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'm taking advantage of your offer to comment on the Wikipedia assignment I'm giving in my course this Fall. The entire course syllabus can be found at [1], though only the first three ppt lectures are available. The Wikipedia assignment is at User:Lenshapir/my_sandbox. In the assignment I refer to preparatory material I present in class, which is in the lecture [2] .
On August 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Adams (singer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
whatever resolution there might have been, it isn't working, chzz. bigtimepeace has become his own consensus of 1 while continuing to demand of me that i submit to discussion regarding his edits that he doesn't even take a word to justify in comments. as long as he can hold "admin" status over me, there is little i can do take part in the discussion without fear of banning and his using wikipedia to wreck work i've done to improve the correctness and relevancy of that lead.24.2.247.208 (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me, but my mind-reading skills are weak today :-) What article, what is your username, and what is it all about? I'm involved in quite a few things, so forgive me for not being able to guess it. Chzz ► 04:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 24.2.247.208 I'm not sure why you are contacting this editor, but I have never threatened to ban or block you. We are in a content dispute and I would never use my administrator tools in that situation. I have absolutely not used by admin status against you, nor even mentioned that I am an admin (you are the only one who has made a thing of it, for reasons that elude me). "Demanding" of you that you discuss the matter on the talk page is standard Wikipedia practice—when there is a dispute we talk about it and work for consensus. I must say it's amusing that you've borrowed the "consensus of one" line which someone applied to you in the ANI thread. You altered the opening four words of the article, that had been there since the article's inception, with no discussion and then when I argue against that somehow I'm operating against consensus. It's an interesting interpretation, but others will notice that I'm discussing things on the talk page and you are not. Please try discussion, thanks.
Well, I seemingly understand at last. In my Sandbox I'll try to do the same with the Season 2. But I am still unable to copy by one click as you did. Explain me, please. Oh, I am such a «tea-pot», I know! Excuse me, please!--Mirabella Star 14:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by He-l-en1959 (talk • contribs)
When you start a new conversation on a talk page (like this one), please create a new section at the end of the page, by clicking on 'new section' at the top.
Every time you post a message, please "sign" by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) on the end. That will add your username and the date/time.
Now, regarding the edit. What I did was;
a) I edited List of Transformers: Armada episodes, and highlighted all of season one. I then "cut" that. I typed in {{main|List of Transformers: Armada episodes season 1}}, and the first bit of the paragraph that will describe the season ("The first season began with a 3-part series..."). Then I saved it.
b) The article then contained the message "Main article: List of Transformers: Armada episodes season 1", which was a red link, because that new article did not exist. So I clicked on the red-link to make the new article. I then chose 'paste', which pasted in the stuff I had cut out of the other article. I fixed up the beginning a little, and that was about it.
Don't worry; nothing is ever lost, anything can be undone. I have added the code to the article under "season two", which you can see here. There is a link to List of Transformers: Armada episodes season 2, which is currently red, as that article does not yet exist. You can click on it, and make the article. If you are missing some of the information that was previously on the main article, look here, in the article history, and you can click on the dates of any old version to get back to it.
The Season 2 is ready! It is in my «test 3» page. You may see it if you want. Now it is necessary only to make it a real article. And I begin to make Season 3! Thank you for your advices. I'll be very glad if you will remain my beloved adviser further. User:He-l-en1959Mirabella Star 14:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. One thing needs fixing: You don't need the section heading called "List of Transformers: Armada episodes (Season 3)" - that will be the first bit, the lede, and remember that the article will be called that, hence that name will be displayed at the top. Hence, each episode should be a == level two == heading, not === level 3 ===
Apart from that, I guess it's fine to make it live. I don't know that much about writing those type of articles; usually things need references, but I know that it's a bit different for plot summaries. Check Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary - and sorry, I should have found you those earlier, but like I say, it's not something I've ever done myself.
Remember to be bold, so don't worry too much. Make it live; what's the worst that can happen? It gets deleted...that's fine, you can get a copy, fix it, make it again. No problems. Good luck with it. Chzz ► 07:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I did it!!!! You may see my article «List of Transformers: Armada episodes season 2»!!! Please, explain to me how must I deal with all these remarks? And how anybody can wright about the fictional personages (fairy-tale personages, indeed) otherwise than in the style of essay? I had read all such Wiki-articles, and they all are written in the similar style User:He-l-en1959Mirabella Star 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In List of Transformers: Armada episodes#Season 1 - when I added the 'see main' thing, I wrote a single sentence as an example - The first season began with a 3-part series, "First Encounter", "Metamorphosis" and "Base".. There should actually be a couple of paragraphs that summarize the whole sub-article. That is the idea of 'summary style' - the sub-article contains all the detail, but the main article should say 'see main article', but also needs a summary.
