited BLPs, and others are thinking it'll be used on just a few of our most active articles. Also related to that is, "what is a reviewer" - what is their role? If PC is just a way of stopping blatant vandalism, that's a totally different thing from - as some have suggested - using it to fact-check details. It's unclear what we expect of a reviewer. So when supporting or opposing PC...it depends what is meant by PC.
That's why, any further proposal will have to be ultra-clear about its scope. What articles it could be used on, under what conditions. How many articles. Who will be permitted to review them, and what exactly would they be reviewing. Chzz ► 16:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
In my last review , you gave me some comments.
And I worked on it, added more references, removed key people and modified the complete technology data and re-submitted again.
Before submitting, I checked some 2, 3 times with "live chat" people and got positive feedback and then only I submitted.
But, you rejected the article again giving the exactly same comments. The comments are not matching with the data. For example, the removal of key people comment is still there. But I removed all the key people earlier itself.
The comments you refer to come from previous reviews. Yesterday, when I reviewed it, I declined it because "your article appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". I see that you've now submitted it again, so another reviewer should check it soon. Best, Chzz ► 18:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. The latest copy of the Hexham Courant contains an update on the court case involving Harry Cook.
The article may not appear on the Hexham Courant website until Monday, if at all. The report confirms that the accused has been remanded to appear at Newcastle Crown Court for sentence after admitting a string of sexual assaults. Cook has been warned to expect a lengthy custodial sentence.
How can the info on wikipedia be updated without causing a storm of protest? Can I send a pdf copy to an administrator to confirm the information? Hope you can advise Thanks Watchdog2011 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdog2011 (talk • contribs)
Can you think of an appropriate, and short, specific change to the page? Currently, it says, In May 2011, Cook appeared in Newcastle Magistrates' Court facing charges of sexual assault. - that could be updated, based on the reference you stated - Wikipedia does assume good faith, so there's no problem citing a ref that is not online; it's not necessary to show a copy of it - nor advisable, as it's a copyright violation to do so. We'll believe that the ref covers the fact - just, can we think of some appropriate wording to change that sentence in the article? I don't think it warrants any more than a few words, at this stage - as, clearly, there's little coverage of it. Chzz ► 23:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, en dashes used for disjunction (like 3–4) should have a space before and after them if one or both of the items contain a space. Therefore, as far as I know, your AWB script's change of the dashes in this edit was incorrect; it removed the spaces from "November 5, 1667 – 1719". I've added a deathdate from the German Wikipedia so that issue will never happen again on that article, so this is just a heads up. Graham8701:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you absolutely sure about that one? I'm not actually using any script - just standard AWB. In MOS:DOB it says, When dates are year-pairs, no spaces are used, e.g. "(1943–1971)".. As that example has a day/month at the start, but not at the end, I'm not sure.
If it is wrong though, it needs fixing in AWB's "genfix" thingy. And probably/maybe MOS needs clarifying; unless I've missed something there. Chzz ► 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm 90% sure ... I see it as no different to the New York – London flight ... just with dates. See the spacing section in the section of the MOS about dashes. It's probably a problem with AWB's general fixes module, as you say. Admittedly, it's quite a weird case. Graham8714:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes; I see what you mean. MOS:DASH agrees with that too. One answer (I think) is, using an before the dash - which MOS says is 'preferred' anyway - and I suspect AWB would skip it. But, anyway, it's good to learn about another oddity to watch out for. Dates cause so much hassle! Cheers, Chzz ► 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
How to enter references that are not from the web
Hi, I saw that you have been reviewing my article.
I have many papers, scanned certificates and things of that sort that I can put in as references. If you could tell me how I can submit those references so I can finally submit my article it would be very helpful.
Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,
We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.
WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk
Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!
A discussion about improving the help documentation inspired an idea--Wikipedia tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. Cheers, Ocaasic03:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely; like game tutorial levels? Where they flash a box and say "put a house here", etc? Sure - definitely. Games do it superbly well, so why can't we?
