Jump to content

User talk:Chzz/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Orphaned non-free image File:Aurora uni logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aurora uni 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 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).

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 Dude (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Socks

Dear Chzz!

You have acknowledged others' concerns about your first statement at the memorial page. Would you kindly consider changing the wording, for the sake of his family and friends, please?

I know that you were just expressing being upset. I thought something similar .... However, I think that we should leave such expressions to the Marines, who have more practice with such expressions, I understand. :)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Done [1]  Chzz  ►  02:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Aww, that's a shame. RIP-type comments should be about the person commenting and the deceased. I thought it was funny, but more importantly, I think bahamut would have too. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! That was very considerate of you. (I am risk averse about such things.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I can see that it might (possibly) have bothered some family and friends - but I'm sure Bahamut would have appreciated it! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

RONALD

HELLO, I AM RONALD AND I AM WRITING YOU TO SEE IF YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SERVING AS MY MENTOR FOR MY WIKIPEDIA CLASS ASSIGNMENT? Ronald06514 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi RONALD. I'm sorry, but I'm not currently active - I'm taking a break from Wikipedia - so, I can't help.
One little tip though - don't type in CAPITALS all the time - it makes it sound like you are shouting :-)
Good luck with your assignment; there's plenty of other good helpers around.
You can chat to me and my friends here. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chzz,

My name is Sean and I am a student in the United States. I am currently a Political Science major and am taking a class on Political Participation. One of our assignments for the semester is to select a political group and develop/add to their current wiki page. I selected the Polaris Project as my group. In brief, the group focuses on preventing, eliminating and raising awareness on human trafficking. This most interested me because I hope to one day pursue a career in federal law enforcement. I would be very appreciative if you could help me along the way as I am a new user and you seem to be open to helping us newbies. Let me know if this is something you would be interested in.

Thanks,

Sean- (Connellys3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connellys3 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, I'm sorry, but I am not currently active on Wikipedia. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  17:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

CAT:EP

Thanks for helping out at CAT:EP. It gets backlogged sometimes and many hands make light work. Just to let you know that sometimes I deliberately leave requests open for a few days, for example if the requets is valid but there are some minor details to sort out. I know that strictly speaking the {{editprotected}} should not be applied until the request is ready to go, but I am trying to apply some common sense and it also helps me keep track of them (I am not so organised as you you see.)

Secondly, on Talk:Louie Gohmert: one could argue that Off2riorob should not have applied the request until there was consensus, but by the time you got there there was a strong consensus to remove the offending paragraph, so I am not sure why you disabled that one?

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There were 4 COI edit requests, 46 semi-prot edit requests, and 9 prot edit requests - so, I decided to clear it down. I do understand that things can be just 'notes' but, the concept of those request cats is, things that people can do something about - as the templates themselves say. If it's something that cannot be actioned (because it needs further discussion/agreement), that's fine, but it doesn't belong in the cat. If it's dealt with in that manner, that helps prevent backlogs - as requests can be 'processed' as yay/nay, instead of sitting around forever as 'maybe'. I don't believe that is anything radical; Template:Edit protected says should be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately [...] should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it - that seems pretty clear, to me.
Re. Gohmert - I see you've changed it, so I guess this one is completed now? I have no problem with your choosing to declare consensus in such a way; but in simply processing the request, I felt it impossible to ignore someone declaring "I do not agree with its removal" directly above the request. Nor do I understand quite why you bothered asking on the talk for consensus, if you were just going to action it regardless - not that I object, just, I don't understand.  Chzz  ►  17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes I understand how these categories work and I acknowledge that, according to the rules, you are perfectly within your rights to disable requests that are not "ready to go". However I am also suggesting we can also apply a little WP:COMMONSENSE here and not deactivate requests that are almost ready to go. I'm not suggesting by any means that we leave requests "sitting around forever", but 2-3 days, in occasional circumstances, does not seem problematic to me.
Your response to the Gohmert issue actually astounds me. I declined to make the change when requested by one editor and asked for further comment. (I could have disabled the request at that stage but decided it was probably a valid request, I just wanted to make sure.) Then we have 4 editors in good standing supporting the removal and you disable the request because one SPA disagrees?! I'm not sure what you could call consensus if not that. I didn't action the request "regardless" but on the basis of that strong consensus that I saw.
Anyway what's this "indefinite break" that doesn't seem to be much of a break ;) Are you back with us? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Re. waiting a few days - I do take your point, and will keep it in mind in the future. Personally, I really don't think it's best to leave things in a queue like that when they cannot be actioned; it soon leads to backlogs. Same happens in things like AFC, where people just leave stuff hanging around...and it backs up. I used to sometimes clear all of 'em. And same kind of thing for PER, SPER, etc. - I cleared them all...which is fairly easy to see/do, but not if I left ones that were very new/un'do'able.
For Gohmert, I do take your point there, too - but, it's very clear that at least one editor disagrees - in particular, see [2]. After all, I only said "If you reach agreement, please re-request" - you decided that there was agreement, so, yep, fine, no worries there! I think, possibly, BLPN would be a better venue for the issue there though, really (rather than an edit request - or, as well as).
As regards the break... I have massive reservations about some very core issues on the wiki, so, I am not sure if I'll be back. Yep, I've been back for about the past 24 hours - hence altering the notice a bit - but, I don't know if I'll stick with it.  Chzz  ►  22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz - welcome back - I don't know if you had seen them but my edit request arose out of a perceived consensus at two separate reports to the BLPN

The user that disagrees is never going to agree. I appreciate the way you always stick up for such users though. Regards - Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I see - thanks for mentioning that. BLPN seems the best place for it, yep - and I do understand that they'll never agree, yep. I'm not exactly 'sticking up' for 'em, all I'm saying is, it's not uncontroversial (in PER terms), hence neeeds dealing with outside of the normal PER request (through BLPN, or whatever) - as in accordance with the PER template itself, saying "If the proposed edit might be controversial..." - anyway, it's all sorted, I think? Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  00:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Cool, I also wanted to push it through prior to the article being unlocked to reduce possible disruption/warring - just in case you don't know two of your edit request refusals in being posted on J Wales talkpage User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Further_reading.2FExternal_links in some kind of appeal to the jimbo - Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep, thanks; I commented.  Chzz  ►  03:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Please join in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Further_reading.2FExternal_links. 75.59.229.4 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have - thanks.  Chzz  ►  03:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bovis Lend Lease logo.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bovis Lend Lease logo.gif. 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 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).