For an example of this, see World War II and the links from it - because it is split into many articles. The points is, the "Main article: List of Transformers: Armada episodes season 1" should be followed by 2 or 3 paragraphs summarizing the season.
Next, to make the new sub-article more encyclopaedic, you could add facts about the article - perhaps at the top, before the plot detail. For example, when did it first air, on what network? Are there viewing figures, did it win any awards, what did critics think of it, who were the voice-actors - that sort of thing. Of course, this information should be referenced to reliable sources, such as newspaper articles.
It would probably be good to make the descriptions of each episode a little shorter, and put them into a table format.
I'll try to do so. I hope that nobody gets my article away till I improve it… And tell me, please, what are the figures contained in the «Talk: List of Transformers: Armada season 1»? Need I to do the same «Talk…» article? If I must do so, can I recite these figures, or how can I get the new ones? Yours. User:He-l-en1959Mirabella Star 14:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess you mean the figures in the 'diff' part, in {{Copied|from=List of Transformers: Armada episodes|to=List of Transformers: Armada episodes season 1|diff=http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Transformers:_Armada_episodes&diff=308123846&oldid=308120529}}? I got that by going into the history of the page, and finding the edit where I chopped out the information, clicking on 'diff', and then I copied that URL. See WP:DIFF. Chzz ► 20:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean, "can I see your edits/user pages"? The answer to that is, yes. Anyone can see any page on Wikipedia. Chzz ► 18:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I mean that you can read my article and tell me some new useful advices (if you wish). Yours.--Mirabella Star 15:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by He-l-en1959 (talk • contribs)
Anyone! But «Test 1» is only an «embryo», I'm sorry… Test 3 and Test 4 are better. But I have meant primarily my article «List of Transformers: Armada episodes season 2» which is in Wiki already (my test 2).--Mirabella Star 15:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by He-l-en1959 (talk • contribs)
Thanks so much for your very helpful comments. I have absorbed most of them but am stuck on one, that is, your suggestion that the students should begin by cleaning up other users' articles. I see this suggestion elsewhere, but it is bewildering to me. How can someone who has no experience with WP possibly edit others' articles? I have looked at WP:CLEANUP and the requests for cleanup there seem to me to expect sophistication and experience that is beyond first-time users. I don't see simple requests like "please correct my spelling and grammar". I see references to AfD that I don't understand, extensive use of jargon, and requests for judgments like "slightly bus-route fannish" and "problematic referencing and self-promotional tone" and "needs a good scrubbing" . I looked at the Backlog and those articles seem to require significant research that could better be put into the article that constitutes the assignment. I agree with you that it is important to engage with the WP community but it makes more sense to me to have students begin by writing an article and, along the way, asking for advice from WP:PEER. Can you advise me here?
Thanks, Len Lenshapir (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. Your comment, "How can someone who has no experience with WP possibly edit" really does make me wince; I understand it fully, and it is a huge problem that Wikipedia faces right now. It should work that way, and I am a firm believer in the principle. Basics - the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. You don't even need an account - anyone can click the edit button and change things, and that is the core principle of the whole thing.
Wikipedia is an extremely dynamic environment, and it takes a lot of getting used to. Given the nature of your course, I would imagine that the best approach would be to embrace that; in order to really grasp the nature of the project (WP), I feel that a greater insight would be gained by an insight into the way that the community works. Let's face it, writing a short article is an English lesson, or a markup lesson, and not truly getting to the crux of Web 2.0 etc.
I think that the best approach would be for you yourself to get to understand Wikipedia a little more, and then you would be in a much better position to show the students what it is all about; I find that Wikipedia has a very steep learning-curve for new users. We do our very best to keep things simple, but with 6,931,402 articles, it does tend to become complex.
Perhaps the best thing that you could do right now is click on 'random article' on the left a few times, and find something that can be fixed, and fix it. Indeed perhaps some of the suggested links that I gave weren't the best, although I think that you can always find things in dire need of work in Special:newpages - ok, so a lot of it is junk, but if you click through some, you'll probably find some half-decent well-intentioned article that could be easily improved a little, just by putting the title '''in bold''', fixing typos, adding a == section heading== or - with 5 minutes googling - adding a sentence or two with a suitable reference, e.g. Bob won the Sausage Prize for creative fiction in 1990<ref> Foo Magazine, September 1990 </ref>..