Snipped from IRC chat;
Session Start: Fri May 05
[15:45] <Chzz_> re. what we spoke of, some hours back - about video / "game tutorial"
[15:48] <Chzz_> my vision of it would be a side-box on the Wikipedia screen, which had dialogue as actions were taken, plus it'd magically highlight/circle/point to stuff,
[15:48] <Chzz_> and it'd stop you doing anything BUT what it was telling you to do
[15:48] <Chzz_> "Now, type in <ref> Something </ref>"
[15:49] <Chzz_> and ok, it wouldn't care what the 'something' was, but it'd insist on the "<ref> and </ref>" before moving on,
[15:49] <Chzz_> ...and if they were incorrect e.g. missing the "/" then it'd highlight that and ask 'em to fix it
[15:49] <Chzz_> I know, this is somewhat complicated code. But, I think it's worthy, too.
[16:06] <Chzz_> side-box, big friendly lettering, "We make a word appear in bold by putting three apostroples around it, like '''this'''
[16:06] <Chzz_> ... try that now, in the edit window."
[16:33] <Chzz> user types ''sausage'''
[16:35] <Chzz> and it highlights ''sausage''' and maybe circles it, and says "Oops! you need to put three apostrophes on each
side of the word (or words) - like this: '''This is an example'''
[16:35] <Chzz> and maybe if they fuck it up one more time, it just does it for 'em
[16:35] <Chzz> lots of "Great! Well done!"
[16:35] <Chzz> "Now, let's add a picture!"
[16:36] <Chzz> just... no fucking paperclip though.
Yes, no paperclip! And no animated Jimbo head. Glad this idea has been kicking around... It makes a ton of sense and since it doesn't involve actually changing the mediawiki interface should not face so many hurdles. I'm asking around to get input on the coding side. So far there's a mini-consensus that Flash would be best (my original idea was actually using a modified MW interface with the real vector skin. But maybe it's better to just use interactive Screenshots from Vector). Anyway, feedback and project motivating and directing would be great. This seems like a good idea, worth trying to put together. Cheers, Ocaasic05:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Please let me know if you need other sources, such as IBDB or NY Times Book of Broadway Musicals.
(Aeichler1 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC))Aeichler1
Alan Eichler
1. It needs more references - typically, at least three - to establish "notability" - see WP:VRS, WP:BIO. Typically, at least three references to independent, reliable sources (newspaper articles, books, etc.) - the "Book of Broadway Musicals" would be OK as one more reference (although I don't know if it has "significant coverage"), but IBDB is not considered a "reliable source".
2. It is too closely copied from the news article. We cannot 'copy and paste' from a reference; it has to be put into totally different words. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. That becomes easier when there are more sources.
Sir,
I have today created a new page titled Qataa but instead of it being on Wikipedia Encyclopedia the same got created on Wikitionery. Kindly appraise the page and have it also appear on Wikipedia. Thanks.
There is already an English Wikipedia page on that topic - Qat'aa. So, the best idea would be to edit that, and add to it, and improve it. Cheers, Chzz ► 05:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Carlos Taylhardat
The sources are the property of historians, journalists and scholars in a critical time in Venezuela, and events that are part of the country's recent history. Agardecería you might consider the possibility of no answer, so far, information from Charles A. Taylhardat, who has recently been honored for years of service in that country, Venezuela.
thanks. and Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tímida (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi again Chzz.
Its LoyaltyCard here, but I forgot my password with no accsess to my reset email, so I have a new account.
Two QU's, can I transfer my contribs and if so How do I do this?
Hi. I'm sorry, but it isn't possible to transfer contribs. If you've forgotten the password and don't have access to the email, then you just have to abandon the old account. You can, of course, put a note on your new user/talk page, explaining that you had a previous account (and it's a good idea to do so). You could use Template:Former account if you wanted. Chzz ► 22:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I notice you've been delinking a lot of references to England. Has this been discussed anywhere centrally, and a consensus reached? I see no point in delinking it, and much merit in retaining the link. Many of our global readers are likely to have very little idea of the geography or history of England, and interconnectivity is fundamental to WP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
As the edit summary says, see WP:OVERLINK, viz. Avoid linking the names of major geographic features. There is nopointinlinkingeverysingleword, and if "England" is not a "common term", I don't know what is. If an article says that "Bob is from Manchester, England" then surely common sense tells us that the 2nd link is superfluous? If a reader is uncertain what "Manchester" refers to, then the wikilink is there. It's exactly the same as New York. Yet, in 1000's of cases, that is exactly what is used.