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 Dude (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Appreciated your comments on Help with page/column formatting. CCeducator 16:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCeducator (talk • contribs)

IRC group contacts

You asked who appoints group contacts and who founders new channels. The answers are no one, officially. It is actually freenode itself that "recognizes" people they know and trust to be the group contacts, WMF can not appoint them. As for channels, the first person to start a channel becomes its owner. For instance, I felt that the simple English Wikipedia needed an admin channel, so I started it. I'm the channel contact (not group contact) and founder of it. I then appointed a couple of people I trust and that's it. WMF does not officially approve of the IRC channels, even though they support the work of freenode. This is why onwiki rules don't apply top IRC, although common sense does. This is the way most channels start. There are also wikimedians who are staff members of freenode so there's a good relationship between the two of us. Hope this answers your questions. fr33kman 19:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Those edit requests

Which articles need attention inside WP:FEED? Which bureaucratic crap is stopping editing? ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Q1 All of them; I'd think that was obvious. On Oct 5th, for example, Svetlana Vanyo, Orange and Bronze Software Labs, "Holt Adoption Agency" (deleted?), Indiola, Oregon, Tide, Oregon, Global Reach Partner, Misha Norland, User:Reza.moossavi/Student Union in Sundsvall at Mid Sweden University, User:Timeport101/Verax NMS, Ezra Cline, User:Inesa2011/Entry Point North, Munger Road, User:Wmetz/Education Pioneers, Numéro Cinq... and many more.
Q2. I didn't say that "bureaucratic crap" was "stopping editing"; I just wish that our efforts could be redirected away from arguments and warnings, and towards helping new users.  Chzz  ►  02:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For bringing the backlog at WP:SPER down from 31 to zero, I award Chzz the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 02:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert this please

Hi this user does not seem to head to the warnings given to him. Your revert on Kiran Bedi was reverted again by him. Could you please revert that again? I've already made too many reverts there. Thanks, — Abhishek  Talk 13:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps temp protection might be best, so requested it [3]. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The article has now been fully protected for a few days; protection expires 23:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC). The user's second account has been blocked [4].  Chzz  ►  23:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

VPC: thanks and a follow-up question

Hi Chzz, thanks for your assistance with the article for The Voter Participation Center. If you have a moment, please can you take a look at my question to you on the talk page there? Thanks! Sylvanshine (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Apologies in advance that this might seem tiresome, but...
Please can you create a new section on the talk page of the article - ie on Talk:The Voter Participation Center, create a new section at the end (like this), put {{Request edit}} at the start, and then say "I think that the '2008 North Carolina Democratic primary' section should be removed because..." - and explain why.
Then someone - not necessarily me, but some volunteer - will look ASAP.
I'm suggesting this approach because a) I don't have time right now to look into it and see if it's OK, b) it's really best-practice for such requests, so that anyone could take a look. And c) it's easier to deal with one simple request at a time - now that the main 'copy-paste' has been done, we could look at any and all further issues, including that one.
If you have trouble doing that, please let me know and I can help fix it up. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  16:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've followed your advice and turned my note to you into an open request. Thanks again for your help and for replying so quickly! Sylvanshine (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding and patience; I've added a comment there [5] and I'd hope a volunteer will get to it within some days.  Chzz  ►  18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:ChzzBot IV

Hi Chzz, This bot is very keen to stick a notice on my talk page, and keeps adding it back again (after I accepted an AFC submission) and remove the notice. Does it have an edit warring autocut off, or just keep repeating the same notice forever? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry; obviously that is an error, and I'll stop the bot while I sort it out. It should not post twice on the same AFC (or to the user who made it) - clearly there's a mistake in the code. The bot has only been in full operation for a few days; I checked the logs, and it's only on your page, no others.
I'll make sure I fix it, and test the fix, before running it again. Apologies again, and thanks for letting me know.  Chzz  ►  14:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, if it is only my page, it's no big deal. And the article does not use ref tags so it has the right message! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep; and you were the unlucky punter! Which a) is bad...that my bot edit-warred a SysOp O_O but b) actually, it's better it was you, not a new user.
I can see why it happened; a stupid bug. But I want to re-write it anyway, because it's currently terribly inefficient, as it's scanning ALL AFC's each time, and can easily skip the ones it has done - which, also, solves the glitch you experienced. So, I'll re-write it, as I want to anyway.
Thanks for being so nice about it!  Chzz  ►  20:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Edmund6795

Thanks Chzz. I do have a disproportionate interest in the built environment or London-based enviro services since I am a Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth fan (they already have a lot of content on their organisations- and editing them is far too COI for me). When I'm not on wikipedia I do write for other niche wiki like envirowiki- and some of the practices are more lax over there! So I'll be more objective on the subject or leave it until someone else does something with it. In the meantime, I'll practice on articles that perhaps aren't as...erm interesting! Thanks for the advice! Edmund6795 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

MIQE page inline references

Thanks for the help, I will try to get that fixed today. Ashley Lamellibranch (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories added (or actually not yet added) by Template:East Cambridgeshire

Following the recent mirth at IRC, I have posted a query at Wikipedia:Requested templates#Template:East Cambridgeshire. I wait in trepidation for their response. Meanwhile, thank you for your help --Senra (Talk) 23:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Lucas Hoge DYK

The DYK nom was malformed and was placed on 18 September instead of 18 October. It took me 7 edits to repair it. It's there now. --Orlady (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Did you know nominations/Lucas Hoge and Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on October 18. --Orlady (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
DYK is changed. The template at T:TDYK#How to list a new nomination actually makes it easier to submit nominations, but only AFTER one has figured out how to fill in the template. --Orlady (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you any idea how incredibly hard it is for a new user to propose a DYK? It's a nightmare. Even I, with 100,000 contribs, find it hard.  Chzz  ►  02:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have often had trouble with Wikipedia templates (not just at DYK) that are intolerant of errors, but you ain't lying about the difficulties of DYK these days. DYK has been under attack from several users who are committed to finding fault at every opportunity, recording every error in DYK for posterity, and impugning the moral character (not to mention the intelligence and education) of the regular participants. In reaction, structures and procedures have been created that are supposed to resolve various criticisms of DYK, and they get implemented before they are tested. --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be advisable for you and the article creator both to watchlist Template:Did you know nominations/Lucas Hoge, so you can monitor the review. --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Significant backlog reduction

The Articles for Creation barnstar
Amazing! Keep up the good work! — CharlieEchoTango — 06:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I will help :(

ARCHIVE NOTE: - this section was removed by the originating user. However, I've restored it here, into the archive. See next section.'


I know alot about this music group and plan on innovating it. (positive way) But why is my signature not allowed? As long as i'm helping it should be fine. Anonymous: We Are Legion!!! (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikipelli Talk 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, it's confusing; it should mention your username. For another, it is not permitted to advertize a group/organization on Wikipedia. And, let's be honest, talking about 'Anonymous' like that is just plain disruptive. The purpose of your signature is to identify you as a contributor. If your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. An editor with a confusing signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other inappropriate behavior such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing signature contributes to the disruption. - WP:SIG.
I can probably dig up some specific policies that prohibit it, but to be honest, I think it's common-sense that it's not constructive to have that as your sig. So - please, change it.
Also, as you just saw here ([6]) the 'sinebot' considers it invalid, and will keep adding an 'unsigned' thing.
If you really object, we can start a discussion on some appropriate noticeboard, and get more opinions; but I'm hoping that won't be necessary. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  16:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
And why did you add the signature of another user? [7]  Chzz  ►  16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleared?