Regarding AfD, yes, indeed, a lot of jargon comes in - and this is also a well-recognized problem, and one we work on - see WP:WTF. Top tip is, if you see a comment such as 'fails BAND', try typing WP:BAND into the search box - often that will explain what they are referring to. I honestly think that, if the students and yourself (after you've learned a bit more) were to browse through today's AfD log for a while ( or perhaps better, browse through some of the slightly older ones which will already have feedback), they would soon be able to add their comments such as *'''Delete''' per nom. Fails to establish notability through reliable sources. - and if they checked back the next day, I expect they'd see comments about their comments. Now that, I think, is true involvement in the project.
Please note, I am in no way disparaging your idea about them developing an article - I'm all in favour; I just feel that they could get more from the Wikipedia part by getting a bit more involved. I know from experience that, if an editor sits editing in their sandbox, then they'll be left to their own devices - and that's fine. But if they edit some existing article or !vote in an AfD, they're going to get into some discussion with the community - which strikes me as a better way of gaining an insight into the way such collaborations work. I see the two approaches as mutually beneficial; of course I realise that time will, as always, be the determining factor in the depth of involvement necessary.
The best and the worst thing about using live Wikipedia as part of a course is, the unpredictable nature of it. I feel that the best approach is to embrace the unfolding events. For example, if one of your students becomes embroilled in an edit war or something, or even if they manage to get themself blocked, then embrace that issue, run with it - it will illustrate the nature of Wikipedia far better than just writing a bit of code and learning what [[image|flower.jpg|thumb|This is a flower]] does.
For that reason, I would also recommend making their articles 'live' as soon as is physically possible, although remember the 4-days 10-edits constraint on 'move'. If your first session is a bit of sandbox editing to try out some code, they'll soon rack up the 10 edits though - and once they have an acceptable stub article (ie a few lines, with a couple of refs), they should make it live. That way, it's possible that when they come back a few days later, others will have edited it. And that's when they'll start to understand what Wikipedia is all about. The process can be expedited too - if, for example, you tell me when the articles are live, I will happily dive into them and make some edits, or get others to do so.
I hope that this is constructive advice; I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to do your job here, and you may well disagree with my ideas - that's fine; I'll still help, regardless of the direction you choose to take. Speak soon, Chzz ► 23:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Section header added by chzz
{{tb|btilm}} (I've nulled out this talkback by changing it to {{tlx|tb|btilm}} - which is the best thing to do, once you have dealt with them Chzz ► 22:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC))
Two problems. Firstly, you didn't make a new section, so your talkback thing went into the section called ' New user help :)' - which can get confusing. Every time you leave a new message on a talk page, please make a new section at the end, with the 'new section' tab at the top of the page. If you are replying to an existing thread, it's fine to edit that and add it in there.
Secondly, you forgot to sign. 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.
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.
Not sure why this was left here; can't see any further questions on the user talk page at the moment. I'll ask 'em there. Chzz ► 09:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Help
{helpme} thanks for the help but i was talking about another type of box, one thats found on a bottom of a page but thanks for the infobox, i can use it to post info :D {Superman2009 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)}
I don't like the wording however I do agree with RexxS on many of his points in our breif dicussion. Do to the differences taught in various countries & organization. I believe that a percentage should be left out. b/c Nitrox by definition is just a gas containing just Nitrogen & Oxygen which is why it is called enriched(the almost complete removal of the other gases in compressed air), I think.
sorry for the spelling & grammer.
Hope it makes enough sense
I moved your post to here. Please relpy if you have an ideas I am at a loss my self.
I have issues with the phras breathing gases, Do to the fact that a breathing gas can contain 100% oxygen(not "up to" which i don't like however its correct.). To the best of my knowledge 100% O2 has never been used in diving do to many things. However I may be wrong. Looking foward to your reply.
Actually, 100% O is used routinely by tech divers, performing an extended safety stop at 5m depth, following a deep dive involving decompression stops (these guys will be using TriMix or HeliOx at depth). The O tanks would normally be hung from the bottom of the boat. PADI only does no-deco diving, ie all their tables are calculated such that decompression stops are never required. PADI divers do a 'safety stop' at 5 metres for 3 minutes, but that is precautionary rather than essential - if it is missed out, there is no great panic, you just don't dive again for 24 hours (if I remember right, and it has not changed; it's a few years since I taught a course). Chzz ► 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I took my scuba course about 10+ years back (not with PADI) and I know there stuff has changed in a few respects for dive times and decomp found that out when some of the newer divers where looking at my tables in puzzled sort of fashion. If tech divers use it in there decomp stops I think your wording is definitely better.