Having an idea of "where England is" is not the point. They may want more information about it. Many readers around the world - in Indonesia say, or Africa - use en-wiki even if English is not their first language, because English is widely understood. It contains much more information than the other WPs. I see no advantage in delinking the word. Why would you? My question was, has this been discussed anywhere - and, as a corollary, has anyone else objected? Do I think we should always say "...from California, United States of America"....? Yes, absolutely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
A) Yes, it's been discussed, hence WP:OVERLINK etc, and MOS archives, B) because 'England' is such a common term, and thus saying "Foo is from London, England is just as farcical as saying "Cardiff is the capital of Wales, UK". The "manual of style" clearly states that we should Avoid linking the names of major geographic features. "England" is certainly a 'major geographic feature".
Think of the 'encyclopaedic value". I appreciate our readers are from all over the world, but if one wrote that e.g. "Hollywood is a district in Los Angeles, California, United States" then it'd be swiftly removed.
Wikilinks provide context. Additional disambiguation is unnecessary.
Yes, this has been discussed in the past, however if you object and wish to begin a fresh discussion, I am quite willing to stop making such changes in deference. Let me know. Ta. Chzz ► 08:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker)WP:UNDERLINK states "In general, links should be created to ... relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully ...", so it depends upon the context. Assuming a biographical article, then linking California is quite possibly within "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully", but United States of America is likely to be less relevant than California. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I know. I don't like that, and think it's wrong - but, given that it exists, who determines what is a "major geographic feature"? Globally, I would not agree that England is, and I think that a link to an article would be helpful. By the way, would you delink Scotland, or UK, or Isle of Man? Where is the cut-off point? I won't revert anything, but if the debate widens I'll certainly argue for retaining links where they are not actively unhelpful or confusing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I really think that England is sufficiently notable and well-known as a country to be described as a 'major geographic feature'. Really I do. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point, re. 'cut off'. I'm erring on the side of caution with 'England'. Personally - I'd say same applies to 'scotland' and certainly 'uk' but not 'Isle of Man'. However, that is opinion, and I wouldn't be confident enough in boldly changing it. But for 'England' - I'm sure. Chzz ► 08:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thing is...to take a few (genuinely) random examples,
The '''Abbey of Saint Peter and Saint Paul''', commonly known as '''Shrewsbury Abbey''', was a [[Benedictine]] [[monastery]] founded in 1083 by the [[Normans|Norman]] [[Earl of Shrewsbury]], [[Roger de Montgomery]], in [[Shrewsbury]], the county town of [[Shropshire]], [[England]].
...OK; does the link to 'England' there help our Encyclopaedic understanding more than e.g. linking Abbey, or county town? Do you think it should be a 'sea' of blue links?
The individual countries of the UK have different bodies for each areas roads, and as a result detailed techniques and applications vary in [[Scotland]], [[England]] and [[Wales]], however in general the practice is the same.
The individual countries of the UK have different bodies for each areas roads, and as a result detailed techniques and applications vary in Scotland, England and Wales, however in general the practice is the same.