I cleared this conversation, not to irratate but to put this behind, agreed? LuLxFakie (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re. [8] [9]
In this specific case, yes, OK.
In future, please be very careful when removing messages from other peoples talk pages without an extremely good reason (such as blatant vandalism).
But, yes; I'm happy to move on. You've had a warning, so please be extra-careful not to be disruptive. Perhaps you could read Wikipedia:Etiquette. Best,  Chzz  ►  17:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Lucas Hoge

I removed the reference to a chart because it doesn't say which one. Obviously not Hot Country Songs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure; no worries about that - I wondered about it myself. The author seems helpful and enthusiastic though, if you wanted to ask 'em. At least, it's nice to have decent pictures - they said OTRS mail was on the way.  Chzz  ►  19:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian singlechart

I left a message on his talkpage, but I removed the one you added. It appears to be a single network playlist, and those are considered to be promotional for the station or network. If he can show me a reliable multi-network or multi-vendor chart, I'll help him add it.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thanks.  Chzz  ►  19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema

Re your blanking, appreciated but not necessary. It's his talk page, he has some latitude there, venting at me is understandable since I'm the one who blocked him. He wasn't using profanity or being vulgar in any way, which I considered commendable. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. I don't agree that it can be considered commendable to call someone an idiot/moron/dumb/stupid; but I will bear in mind what you said in any future cases. In fact, I can't remember ever doing any similar action before - in that specific case, I just felt the clear NPA's could be removed per policy, and more importantly that the discussion was not in any way helping with Wikipedia. I'm sorry you don't agree with my action, and I certainly will bear it in mind (I'm not just saying that) - but I don't suppose there's any point doing anything further at this time, as the user has no access to the page? Unless you really want to restore it, in which case I wouldn't object. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong — I certainly don't mind if insults against me are removed, and of course I have no problem with policy compliance. But since the target (me) hadn't actually complained about it, removal wasn't necessary although appreciated.
The attacks themselves weren't commendable, but I marveled that an angry person would resort to clean, non-vulgar invective. Made me wonder if he was actually angry. Too bad the taunts weren't that imaginative though. If he had demonstrated more creativity or artistry, I'd have objected if they were removed. Even if he had plagiarized the French guard from Monty Python's Holy Grail, that would have been an improvement. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Word Tense?

Hi Chzz, I noticed a slight error in your bot's welcome message word tense. It should be "I hope you like it here and decide to stick around" or "I hope you liked it here and decided to stick around." Hope that's helpful. ~Fimahji (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed it.  Chzz  ►  05:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, check my reply

User_talk:GaiJin#October_2011 Thank you! GaiJin (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied, User_talk:GaiJin#October_2011,  Chzz  ►  04:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

St Mary's Chruch, Chastelton

Notice anything wrong with that title? I left a note at my Talk page, but it seems to have been overlooked. Not sure I can fix it. Thanks. 109.155.134.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

I've moved it to correct the name - St Mary's Chuch, Chastelton. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, but its Chastleton not Chastelton. Any ideas why the pushpin doesn't show on the map? 109.155.134.117 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved again, to St Mary's Chuch, Chastleton. I hope it's right now. (I'd only copied the name of the page you'd originally created).
The pushpin didn't display because the longtitude is (I think) -1.642, ie minus 1.642, and the box had just "1.642", which is somewhere in the middle of the North Sea. I changed it [10] and I think it's OK now.  Chzz  ►  09:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. I had assumed that an E in longEW required a positive value in longd. 109.155.134.117 (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Name was still wrong; now St Mary's Church, Chastleton. Blimey.  Chzz  ►  09:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
At least we avoided St. and Saint and Marys and Marys' !! I guess a "create a church" template might be useful here? 109.155.134.117 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Another AFC barnstar!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
For clearing our great backlog. Kepp helping us ;) and come in the -afc channel ;) mabdul 10:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Paris Lees article

This is regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paris Lees, which I declined as not showing enough notability.  Chzz  ►  09:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Extended content

{{you've got mail}}

Oh and the judges list mentioned, is here so you can take a gander if you don't believe me. Please reconsider :) MooseyJake (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The current references are as follows;

Those three are generic website links, which do not have any specific information about the individual; they do not help verify information about the subject. Also, as primary sources, they do not help show notability.
These are references to the organisations she has worked with, with the second being the blog that she writes for them (so it probably would tell you about the person in question) MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This article does not seem to mention Lees.
Its not meant to. If you read the original article on her, this, like alot of these references, are showing the campaigns she has been involved with. MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
That PDF does not seem to mention Lees
She wrote it. MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This is another generic website address, not a specific page - and provides no information about Lees
Thats because its a reference for the website, as mentioned above MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Searches are generally poor references, but this specific search does not lead to any information about Lees; it possibly shows that Lees has written some pieces, but none contain any information about the subject.
She is a journalist. These are pieces she has written. I can modify the references to be more specific, but they arent going to be about her, they are going to be about the subject matter about which she was asked to write. If you were to reference Caitlin Moran's work, to show she is an ardent feminist, would you have the reference directed at an autobiographical piece she wrote? MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Blogs are not generally considered to be reliable sources.
It is to show her work. MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
These are not reliable sources.
The website is under construction at the moment, and the reference will be changed to reflect that. It is the best I could do. MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, that link provides no information about Lees.
Again, its not meant to. MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles need to be verifiable - that means, we need references that allow us to check that the facts are correct. For example: Lees was born in Nottingham[citation needed] and attended the University of Brighton,[citation needed] earning a degree in English Language and Literature in 2009.[citation needed] - we need to know where these specific facts can be checked.

You expect me to be able to reference where someone grew up? Can you prove that you grew up in your area, because this seems to be an invalid point otherwise. Verifiable references have been attributed to her work, which have been discussed above. MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, to have an article on Wikipedia about a person, we need evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

The sources are there, and it is clear that she has worked on the articles mentioned and referenced. I think the issue is, that you are expecting every reference to reference her directly, when it is her work that is being talked about in the article, and the references reflect that. MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope that helps explain. Please see also WP:BIO. Best,  Chzz  ►  09:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, and I hope we can get this article up-and-running as soon as possible, MooseyJake (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It requires references that give information about her, not things written by her.
Can I prove where I grew up? No. But, there is no Wikipedia article about me - I don't meet the notability requirements. I'm sorry, but, I think the pages I've linked explain it quite clearly. As of now, you have not provided evidence to show that this individual meets the inclusion requirements.  Chzz  ►  10:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
After looking at several bio's on here, I can see it needs to be rewritten, but of those that I have seen, no references, the like of which you are pertaining to, are evidant, and these are bio's who have been submitted, approved and everything is OK. As such, is it possible to get a second opinion? MooseyJake (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The existence of other 'bad' articles is a weak argumeent; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Yes, it is possible to get another opinion; see Wikipedia:Third opinion if you want to do so. But, in all honesty - it clearly does not pass the notability requirements, and I'm 100% confident that any other experienced editor who checks the above discourse will agree - that the references you have given do not show "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources".  Chzz  ►  10:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes its a rubbish argument, but frankly I have yet to find an article on a journalist that successfully references the place where they grew up, using the example from above. I am rewriting it so that it is more alike to these, and maybe then it will be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MooseyJake (talk • contribs) 10:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Best of luck with it then.  Chzz  ►  23:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Neat

D'oh - I should have thought of that myself. Will use it in future. Trafford09 (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Peridon's talk page.
Message added 10:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Chzz/tennis has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/tennis, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Glitch - fixed. User_talk:ArticlesForCreationBot#Tennis.  Chzz  ►  02:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Huawei E5

Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Bouteloua's talk page.
Message added 15:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Answered re. rename on article talk.  Chzz  ►  02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Chzz/Archive 34! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Issues with your AFC reviews