Hello Chzz, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Myanmarisp.com) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'see the article's edit summary'?
Also, in what way does this not meet the A7 web criteria - there are no references at all, and Google News provides no hits. Do you consider that a library with "about 375 eBooks and nearly 800 biographies of famous and prominent writers" is a "credible claim of significance or importance"? I think quite a few home libraries would have more than that.
Still - if there is any doubt that it might be useful, then yes, PROD is fine. I'm just trying to clarify where you believe that I am going wrong. Chzz ► 18:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm dreadfully sorry. I thought the reason would appear in the edit summary. See this edit: [3]. Basically it was out of respect for Fabrictramp's decision not to delete it or tag it for A7 when she encountered it. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added a convenience link to the source text. If a further reference or clarification is required, please tag it as such and/or comment on the talk page. Chzz ► 10:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
New user help :)
Hi dude thank you for all the info you left on my talk page :)
Will try to make a start on some this weekend.
If I need a hand is it on to ask you as you seem to know just what it is I need to be doing and I like your kl buttons :(
Absolutely. The best attitude is to be bold, and don't worry, because if you do mess things up, a) you can 'undo' things (just click on the 'history' and undo), b) you can get help any time. So - try things, and if you get stuck don't sit scratching your head, ask for help. Quickest/best way is live help, with this - give it a quick try now. And yes, for other stuff, just ask here, any time. Good luck, Chzz ► 22:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch!
Was just wondering if you would be able to see any obvious flaws with the page that I might have over looked. A trained set of eyes and specifics would be a huge help. Thanks again!
Chris Zwirner
(Historywriter2001 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC))
If you sort the citations out as I've explained, you should be OK; it would also be good, if there are some, to add refs to any articles about the photographer (as opposed to articles demonstrating your work) - that would solve the 'notability' thing.
Once you have fixed things, feel free to remove the tags yourself - ie the bits at the top that make those notices appear;
I was wondering when are you going to close the debate over the 750m and 350m because the proposed edit has beaten the opposed edit? ITalkTheTruth (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs]]) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time.
I will do my best to mediate the debate, but remember that there is no deadline. I certainly want to avoid the ridiculous amount of pointless debate from affecting the outcome - which is why I summarized things a few days ago. Unfortunately, despite my pleas for brief comments, we now have an awful lot more pages of, frankly, pointless rhetoric that is devoid of meaningful policy-based argument. I will do my best to dig through it again; indeed, I've been trying to get help in reaching a conclusion but others have been put off by the sheer size of the take page. Don't worry, it will not go on forever. Chzz ► 04:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Not quite organized lobbying
I found [4] interesting. Not quite lobbying, but clearly aimed at getting people to express an opinion. Currently deleted due to the Nazi elements.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help!
I was able to make a page on the User: Coffeebean21/test (by clicking on the one you listed -thanks!). I guess my problem was not knowing where to put the /subpage. I do have a dilemna...I was "asked" to post this and I work there - definitely a COI, I know. But in looking at a few other companies that have entries on Wikipedia, I saw at least one other that was posted by an employee of that company. In reviewing the discussion page on that one, I've attempted to use only the info from the references listed - nothing from our website and nothing original in an attempt to keep it as neutral as possible and non-marketing.
Firstly, I've just edited the article, making it more 'wiki format', and also to hopefully show you how to do some things. The first bit of an article is called a lede, and does not need a heading; it should start with the name of the article in '''bold. The other sections should have ==headings==. I added a wikilink to 'Redmond', and I fixed the referenced external links. Please have a good look at the codes I used.
Secondly, you will need better references. "Business Week" looks like a primary source - ie a listing, submitted by the company, not an independent article. The Intura link does not work, but I expect that is also a primary source. Manta and Naad are both just listings, and the Government census makes no mention of the company. If you intend to make the article, you'll need good sources, as I explained previously. If you can't find any, then we can't have an article (or, if you do make it, it will be deleted). Sorry about that.