Does the article on "England" aid Encyclopaedic understanding of the term, in this context? I don't think it does. Nor do I think that 'Scotland' or 'Wales' does, but I'm not looking at those right now Chzz ► 09:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
|PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Croydon, Surrey]], [[England]]
The latter, I don't think the Template:persondata should have links? The former, I don't see any added 'value' to the article. If there was, then wouldn't we need a link on | death_place = [[North Hollywood, California]], United States ? Chzz ► 09:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
[[Image:Southwickwood0341.jpg|thumb|right|Typical Marsh Tit habitat in [[Northamptonshire]], [[England]].]]The Marsh Tit has a worldwide Extent of Occurrence of around 10 million square kilometres
---
Do you see any more justification here for linking 'England' than for linking 'habitat', 'extent of occurrence' or 'square kilometres'? I do not Chzz ► 09:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem to assume more knowledge of geography and history among our readers than is necessarily the case. People come here for information, after all. I'm not in favour of linking simple words that are in any dictionary, or of having a "sea" of blue links, or unnecessary linking in captions or infoboxes, but I am in favour of linking in main text to articles that give a great amount of additional background information that many readers would be interested in reading. So, 1 yes, 2 definitely yes, 3 no (if linked in main text), 4 no. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
If our reader does not know that Northamptonshire is in England, they may click it - same as if it said New Hampshire.
I assume no more than if we assume our readers know that California is in the USA, or that a Sausage is made from meat.
However, in deference to your complaints, I will halt, and await any discussion you may wish to raise. I will make no further such edits until this matter is resolved. Please advise me on the appropriate venue for discussion (if you see fit to do so); if you do not wish to raise it, I will merely not bother.
P.S. You are 100% wrong about 3, in accordance with MOS. You think "Born Croydon, Surrey, England" needs a link to England (in addition to Croydon, Surrey)? But that "Died North Hollywood, California, United States" only needs North Hollywood, California?
Anyway...I'm arguing, and I should know better.
If you reconsider, and decide I'm 'right', please let me know, and I'll carry on.
If you want to debate it somewhere, let me know where.
Hi Chzz - re this edit - I suspect that it's AWB rather than yourself, but the addition of the closing brace pair was incorrect. The correct fix would have been the removal of the {{cite preceding "Hadfield". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes; sorry, I missed that one when I saved it; indeed, an unusual case. I'll look out for it in future. Cheers, Chzz ► 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the "keep" votes have very good policy-based rationale either, hence I'm not closing it as keep. The whole point is, look, you were the only person arguing for a "delete"! Everyone else was arguing either for "redirect" or "keep", and it would be utterly inappropriate had I closed the debate as "delete". Although as an administrator, I'm not meant to endorse the opinion of anyone who participated in the debate, I think Howard the Duck summed it up quite well: No vote, but this event is due to happen on June 12, less than a month from now. If this is deleted and is resurrected after just a few days this discussion would've been pointless.
If what people want was a merge, then I'm sorry, AFD isn't the right place to argue for it. I understand your concern, and instead of saying (as I said to Shirik last time) "Feel free to take it to WP:DRV", I'd advise you to start a merger proposal on the article talk page, as a merge and redirect seems to be what people want. Deryck C.20:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks; I'll seek a bit of advice first, but might try DRV. It's frankly driving me mad that we're advertising these future events, and the constant cries of "but it will happen" are totally contrary to policy; there's nothing to 'merge' because there's no RS (apart from primary sources). I'll ponder it. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Before commenting on the DRV, I'd just like to remind you (instead of saying feel free to take it to WP:DRV, see above) gently that DRV isn't the best way out of this problem, because DRV, like any AFD, takes another 7 days (unless it was snowballed one way or another), and by the time it finishes... we will have already "promoted" the event for another 7 days, which is not ideal from your standpoint. I just read from one of the other debates you've cited on AN/I that moving to the incubator may be an alternative solution: that may have been the best outcome had you proposed it 714 days ago on the original AFD. Now is not too late, if it does get snowball-agreed it may happen in less than a week. Tell me what you think. Deryck C.21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like it deleted, in accordance with policy. Of course, it could be 'userfied' or moved elsewhere (such as the incubator), but those are still 'delete' choices, as far as the live article is concerned. Of course, it might be redirected afterwards, and indeed a valid article created once it is notable. However, I'd like due process to occur. The fact that, unfortunately, the process takes time is beside the point. This isn't the first instance regarding these 'future wrestling' events, and I'm fairly sure it won't be the last - so, if nothing else, DRV will perhaps help establish the precedent for others. Chzz ► 21:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(Thanks for the reminder on my talk page, it's much appreciated) And unfortunately "redirect" and "merge" don't fall into the category of "delete" choices, because it doesn't remove any material which are otherwise available to public (ie. it doesn't involve pressing the "delete" button), so if you're really desperate to have it deleted DRV is the best place to take it. The case may well set a precedent, although bear in mind unless people who discussed in the DRV and agreed upon the final outcome can be bothered to vote the same way next time a future-wrestling AFD comes up, the "precedent" has no effect... such are the intricacies of Wikipedia decision-making processes.