Regards. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I can't see (as it's deleted). Second, yep, I didn't spot that reference. Third, I meant what I said, "Not well-enough referenced", ie that the references are insufficient, and I gave direct specific examples of facts that I could not verify - possibly they are covered by the references at the end of the paragraph? I have no problem if you wish to merge it, or accept it, of course.  Chzz  ►  08:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
1st one was moved to Guardian Angels for a Smarter Life. The redirect was deleted thereafter as it was pointless. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean (I think) - it says I moved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Research Project "Guardian Angels for a Smarter Life" to Research Project: - which, yes, is very odd; sorry; some error with the 'accept' in the script, I think. Apologies.  Chzz  ►  08:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
For the 3rd one, I'll suggest to the creator to merge that section, and possibly the history one too, after improvements. The issue is that the main article uses footnoted refs, and I don't feel like reformatting either myself... Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
For the second one, I think the quote marks are confusing the script. Not sure how to fix this, but perhaps Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) does. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I spoke to Timotheus Canens, and I understand that that problem has now been fixed.  Chzz  ►  01:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you so much for clearing AFC while AQ was asleep. I meant to come help this morning, and to a pleasant surprise, it was clear. Thank you so much!  JoeGazz  ♂  14:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
@Joe_Gazz84 tired of me asking you to help with AfC, eh? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

AFC

Could you go to Talk:Puppet Showplace and explain why you believe that an article which names multiple sources from two major daily newspapers "is unsourced or contains only unreliable sources"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

From a brief look at the version I declined [12], it appears I made a mistake; sorry. I'm not entirely sure why I didn't see those references; I should have. How come, when I look at that version [13] it doesn't show the 'decline', it says "has recently been created"?  Chzz  ►  15:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Confusingly, the template text changes once you move it to article space, even if you look at an old revision! It has no logic to detect that you are looking at a revision before the move in another namespace. I accepted the article, by the way. Chzz did decline it, which is obvious if you look at the diff: [14]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Have mörser, will travel. It's confusing (re the diff) but, I was not trying to divert things; I fucked up and I'm sorry. I did 300+ AFC's and got a few wrong; apologies, I will try harder in future, and I'm honestly grateful for your help with that one. Best,  Chzz  ►  04:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Chzz. Anyone with our level of activity knows that the >99% of good work far outweighs the <1% of mistakes—and that the mistakes are inevitable. I can't tell you how many times I've had multiple tabs open and put the comment for "this" article into the tab for "that" page. No harm done in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and request for help on the Vladimir Kafka contribution

Dear Chzz,

Thanks for th welcoming email! :-)

I added a contribution (my first and maybe last...but I love Wikipedia as a user so much - it has realy changed my life and enriched it). I added a reference to my contribution, but maybe not properly - could you please help me correct what ever it is at all you think needs corrections to my contribution? I would be grateful - kindly note that Vladimir Kafka is mentioned in other Wikipedia links, yet has no definition - so I think my contribution will be helpfull - maybe later on, we can connect this definition to the places in Wikipedia where he is mentioned - ot maybe it is done automaticaly?

Thanks! 07:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Isalways! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isalways! (talk • contribs) 07:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot 'accept' it as a live article with just one reference. It needs to show several reliable sources, to pass the notability guideline. I checked on Google News [15] and I could not find anything.
For inclusion, an article needs 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. User:Chzz/vrs.  Chzz  ►  08:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added Notobility References to Vladimir Kafka contribution

Dear Chzz, Thanks so much for all your help! I was realy excited to see my stub up there - I love literature!

Thanks for all your patience with me. Isalways! (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Isalways!

Isalways! (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your help today, will keep at it! Novazzia (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar

The Articles for Creation barnstar
Thanks for clearing that massive backlog. I logged into #wikipedia-en-afc, and I though EarwigBot had cracked when it reported there were only 7 submissions. When I had left for the night, there were 268 submissions, which were more than likely all reviewed by you. Excellent work, and thanks again. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

new page on Debub University

I have slightly edited the page on Hawassa university, and tried to create a new page for Debub University. I am considering to expand the articles in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellu (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles need references to reliable sources, to be accepted; please see WP:FIRST. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  08:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Dewey Larson Article

Dewey B. Larson Hi Chzz. I was wondering how much you actually looked at this article. Notability requires one source of significant coverage. This article shows Larson's work was reviewed by none other than Isaac Asimov and Discover magazine. Why don't you think this is "significant?" Doug (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewey B. Larson
Do the sources actually contain substantial information about this person?
I was unable to locate any reliable sources anywhere on the internet which have any information about this person. Is there anywhere we can verify any information about him - such as the date of birth that is given, or where he lived, or where he was educated? Almost all of the article seems to consist of brief mentions of something he wrote; do any of the sources have anything more than a mention of his name? I was also unable to find any appropriate source that discussed any of his work.
With regards to the last paragraph, do any of those last three references actually mention this person at all, or is it just inferring the possible later implications of his work?  Chzz  ►  11:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: I'll undo my edit, so that it'll be put back into the queue, and another reviewer can take a look. Of course, you may continue to edit it - and it would be very helpful to add further evidence of notability. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  02:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AfC

Dear Chzz, if you have a moment, please look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Havenzangers--it's ready to go, and you can take it to DYK with only minor expansion, haha. The title perhaps should be De Havenzangers--I don't know what the MOS says for foreign names. Maybe one, with a redirect for the other. Take care, and thank you for your work at AfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.247.159 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been accepted (by another user), and is now live - De Havenzangers.  Chzz  ►  01:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

John Sawbridgeworth

Hi Chzz, thanks for the message. I think that I've added a reference towards the top of the page but am completely new at this. Would you please review it and tell me if it's correct before I continue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The reference here looks fine, yes, thanks; the other links should be similarly changed to references.  Chzz  ►  01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(Copied reply over to user talk) Chzz  ►  07:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

KentHoltorf Edits help

Chzz- I have edited the article Kent Holtorf on my user page where you had it restored but would like you to look at it before I "save" it and it goes live. Can you do that and let me know if it is better this time? Zoeyeve (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

From a brief look, it seems largely OK - much more 'neutral'. One small thing I noted was the sentence has been the subject of criticism online and in the media for several years for his promotion of controversial diagnostic methods and. He has been an advocate of bioidentical hormones, which has been labeled at times as quack medicine. - it doesn't have a direct reference, and I'm concerned about calling someone a "quack" without an explicit source.
Of course, when reviewed properly, whoever reviews it might have other concerns - but I think it's worth submitting it. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  11:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Chzz! I added a source for that sentence. And I clicked 'save'. Does that make it live, since you restored it to my Userpage? Or do I need to submit it still another way? Thanks for all your help! Zoeyeve (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi.
No, it's not automatically an actual live article; it's still in 'userspace' (ie, prefixed with 'User:') so it will not show up in Google search or the wiki search-box.
Because it was deleted before, I think you should ask the person who tagged it for deletion and/or the admin who moved it to userspace to see if they'll move it back - that'd be ThatPeskyCommoner (talk · contribs) and/or Shirik (talk · contribs).
I notice you've replied to some of Pesky's comments on User talk:Zoeyeve/Kent Holtorf but that user might not notice the reply - it'd be best to put a not on their user talk page, User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner, so that they're alerted. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  07:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Board International