Re. other articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF - ie yes, we know that there are lots of rubbish articles on Wikipedia; we're working hard to fix 'em, please help - but that doesn't excuse adding more. I'd really suggest that you work on other articles. Chzz ► 10:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
could you please help me...
write an article when you get back from that wonderful conference in argentina that i will be missing): (that is a sad face...for me)...here is a happy face for you:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiejojesus (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I've no idea what this is about; I don't know anything about a conference in Argentina, and I'm definitely the wrong person to ask about any religious articles, as I'm a staunch believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Chzz ► 21:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a question
But could I ask if you are not busy at this moment. If not, could you help me with an article. You just have to review it(not as in GAN reveiw, but just to find the things I need to work on), because I have no idea how to. It's an article I'm trying to get to GA or (with a 1/1000000000000000000000 percent chance of this happening) FA. If you are busy, then this message will self-destruct in 5...4...3...2...1...Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here)20:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added a convenience link to the source text. If a further reference or clarification is required, please tag it as such and/or comment on the talk page. Chzz ► 10:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright
yes, I know how to sign my posts as evidenced by how I am signing this one. however I don't do that on my own talk page.
not wanting to be too lengthy, but I am thoroughly discouraged by Wikipedia overall. I have been a user for a period of time amounting to more than three or four years. the problem I describe to you only started last year though. I am the user Yadontmind. I have no faith in the admin noticeboard; it has already completely let me down. by dint of the fact that I got involved in two articles my sojourn in Wikiland has been disrupted and I am aware that many other users have given up and left for good.
here is the problem. by the way both articles that I am mentioning are among the most controversial of all time on Wikipedia as evidenced by how many disruptions they caused. I have run into some especially worrisome nuisances on an article currently titled 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings. to no avail it seems I am attempting to thwart "complete takeovers". I am one person; I can't stop three to eleven, even 20 well fortified and indefagitable users with a couple of admins as their cohorts.
if you or other administrators wish to talk to me on AIM or Skype, we could fix some of this. I just finished reading something that highlighted how Wikipedia is possibly close to becoming a hasbeen. I don't want to see that happen. Blastingoff (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
If you do not sign your posts each time, then you can expect to get further messages asking you how to sign - it becomes difficult to follow 'who said what', even on your own talk page, if messages are not signed.
I'm not sure why you are using multiple accounts, but please check the policy on that, WP:MULTIPLE.
With the problem that you have described, all I can suggest is that you discuss the edits on the respective talk page of the article(s); if you feel that more people should get involved, ask for just that, perhaps on associated talk pages. Chzz ► 12:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I know the multiple account policy. I am also aware that there is a built in mistrust of using them. that doesn't change the necessity for them at times.
I am asking for you to get personally involved. yes, I know you could be under fire as well, but I don't think you have to worry about repercussions like the ones I encounter. I don't think you realize, Chzz, I have been trying to build support for over a year. I need you and others to take some of that weight from me. let's talk about how to best do that. are you an admin? do you talk on instant messaging? I don't have IRC but I do have the messenger clients I mentioned. Blastingoff (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. I don't use instant messaging. Any discussion about the article should go on the article talk page. Chzz ► 21:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Help needed from the expert (or should it be Expert?)
Hi Chzz. I am currently proofreading articles on Thailand and related fields. As I read over there articles, I find great inconsistencies in capitalization (why do I even care? lol). Two nouns often capitalized standing alone are king and constitution. For instance, The King of Thailand is a great (King or king,) or the Constitution of 1948 is the current (Constitution or constitution.) Articles on the constitutions of other countries have the same inconsistencies. I don't want other editors to quarrel with my edits, so please give me your judgment before I attempt this far-reaching cleanup. Thank you and all the best. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"King of Thailand" or "King Bhumibol Adulyadej" should always have a capital K, as it is a titular phrase.
The noun "king" should not be in capitals elsewhere.
This means that you would put "Bhumibol Adulyadej is the King of Thailand", or "Bhumibol Adulyadej is the Thai king".
Thank you so much for your reply. I think Wikipedia is a tremendous reference source and I was very disappointed not to receive a reply to my quetion the first time. I have donated money to WK and while I don't think that entitles me to anything, it increased my disappointment. It also seems I read somewhere that once I have an edit accepted by WK, I am considered an "editor". Is that accurate? Looking forward to trying my edit!