As for the editor who created it: yes I kind of figured that by the time I read the AN/I thread. Nevertheless, that there were as many editors "arguing" for "keep" as those arguing for "redirect" meant that this editor was pretty clever in picking murky waters to wrest in [pun intended], for which they should be given some credit... Deryck C.21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That's why, in a similar case, I advocated "delete THEN redirect" [21] - which didn't happen, and so it got re-created [22] despite the AfD result. Same sort of thing has happened on Destination X 2011.
As regards the large number of participants in some of those discussions - that's because the project group is quite active and vocal. My specific concern is, that it's a case of "those who shout loudest", instead of policy. Chzz ► 21:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You should've advocated "redirect, then protect" instead ;)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia policies are descriptive not prescriptive, so while "those who shout loudest" isn't desirable, we must admit "those whom the most people listen to" always come ahead of policy - that is unless WMF intervenes. Deryck C.22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually I just checked the cases you quoted above. Turns out King of Hearts protected the article, then unprotected it because he's now convinced that the article really should be allowed to exist. Oh well, I trust his judgement. Deryck C.23:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes; I noticed that myself, around the same time - I've updated my query to KoH accordingly [23] - I'll see what he says. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for Deletion
Hello, can you please delete my user talk??? (the redirection) since I need to make space to move my talk that is where this redirection goes too, since when i moved my userpage I wrongly move the talk. Thank you--Lcsrns(Talk)02:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I fully understand and do feel that a redirect (though not a delete) would have been the better call. But I try to give a wide bit of latitude toward NC closes. I'd hope that other AfDs like this would end up with a redirect, but I don't think the closer can be said to have made an unreasonable call. Hobit (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this is simply an area in which our processes fail, then - in which case, fair enough, I'll drop the stick.
Let 'em create articles on these non-notable future PPV events; I'm not gonna go crazy trying to prevent it. This DRV was my last stab at getting an appropriate response to the issue. But, meh.
Thanks for your understanding, regardless; I'm not a 'policy-wonk' - that's the main point I wanted to make.
It's mildly frustrating to see Wikipedia abused in this way, effectively advertising these events, but it ain't worth me getting angry about it. Cheers, Chzz ► 05:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said I understand and though I'm not overly worried about it, I don't like processes being abused. Sounds like you've taken the right attitude: fix what you can, let go what you can't fix. Also known as: Serenity Prayer :-). I could use a bit more of that wisdom... Hobit (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
StormFerrari
Just seen your examples at User_talk:StormFerrari. Are those your own work? They're darn good! I might just plagiarise them at some point in the future, especially when dealing with new editors to articles on the Indian subcontinent. - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Help yourself (ie feel free to copy any of my stuff); the "Wiki formatting" part, I just wrote for that user, but the refs comes from User:Chzz/help/ref. There are various bits and pieces, indexed in User:Chzz/help. There's also a 'collapsed' version of the ref help, User:Chzz/refc. Chzz ► 08:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks very much. I'll acknowledge you if I do because it is only right to give the credit where it is due. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I hereby award Chzz with this coveted Barnstar – an award rarely given out for removing of diluting links – for your services to generally increasing the relevance of links for users, and specifically for removing the chain- and grime-linking of 'England'. Ohconfucius¡digame!10:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, i have zero knowledge about it, with FIA declared it illegal but reverse to just discuss with technical group, how chicky is? --Aleenf113:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Doing... Chzz ► 01:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Wedding dress of Kate Middleton 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) 22:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
ongoing...
Done. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
![[15]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Canine-nose.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely --Σ ☭★ 19:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