I appreciate your feedback regarding the page for creation "Board International", I just wanted to inquire as to why the references I hvae won't suffice. Gartner is absolutely a reliable, third party source (Gartner Magic Quadrant for BI and CPM suites)as well as the manufacturuer, and BARC (BI Survey 9 & 10). Do these not apply? If so, why not? Any feedback I can get would be much appreciated it.Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpratt1 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BOARD International
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer in the 'decline' note. My concern was that a large proportion of the references are not independent of the company - ie, there's board.com itself, a press-release on 'highbeam', and another labelled "PR" on 'redorbit'. I'm not sure if the article on information-management.com [16] is PR, but it looks likely, given the tone of it. The link to pressleleasepoint.com [17] doesn't seem to be working for me, but clearly that's also going to be a non-independent source too. BARC is, I believe, a service that companies can pay in order to be listed (correct me if I am wrong) - which again would come under the 'non-independent' umbrella.
We can use sources such as press-releases, but with care, and as long as the article is not primarily based upon them; that was my underlying concern with it.
I'd be quite happy to put it back for a fresh review, and get someone else to help with it - but possibly, you might want to work on the issues I've commented on here, and then resubmit it yourself when ready. It at all possible, I suggest you add some facts referenced to newspaper articles that aren't PR, which thus offer neutral information about the company.
I hope that helps. I apologize that I did not give enough detail originally, and I reiterate that you have a reasonable point that it does have some independent reliable sources - so, I'm quite happy to remove the 'decline' if you want. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  13:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi and Help?

Hi Chzz. You have a good sense of humor, and I enjoyed my chat with you and the others. My article keeps getting rejected because I can't prove Barbara is notable enough. Or so it seems. What in heaven's name does a woman have to do to be important enough to have a Wikipedia article about her? She did all the things Irving did and he has an article, and she did many other things... Is there any way you can help me make it work? Thank you again, Songcat 67.142.173.20 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Songcat (talk · contribs) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barbara Hall (artist)
Hi. Please always remember to log in when you edit, and please link to pages you're asking about - it's really hard to guess which article/s you are asking about, when all I can see is an IP address and 'Barbara'! I know we spoke not long ago, but I've looked at lots of other pages since then. Anyway, I found it, by looking under the 'SongCat' account.
There's a lot of problems with the article; it's hard to review, because of the lack of inline references, and the long list of references at the end. We really need direct, specific, inline references so that we can tell where facts can be checked. For example, her date and place of birth - it should have a <ref> REFERENCE </ref> directly after those facts. The same throughout. See WP:REFB.
OK -- Songcat (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, it has lots of non-neutral claims and lanugage - for example, it says a unique group in Vermont - who says it is unique? John Hall died, evidently of the Spanish Influenza - evident to whom?
Well, family history... does it count for anything? --Songcat (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
OK will try to fix. Songcat (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
But the main point, as always, is the referencing - that's what needs work. We need to see solid evidence that there is verifiable information about this individual. References to Irving Fiske which do not actually mention Barbara Hall are not helpful.
What about the Lambiek article etc.?? Songcat (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll add help on referencing on your own user-talk page (ie, User talk:Songcat - so please log in!). Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  13:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chazz, I appreciate your feedback. I thought I was actually logged in. I spent most of yesterday trying to make this article work, but it seems it may be impossible. There are a number of sources, which I have cited (and I can put them in the correct format, with enough practice, I imagine-- such as Lambiek Comicopedia website-- that are about Barbara Hall. Also The Great Women Comics, by Trina Robbins, Workman, 2008. But there are not a huge number of sources that mention one of the pair without the other. Barbara, like most women of her generation, a) had children and was busy doing that, b) did not have as public a life as Irving, c) had a nervous breakdown that took a chunk out of her life (I dont' intend to mention this, as I said yesterday). Who says Quarry Hill was unique? There are a number of books, articles. and websites,at the bottom of the article, that speak of the unusual quality of Quarry Hill. The part that baffles me is that if QHCC and Irving Fiske can have articles on Wikipedia, and Barbara Hall helped create QHCC, why can this not be enough? IF this is not enough, why is her status as one of the last living female cartoonists of the WWII era not important? How would YOU phrase a sentence about Barbara that would clarify these things? DO I have to put a reference right after a claim like "QHCC is unique?" I will try to learn from the tutorial, but the best thing would be if you or 28 BYtes (who helped before) or someone else could help. The articles on QHCC and Irving got in there (I wrote the first drafts) so it must be possible for me to write one. Thanks, Songcat (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barbara Hall (artist)
I think you've since spoken to others, but... I see you'd added some inline refs, but they weren't showing up - I've fixed that, and I made a few other minor edits to fix formatting.
So, it now has some inline references - if you could add more, so that it is clear where all the info comes from, that will help. Best of luck with it,  Chzz  ►  07:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Songcat (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chzz. I'm going to keep working on it as time and energy allow. Jessamyn West (I don't know her Wikiname) said she would help me as much as possible when she returns from a trip soon. She's pretty busy though so any other help people can give is great. I'll try to make clear where it all comes from, but question: What if I do not have, and can not obtain (easily-- I live in the flooded, ravaged mts. of Vermont) the page numbers? Thanks Chzz. Songcat (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers aren't essential. Obviously, it makes it hard for others to later check things - but they're not a requirement (except for the higher article ratings). Of course, it does beg the question how you know the info is in the book, if you don't have access to it ;-) but, we always assume good faith around here; as long as you can assure us the info comes from a specific published book, that will suffice.
I guess you're referring to Jessamyn West (librarian) - apparently her Wikipedia user ID is Jessamyn (talk · contribs).
 Chzz  ►  16:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Chzz, my guardian anglo (?) --Songcat (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chzz. Yes, that's the right Jessamyn. I know that this info is in these books because I've spent my whole life (well recent years, anyway) working on a memoir about my weird family and the people we have known (Allen Ginsberg, R. Crumb, etc.) so have seen them. It's just organizing the info, esp. after the floods and living far from a big city (I live in the hills far away from anything that could be described as "civilization") that makes it hard. If need be I can find the page #s but it would be nice not to have to do it at the present. Am writing a freelance article and am very occupied in other ways. (The 99% are outside my window...oh no!) I will try to follow your advice. How do I insert an image from Wikimedia commons in here-- like a beer? Tx Songcat (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC).

Actually, I fixed the image I think you intended to put - so it should be showing up now, somewhere on the right.
The code is;

[[File:William Blake - Christ in the Sepulchre, Guarded by Angels.jpg|thumb|Thanks Chzz...]]

But, there's actually an easier way of giving a beer, or whatever - you should have a little red heart-symbol ❤ near the top-right of the screen - which is an easy way to do it.
And regards "Lambiek" - or any other article - most articles on Wikipedia need fixing (or deleting), but it's not an excuse to add to the problem. Some were created a long time ago; others may have simply slipped through the net so far - so, referring to another article isn't a good argument; if you want better example articles, look in WP:FA and WP:GA.
The article certainly does not have to be perfect to be accepted - but the idea of the review process is to help make it unlikely to be deleted. If information is unreferenced, anyone can remove it at any time (WP:V). Also, having well-referenced information makes it easier to spot vandalism - because if there are no references, and someone inserts some false information, we cannot tell which parts are correct.  Chzz  ►  16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

{{{YGM}}} Thanks. But the Lambiek article is the only one of its kind referring to Barbara Hall as an artist/Cartoonist, though The Great Women Cartoonists (Robbins, Workman, 2008) surely does in spades. So... I should not use the Lambiek/Comicopedia article? It's an important source as it pertains to Barb's importance to cartoonists... I think. Thanks!Songcat (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I would rather send an angel than a beer. ;-) Songcat (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mail

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.