You're already an editor - a wikipedian - because you have made 5 edits already. There are no rules or retirements; anyone can edit. Let me know if you have any questions, and feel free to talk to us live, with this or this. Chzz ► 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This article was re-placed due to it being removed by a non-admin per WP:NAC. There was no consensus given for removal, and the redirection inadvertently deleted all the text of the original article. Also, you apparently did not consider the refs (claimed they were self-pub), however they are indeed 3rd party and reliable. I also added a few new refs today to further support the statements made in the article. Chzz, if you have a problem with an article, it's best to discuss it rather than push for a removal and make false statements in order to get it removed. If you would like me to, I can help you locate other bands on wiki who have zero refs on their album pages and we can work together to remove all of those pages. I have a good deal of time now and can put more effort towards cleanup. :) Cheers! Ebonyskye (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. Also, when you start a new conversation, please create a new section heading at the end of the talk page. Thanks :-)
First, please fix your signature - my guess is, you have tried to add code for a custom sig, but you haven't ticked the box in Preferences, Sign my name exactly as shown. If that doesn't fix it, see Wikipedia:How to fix your signature.
These are called user boxes, and you put things like {{User:Meinsla/userboxes/flyingspaghettimonster}}, which displays the box shown here. There are thousands of them, see the gallery.
Um, hello, Chzz...the noodle userbox is for atheists and religious intolerants, no? Cute. Please, I merely wish to make sure of what it means, as you seem to have forgotten to explain, despite my request for a clearer explanation. Yes, to satisfy you, I have fixed my signature as best I can, but I am confused still: I did not think I had yet shown a particular religious preference on Wikipedia, yet your Userbox implies otherwise. I am not an atheist, and I do not know if you are, but I do not wish to use the Userbox in question. I have never heard of this ridiculous noodle creature, so I must assume it is somewhat unpopular in Britain. I just find it curious that the box in question was the first thing that sprung to mind when you are talking with a new Wikipedia user. Anyway, please, if you can, tell me where other Userboxes may be found. Cheers, Soccerrox62 | Talk16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the sig. I hadn't forgotten about the rest; I just wanted to get that sorted out first.
The FSM userbox was simply an example, and nothing more; I wanted to illustrate what a userbox was, and the code used to insert them. I chose that one because I'd been discussing FSM with another person earlier, about an unrelated matter; I didn't think it would make any difference which box I picked.
As I said originally, there are thousands of them, see the gallery.
Out of interest, I am in Britain, but apart from that I remain pretty anonymous; I don't state on Wikipedia whether I am a guy or girl. Chzz ► 16:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Glad that it helped. Please ask anything, any time - but when you leave notes on a talk page, please create a "new section" at the end, and also please 'sign' your name on the end by putting ~~~~, which will add your name, and the date/time.
You can also talk to helpers live, with this or this. Give it a try and say hello :-)
I've been thinking about your thoughts the other day on how confusing AfC can be, namely the whole Pending/Pending thing. It's not much to change, but it would help a bit. What would you think of renaming Category:Pending AfC submissions to just Category:AfC submissions? Think that could address some of the concerns? There's no reason to have a qualifier in front of it, and it fits with the other ones that are used, like the unsorted and dates. That being said, I do also think the "P" pending category could do with a reword - maybe something like "Un-reviewed" or "Awaiting review?" ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)00:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd need to think about it more, but I'd say a) Something should be done, b) It should be discussed on the project talk first, c) ...but don't let that stop you from being bold - sometimes, such suggestions get lost in lengthy debate which just 'fizzles out' - I hope that won't happen on this occasion. Good luck sorting it out. Chzz ► 09:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Tip: When you want to link to a Wiki article (like you did above), just put [[Jewish cemetery in Chernivtsi]] instead of the full URL, so that it shows up like this: Jewish cemetery in Chernivtsi
I just looked at the page and the code, and I'm not sure what you think is wrong - it seems to be working OK to me?
Maybe you could talk to us helpers live, with this?
Inside the Revolution: A Journey into the Heart of Venezuela
Hi Chzz
I have submitted a page--Inside the Revolution: A Journey into the Heart of Venezuela--a few times. In the end it got submitted for speedy deletion. I think I may have violated a rule or something--but it wasn't on purpose and I still don't really know what I did wrong. I am finding it very difficult to know what to do with the article and how I can amend it sufficiently for the admin staff. Obviously now I am concerned about resubmitting it in case I get banned from writing pages. It would be very much appreciated if you could advise me on both what the page is lacking and how i should submit this article in the future.