Lbkeane (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Imorecords

Sorry about removing that (I only did it because the report was in both sections, and since I'd come to it in the bot-reported section I thought I had dealt with it there; only as I deleted it from user-reported did I see you'd found the connection). I have since blocked the account. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem!  Chzz  ►  17:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your invaluable, outstanding help in making Francesco Guccini a better article. You're the master of smooth prose! Zidanie5 (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Vijayanagara

{{adminhelp}}

The article Vijayanagar, Belgaum was deleted as (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Vijayanagara.

However, Vijayanagara appears to be on the East coast of India, but Belgaum is over to the West.

There are over 1000 other pages linking to the deleted page.

So please could you check and see if it really is the same place, and if not, if it is suitable for undeletion or userfication. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  11:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why the article was titled as it was, but it was definitely referring to the same place as Vijayanagara. One of the two references in the article linked to http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/859852/Vijayanagar. If you'd like to see the full text of the article, let me know. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks DoRD, good information; no, I don't need to see the page.
It would appear that there certainly is another place called "Vijayanagar" somewhere around Belgaum; so I will do a bit more research, and try to at least make a stub, and a DAB, or whatever.
Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  12:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you ! Sepy1031 (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all your help. Songcat (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

CHZZ! HELP! THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG at my page. I typed in more info but when it is saved, it shows itself ending at the sources. What??? Tx. Songcat (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at ASCIIn2Bme's talk page.
Message added 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

And many thanks. Wish it were real. Songcat (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been mentioned, and for all the right reasons

See this discussion. Hmm... come to think of it, are you The Stig? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Object Oriented Modeling and Design

Hey! I noticed that you're listed as the US ambassador for this course. I've been checking for copyvios and almost every contribution I have looked at so far is a copyright violation. I could use some help checking more contributions and working with the instructor and students so that they understand the problem. Are you able to help at all? OlYeller21Talktome 17:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's interesting [18] - I don't believe anyone told me I was their online Ambassador! I'll try and find out what's happening; I did offer to help (via email) with the project (but nothing specific) some time ago. I'll let you know.  Chzz  ►  17:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


The Signpost: 31 October 2011

A kitten for you!

The stalking kitten thanks you for all your hard work in #wikipedia-en-help connect. You do a fantastic jobs at helping new editors and current editors improve Wikipedia! :D

LauraHale (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cute kitten appreciates your willingness to make bold edits!

LauraHale (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lougba

Thanks for cleanup but I am baffled as to why you added a ref improve tag. The population is referenced, there is no need for another source.11:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC) -Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs)

All articles require multiple sources; see WP:GNG, WP:ONESOURCE.  Chzz  ►  11:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I've taken my articles to GA I've actually had to remove double/triple references for each fact. Given that they only contain one fact it be redundant. If there was unsourced material then it would be appropriate, Besides, there are no other sites which have population on Benin settlements, I'm lucky to get the data.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Then there is too little information to support an article.  Chzz  ►  11:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Show me a guideline which backs up what you say in regards to new articles. I'm sure you'll find for geographical places that verification and a population figure is acceptable as a start. Of course the Expand tag would make sense, but that of course was depcrecated!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I did mention the GNG guideline above, which says Multiple sources are generally expected with a further explanatory footnote; in addition, various policies and guidelines use the plural form sources - but to move away from the wiki-politicking for a moment, I'd like to try and describe the specific problem;
I thought I'd try to help patrol some new pages. In doing so, I'm assessing any problems with the article, and trying to suggest what needs fixing. Now...just for a moment, let's put aside the fact that that one is a geographical place: if I come across an article with only a single source, it's a concern - and I've seen plenty of such articles in the queue. I need to check if the subject is 'notable', to ensure we're adding valid information. I tried searching for further information on that place, and didn't find any mention in any books - and that's what bothers me. I totally accept that there is an RS showing it, but RS's do make mistakes - and that is the one of the main reasons for insisting on, at the very least, more than one.
Are we absolutely sure that "Lougba" is a town, as such? Maybe it was in 2002; maybe that's changed? Maybe it's been renamed or merged - or, maybe it was just a typo of another place.
I did have a look, and one probably-not-reliable-source [19] shows weather/location info...but, notice that on the map there, I cannot even see a place with that name.
Now - back to the 'geographic places' thing; I don't really understand this notion of 'inherent notability' for schools and places - it seems odd to me; my own kitchen is a 'geographic place' but I doubt that would be accepted as notable (even if it was mentioned in the news). But, the concept of geo-being-notable seems to be current consensus, so OK, fair enough, I accept that. So I wouldn't tag such an article for deletion - as I would if it were e.g. a company, or some software, or a person.
But that does cause me a problem with the patrolling; what can I do, to indicate the concern? I suppose I could have put {{onesource}} instead of {{refimprove}}, possibly? How about, if you are creating more/similar articles, you just include {{onesource}} in them... or is that silly, to create articles with such tags?
Or... if there is only one reference and just a population, then wouldn't it be better to make redirects to an appropriate article on "Places in the Collines department" or something?
It'd be really useful if you could go back over other similar articles, and try to add another source or at least mark 'em up as appropriate - because I'm seeing an awful lot of these articles within the NPP backlog, so it just makes lots of work for others.  Chzz  ►  12:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pop

P.S. where on the given website [20] can I actually check the population data?  Chzz  ►  12:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so, I searched the domain and found it mentioned in this PDF. But, that's the population for the arrondissement, yes? So, not necessarily the town - because the arrondissement might include several towns?

Also, can you let me know where you get the date for the census, of "February 15, 2002"?  Chzz  ►  12:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Date of census obtained from here. As to you PLaces in Collines Department request. Population is for the whole arrondisement, this is made clear in the articles. We have articles on tiny hamlets in UK and USA, why shouldn't we have articles which are the equivalent to the county where you live? most arrondisements have a main town named after the arrondisement. I did actually propose that List of populated places in a table format were created by country using the geonames database/government sources if they exist. Nobody is willing to run a bot. I did propose that long ago and redirect articles until there is enough information. As to the thou must not create an article if it is below GA class and "stubs are unacceptable" way of thinking I suggest you read my user page. I'd agree that that would be the best wikipedia. But in order to do so we'd have to remove all stubs and poor articles from the website and only accept them in the mainspace once fully written. As the foundation and generally people like its size and messy approach to encyclopedia building then you can't really complain about my stubbing approach to building. Believe me I'd rather the whole website would only accept quality articles than have been assessed. But if I don't create stubs then scores of others will continue to do so on a daily basis and the site will continue to be a mess. You and I have always been on good terms to my knowledge and seen eye to eye on certain issues and I'd agree with you that a proper more professional encyclopedia would only accept fully well written and sourced articlesm but wikipedia unfortunately does not entail that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the date. I'm not convinced that that means that the census was actually conducted on that one day though.
  • I do not, of course, expect every new article to be GA-class. All I ask is, that it meets be basic, most-important, requirement: significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I am absolutely in favour of including just about anything, as long as it has that. And there's no getting away from the need for sourceS.
  • "tiny hamlets in UK and USA" - you know better than to make WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments.
  • You also know better than to argue that "if I don't do it, someone else will". Scores of people in my home town throw rubbish on the ground - so, I might as well, too - because it'll always be a mess anyway?
  • As to town/arrondissement - OK, the pop is the latter, that is reasonably clear. But where, then, is confirmation that "Lougba is a town"?

I am not, and never would, complain about your 'stubbing' - as long as the info can be checked out.  Chzz  ►  13:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Systemic

I am absolutely committed to countering our US/UK-centric systemic bias. I assure you that I would be treating this stub in exactly the same way if it were a place in one of those countries. However - for right or wrong - it is one hell of a lot easier to find sources for any pissant hamlet in the UK than it is for much larger places in developing countries. Whilst I will battle equality on all occasions, the simple fact is that, if we don't have info from verifiable sources, that dilutes the quality of Wikipedia. We have many thousands of articles on geo places outside the "Global North"I hate that term, but it's hard to think of better which have no references at all. Some of them are, no doubt, a collection of about ten houses - and the people living in those houses probably each spell the place-name in a different way. Iff there was coverage in RS, then I would be delighted to have articles on each and every one - with redirects from all the alternate spellings too. And yes, we have thousands unref'd about US/UK, too. And those all need fixing too.  Chzz  ►  13:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm. Pissant? I checked my OED and n. 1. an Ant does not explain it. Esp. etym. "2000 Dallas Observer (Nexis) 12 Oct., [He] couldn't get a crowd to watch a piss ant eat a bale of hay." but then neither does the simile 2. "... drunk as a pissant". Oh wait. It's a tautology. Pissant hamlet is small small. I get it. Incidentally, if I recall correctly, there is an article on a 2 square miles (5 km2) UK place near me with at least 128 WP:RS's so it can be done :) --Senra (Talk) 22:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
By 'pissant' I just meant 'insignificant', and by 'hamlet' I meant some place that is smaller than a town. An insignificant little place.  Chzz  ►  07:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lougba satellite view.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but, what I'm really struggling with here is, there is no indication on that map that that place is "Lougba"! I mean, look - it's right next to ChzzTown! Throw me a frickin' bone here.  Chzz  ►  14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, ultimately I am not getting paid for my work here. I don't have to edit a single article or contribute a single little thing. I do have other interests believe it or not and my time would probably better spent developing my skills in other hobbies. So its a bit of a cheek for you to give orders if I'm being honest with you. But you'll find thousands of settlements on google maps not marked with names. Iran for instance many which Carlos starts are not actually written on the map but you can see the towns. Bing however often has a better labelling, its marked as such here. I could simply drop the "town" and leave it as arrondissement of course... How about I try to find the settlement on a map and coordinates but if I can't I'll drop the town part OK? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Worth while remembering it's some of t'wiki consensus-built policies etc. you're each pissed off about, not each other, really. Like they say: "I didn't make the world, I just try to live in it!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think I get paid, or something? I've spent most hours of most days for the past few years editing Wikipedia. Whilst arguing with you about this, I was simultaneously helping a nice guy in Pakistan with very limited English-skills, who wanted to write an article; I was trying to teach him the importance of referencing - hence after several hours, we progressed from [21] to [22].
But if experienced users like yourself are creating hundreds of poorly-referenced articles, how does that look to the new users? So maybe I am the one that should flounce off and say "oh, what's the point?"
We've looked at just one of the articles you made, and it began Lougba is a town and arrondissement... - and now, after considerable efforts, we've decided that we can't actually tell if it is a town. Does that not demonstrate why one single line in one single source isn't a great basis for an article?
As to Iranian settlements... please stop using 'other stuff' arguments.
I'm really not terribly impressed if a place is or is not marked on a map - I only mentioned maps because at least it'd be some indication that the place (as a town) exists - ie, it'd give me a little more confidence. But the simple reality is...it does need more references than just a Place...Population entry in one list.  Chzz  ►  08:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I wish I got paid! It's a real shame when some of our allegedly-reliable sources can't actually be truly relied upon. As far as sources go, within reason, the more the merrier. It does avoid the possibility of relying on one source which turns out to be mistaken (making us all look a bit silly!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the general point here deserves wider coverage; therefore please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Articles_need_multiple_sources. Ta, 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot task

Hi, could you review User:Petrb/Proposed_bot_task_iptalk and update it, in case that there is more to do for a bot. All checks should be there in the list (probably are not, so add them) Thanks Petrb (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing  Chzz  ►  23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This might be an odd request but I was wondering if you had any thoughts about Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation_pages_with_links#Update and Request for Comment - User dablink notification. I have always found the automated messages left for AFC which you came up with to be clear and friendly. Perhaps you might have some ideas about how to achieve a similar effect here. Best, France3470 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I commented; maybe not in the way you'd hope, but, it's opinion! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks, France3470 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Healthcare in the United States

Do you intend to address the six sources supporting notability and inclusion at Template talk:Healthcare in the United States#Deletion of United States National Health Care Act? Dualus (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on that talk page.  Chzz  ►  23:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Sims 3 artucke qustion reply

In to the response to your reply post on my talk page, I was refering to the Neighborhood articles on The Sims Wiki, such as Sunset Valley, Riverview, Barnacle Bay, Hidden Springs, Bridgeport, Twinbrook, and the latest neighborhood which is some horse name with Plains in The Sims 3: Pets, and The Sims Wiki has individual articles for each neighborhood, however, since these are in=game products being introduced in the game, I suggest having a separate article dealing with The Sims (series) franchise games of neighborhoods. Meaning as there would be a page, like The Sims 2 and The Sims 3 Stuff Packs and List of The Sims (series) games as an example, for the listings of all neighborhoods in the game. Just a suggestion but would like some feedback towards this idea. And secondly, I did a minor update on The Sims 3 Stuff Packs with a confirmed Stuff Pack name that has little to no information but did placed a reference tag to it that is found on the main article in the stuff pack listings. Is this wise to have this done prior to the actual press release from Electronic Arts? If not, then I propose protecting the page until further notice is out for this release; this includes the stuff pack article as well. Just a consern of mine since I have little to no knowledge with the properness of the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please leave all comments on my talk page with your comments and suggestions. This includes anything that you do not understand. Thanks. Sundogs Wikia UserPage | Roller Derby Wiki 23:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied on IRC - let me know if there's anything I haven't answered, ta.  Chzz  ►  00:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

New Mcnew guy

Hey was new here, was wondering how to make a fancy userpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLittlestTerrorist (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you've already made a good start. I'm no expert on user-pages, but you could possibly try Wikipedia:User page design center.  Chzz  ►  22:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

\___/ \-_-_-/

Gosh, that's tiny. But...I don't really have the inclination; of course, I think about it occasionally - but usually find something better to do :-)  Chzz  ►  23:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Query, general, IP talk page archive proposal

Since I've been observing the shared IP talk page archive proposal and you appear, may I post a query to you?

It all seems an excellent idea, but what I was wondering is this: will this assist in helping innocent IPs from being blamed for something the last guy with that IP had done? It's happened to me, and I could only reply that I was not vandalising.

It seems to me, anyway, that this proposal is good. There is the part about stale warnings and things - what a blessing if they could be safely removed. Someone even asked about "nuking" them all at once!Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes; that is exactly the underlying idea - to stop new users getting nasty old messages that are nothing to do with them.  Chzz  ►  21:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning on my talk.