Hi Chzz, So sorry to bother you again. As you know, I am trying to bring some capitalism uniformity to Wikipedia, according to the Manual of Style. Every time I try to make some correction, some zealot appears with a personal opinion, and reverts my changes. Please visit the article Evangelicalism. Fundamentalist is also one that uses the terms. These are not churches or religions as we know Catholic or Hindu. There is no organized religion know as evangelical church. It is rather a doctrine or theology. While religious magazines and books may capitalize these terms, Wikipedia is not a religious publication (some articles seem to look that way). Please see if we can give some clarity to the Manual of Style as a final rule for these matters. It infers that if there is some ambiguity, we should go with the lower case. Thanks again. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with you - but that won't help much. At the top of WP:MOS, it says "If the Manual of Style does not specify a preferred usage, discuss your issues on the Manual of Style talk page." - I suggest that you do that; seek clarification from the MOS people, and then you will have the appropriate ammunition to state your case in talk page discussions. Maybe even get the MOS clarified, or write a guideline of your own on this specific issue. Hope that helps? Chzz ► 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Fedora Ubuntu and PostgreSQL books
Thank you for your explanation
It's primarily the links to the Fultus website that's the problem.
What should do I to restore my submission?
Link to Amazon? BN? Google Book Search? ... instead of Fultus, contains all this links in one place and opportunity to search throughout all book contents for appropriate book collection or through the all books.
and normally we don't add books unless they have been used as references for the article.
It's OFFICIAL documentation. Each article can point any place here. No one publisher before don't try to do so huge project for all Fedora Ubuntu and PostgreSQL books simulteneously.
As I said, the correct procedure is to suggest the edit on the article talk page, and see what others think. For example, go to Talk:Fedora, create a new section, explain what you think should be added and why. Then await feedback from others. If consensus is in agreement with the edit, you can add it. That's how things work on Wikipedia- anybody can edit an article; if another person objects to the edit (ie removes it), then, at that point you should stop and discuss the proposed edit on the article talk page. Hope this helps, Chzz ► 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Chzz
Chzz, I am sorry if I have been a thorn in the side. I am trying to find my way around (this is my third day here). Wiki says don't be afraid to edit and when I do, I find my work ends up slated for deletion secconds after I get it up. I did not realize that I could make a page for it that was off of Wiki's main site. I am slowly figuring this place out. Once again thanks for the help.--Enikk (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Chzz. Um, look, I'm, well, sorry for attacking you like that. You know, I am a new user here, and I really don't know much...I mean, I go on WikiQuotes, but...Sorry, I just kinda found it a bit odd you seemed to want me to add an incredibly childish noodle creature to my user page, when I barely knew what a userbox was. Well, thanks. Sorry it took so long, but I'm not so active on Wikipedia. Bye. (P.S. The Emergency Wikipedia Shutdown was really amusing, also, a really cute trick.) Oh, and about myself, I have been to Britain, but now I've moved. Cheers, Soccerrox62 | Talk18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, all right, please, don't be annoyed or anything, but what can I do to help here? Could you give me a few tips? I mean, I know you're a busy sysop, but if you could help me or give me advice, it would be seriously appreciated. Thanks, and cheers, Soccerrox62 | Talk18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Chzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
PROD removed from Javed Chaudhary, by User:DGG, with summary '(the requirement for deletion is unsourceable, not unsourced. Look for some first; if nothing found after an adequate search, then try AfD)'
PROD removed from Scutching, by User:Loggie, with summary '(talks a bit about the history as well as the process. Also, I consider it to be notable-a mechanized version is still used for linen goods)'
PROD removed from Ingex, by User:PolarYukon, with summary '(add independent ref. several more magazine articles easily found with search google: bbc ingex)'
Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Article was hugely expanded after PROD; I tidied it up a bit (esp. re externals), and tagged as primary sourced Chzz ► 09:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Query about an image from wikipedia
Hi,
This message is for the author - "xfanplasma"
I want to use an image that he has uploaded in the section "induction plasma technology" And I want to quote a primary citation for the image, not wikipedia. But I do not know what to use for this purpose. Could you please help me with it. I could also be reached at "rjain108@gmail.com"
Hello. I'm not sure quite why you are asking me, but anyway: the images placed in that article which were uploaded by xfanplasma (talk·contribs) are under the " Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike" licence. That means you can use them for anything, anywhere, on the condition that a) you mention that the author is 'xfanplasma' somewhere, and b) you have a link to the CC licence somewhere. Wikipedia articles meet those conditions by providing the author info and the licencing details when you click on an image. Hope that helps? Chzz ► 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Basil Banghart
On August 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Basil Banghart, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
Folooge! (ful-oo-j) is a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, with a wide variety of meanings. The word is often used figuratively in British English, as a noun to mean "nonsense", an expletive following a minor accident or misfortune, or an adjective to mean "poor quality" or "useless". Similarly, the common phrases "Folooge!!" or "That's just Folooge! " generally indicate contempt for a certain task, subject or opinion. Conversely, the word also figures in idiomatic phrases such as "Oh Folooge!" and "Folooooooge!", which usually refer to something which is admired, approved of or well-respected.