The IP that I have repeatedly reverted is a persistent vandal, he she is pushing a Catalan separatist POV on List of amateur radio organizations. It is not my fault that I am the only editor interested in defending the integrity of that article. I have in fact just posted a request for help on the Help page to get the article semi-protected. I know from experience (I'm not a newbie, I've been here since 2007 and have logged over 8000 edits) that reporting IPs to AIV is a total waste of time, thus my request for semi-protection. Roger (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV deals mostly with straight up vandalism, but I wouldn't say that reporting them after due warning is a waste of time. Semi-protection and protection in general are measures best avoided if possible, specifically, policy advise to proceed with blocks rather than protections if possible. While indeed, the addition of a separate row for an autonomous region of Spain seems inconsistent with the way the article is structured, it's better to engage in discussion rather than a revert war. Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 17:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd just replied over on the user's talk, too. See also List_of_amateur_radio_organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), T:#Catalonia, HD, prot req cancelled  Chzz  ►  17:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see something is being done about this and that I'm not alone. Roger (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Now: WP:ANI/Edit warring  Chzz  ►  17:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Blocked and commented. Snowolf How can I help? 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
@#%^$%&@&*. Thanks for the poke. Reverted, wrote a message as companion to yours as additional warning, will try to keep an eye on it, sigh. Snowolf How can I help? 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Well...nothing is actually on fire, so no big deal; and I'll keep an eye on it too. Note, I also reported to AN/I [23] (actually just before mentioning it to you - just seemed the logical thing to do). I'm wary of making another revert, as I've made 3. But it's all well-logged, so I can always just shout for help (from you, or on AN/I). Thanks again.  Chzz  ►  21:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty braindead, thanks for pointing out my mistake. And yeah, I understand, tho really these (this?) user seem really not willing to engage in discussion with us, it's really a rather one-side affair rather than a revert war. Snowolf How can I help? 22:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

More links, as a 'note to self': Unió de Radioaficionats de Catalunya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ea3wr (talk · contribs)

User:ChzzBot IV/AFC unreferenced

Disamibiguation pages do not have references. Your bot should not be tagging them as requiring references. I suggest your bot should be modified to scan for the {{disambig}} / {{dab}} / {{disambiguation}} footer and not suggest adding references to those AFC submissions. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Example edit: [24] Probably difficult to get right in all cases, but the approach suggested by 65.94.77.11 might be a good first step. Huon (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The bot should skip dab submissions - it already has code to do so. However, clearly it is not working correctly.

I will investigate, and try to fix it; in the meantime, I've stopped the bot.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and sincere apologies for any trouble it caused you. Best,  Chzz  ►  13:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cross Discipline 1 article submission on leptokurtic distributions

Thanks for your suggestion. I have added references to my article and re-submitted it. Cheers!Cross discipline 2 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I was a bit confused by that message, because I hadn't left you any messages - but upon investigating, I found that Cross discipline 1 (talk · contribs) had made Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thorne Distribution for Leptokurtic Data.
So - are you using more than one account? If so, that's a problem. Please can you explain why there's '1' and '2', and maybe we can sort it out.
With regards to the submission: I see that you've added superscript numbers with e.g. <sup>[1]</sup>, but I cannot tell what those numbers refer to. It would be preferable if you could use inline citations, so that the numbers link to the specific reference - see WP:REFB or re-read the help on User talk:Cross discipline 1.
Best of luck with it. (But please, let me know about the 2 accounts thing).  Chzz  ►  17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Gurgaon

Thanks for the timely reminder on my talk page. I guess I do have a question. How does one deal this an edit such as this In the past, I would simply revert or undo. These editors are IPs who turn up from somewhere (well, in this case, New Jersey) and blank a whole section, because the don't depictions of unpleasant things about their town. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd deal with it like this: [25] [26] [27].
It looks highly likely that KuwarOnline (talk · contribs) is re-removing it without logging in - but, if we could discuss it, we might make progress. And if not, I'd report it on WP:ANI/3RR or request protection or blocks (after appropriate warnings).  Chzz  ►  18:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Want to serve as a third opinion again? Or is this potential canvassing?

At another template: Template talk:Health care reform in the United States. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lucas Hoge

The DYK project (nominate) 00:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why!? Glacial? Chzz?

Not sure why my article has been declined so far? I maybe acting wrongly in attempting to gain a Wiki Entry, perhaps? I am trying to have a Wiki entry for a local church in England. Feedback so far says I have not given refs and notability but I have listed many and it is a recognised Church of England? Please help! Thanks yasmin.user: markst123Markst123 (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This user also contacted me via email, and I answered there.  Chzz  ►  00:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to Live?

Hi Chzz! Your help on my article, Kent Holtorf, is really appreciated. I think all is in order now. I just need you or Pesky or Sonia to move it live for me if you think it's ready. Pesky posted this on her talk page, "Let me (or Chzz, or Sonia) know when you've found the relevant "proper" infobox, and then we can send it back "live". If I'm not around, for any reason, then you can point either of them here to let them know that, as far as I'm concerned, either of them is welcome to do the move. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)" Thanks again! Zoeyeve (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that Pesky has already made it live [28].  Chzz  ►  00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Chzz,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Chzz has already been responding to feedback too. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please undo your (non-admin) closure of the ANI thread on Ludwigs2

A topic ban is being proposed there, and it has received !votes just yesterday. If it stays inactive, it will just be archived. A single admin cannot impose topic bans all by himself unless discretionary sanctions have been approved by ArbCom or the community for the topic. The article on Muhammad does not seem to fall in that category, so community consensus needs to be established before any topic ban can be imposed. I and others noted in the ANI thread that Ludwigs2 was topic banned from astrology following similar behavior. However, astrology does fall under an ArbCom case, so a single admin was able to enact that ban at WP:AE. It is rather unlikely that a RfC/U will produce any results in this case. Also, you closure comment [29] seemed rather snotty to me, especially your lecture about the necessity of diffs given that there was a section with diffs in the discussion. Maybe you did not read it carefully enough? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't close anything; I collapsed a section - if you want to 'undo' that, I won't object.  Chzz  ►  02:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast move :)

Hi Chzz,

Thanks for the fast move. It was considerably faster than I had expected, especially given the page backlog. :) I'll be adding more content to it, so I'd appreciate you keeping an eye on it. Thanks again. :)

Trevor coelho (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings...

{{You've got mail}}

File namespace noticeboard idea

Hi there. As a file worker, I'd like your input on the idea of a noticeboard for file workers. The prototype is at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#File Namespace Noticeboard.

Please comment at the VPIL thread, or edit the page linked to there directly, as I can't keep track of this conversation if everyone I invite to comment on the matter responds on their own talk pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Theophosostic counseling

In this case, it's a redirect to an existing page; the existence or nonexistence of a corresponding article isn't relevant for redirects in the talk namespace. The page is dependent on Talk:Theophostic counseling/Archive 1, and that's why the existence of the target is the relevant question. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied back to User_talk:Nyttend#Theophosostic and replied there  Chzz  ►  17:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The existence or nonexistence of links to a redirect is completely irrelevant. I know that it's a typo: however, it is a redirect to a page that currently exists, and as such it does not qualify for deletion as a dependent page of a nonexistent page. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Copied back to User_talk:Nyttend#Theophosostic and replied there  Chzz  ►  18:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

THANKS

For making all those beyoooooootiful Chzz/help pages...they're awesome! Shearonink (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your assistance with DYKs today. :D

LauraHale (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz/Archive_34&oldid=1144526098"