Examples of uses:
You're driving along and someone pulls out from a side road and writes your car off....."Folooge!"
You wake up, really can't be bothered to go to work, yawn and say "Folooge!"
You're opening your Birthday presents and unwrap a gift that you have always wanted..."Folooge!"
You're watching the Lotto live draw, five of your numbers have already come up......and then the sixth one appears, you've hit the jackpot!...."Folooge!"
Folooge!
Alternatively, you're feeling very tired, can't think of anything to say, so you say "Folooge!"
Oops, that was my mistake. When processing a whole list of requests for redirects in WP:AFC, I mixed two of them up. I've fixed it now, and I'm checking all the others that I made. Thanks for pointing it out; sorry for any trouble. Cheers! Chzz ► 16:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chzz,
i did not see any more comments in the DYK hook about the article. If there is something else to be fixed, please let me know
talk—Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
Hi. When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will automatically add a link to your talk, and the date and time.
The nomination is fine; all we can do is wait for someone to come along and process it - which might take several days. Cheers. Chzz ► 21:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I have move the test that you put here to a user subpage of your own, User:Zcray/Armed Forces Enlisted Benefit Association. I have added a link to that page on your user page itself, which is Zcray. I also added links to other suggested 'test' pages - they will be red links at the moment because they do not exist, but feel free to create them as you try things out.
On August 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert Bates (criminal), which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
I edited the page to add my nomination [5], and then noticed that I had signed with five tildes instead of four, hence it added the date/time but not my sig. I clicked 'edit' again, and replaced the date/time with four tildes [6]. In doing so, for some odd reason/glitch, I accidentally also removed the [[User from your own posting; I cannot explain quite why it happened; perhaps I did a search for "[[user" and accidentally pressed space or something. I then realized that I was not logged in (due to an earlier reboot), and thus performed a third edit [7] replacing the IP sig with my username sig.
thanks for your confidence in me. I will try to help out somewhere next week, since I'm in Buenos Aires right now with limited internet time and lots of other things to do. Please don't hesitate to poke me again if I seem to be forgetting it! effeietsanders23:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dagenham Roundhouse, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
Thanks again. I will review the draft and try to address your concerns.
I am confused about your comment on primary sources, however. Almost all the sources I referenced are media stories, so how are they primary?
Also, the many references I put in about Troutman being called an "expert" do state that they consider her to be an expert on Federal resumes, KSAs, and federal employment issues in general. I think this description of her is warranted. She meets the definition as listed in the Wikipedia entry on "Expert," imho.
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.
On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jewish cemetery in Chernivtsi, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.
Thanks for uploading File:Mba 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 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we work together to create another article? This time I'd like to write an article about Cornwall Coliseum in St Austell, England. There seems to be a bit more information on this venue compared to the Dagenham Roundhouse. Let me know if we can work together again.
Hiya. I'd love to help, but I am pretty busy, so not sure when I'll have the time. If you could make a start at it, have a try, I'd be happy to look over it; otherwise, if I do get free time, I'll see what I can do. If you start User:Evangp/Cornwall Coliseum, let me know, and I'll look at it ASAP. Cheers, Chzz ► 11:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I have begun the Cornwall Coliseum article. Please check it out.
Again, Chzz, you have my thanks. You know, as you offered me such excellent advice, I shall myself suggest this: Apply for administration. Seriously. You will have my support, such as it is, if you ever consider it. Please, I understand I am new here and all, but I know the makings of a sysop when I see one. Do it. It won't hurt to at least try... Soccerrox62 | Talk17:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No, seriously, Chzz, I think you should. But, according to the nomination process, I need you to verify that before I can nominate. Please reply soon! Soccerrox62 | Talk18:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you very much for that. I don't want to go through the "Request for Adminship" process right now, so please don't nominate me - but I will think about it in the future. Cheers! Chzz ► 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Done on user talk Chzz ► 09:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Done (ref. Steven Griffith) Chzz ► 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Doing... Chzz ► 15:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Jewish cemetery in Chernivtsi 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! Materialscientist (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}