This is an archive of past discussions about 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.
So when us noobs create a ton of minor edits that have to real utility other than to show the initial build of the page, is there a mechanism for removing them from the database to make space for more important content?Svanslyck (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not a problem - Don't worry about performance. Wikis depend on keeping a record of all edits, no matter how unimportant.
Right now, we have 61,789,618 pages, {{NUMBERedits. If you refresh this page, those numbers will have changed.
I have just taken the liberty of creating your user page, User:Svanslyck, with links to some non-existent userspace areas. You can click on those red links and make those pages to test things out, or work on a draft article. You can, of course, edit the page and add more links, or whatever you wish. You can get to that page any time by clicking your user name at the top of all Wikipedia pages (when logged in).
Thank you for directing me to WP:SPI. However, I do not know enough about the user to report them there. The username in question is Gorrad. The account was created a week ago. Reply on my talk page if you feel the need. Thanks! --N419BH (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Without a specific concern, I don't see anything much to worry about. Of course, you could keep an eye on things - but we must assume good faith until proven otherwise. Chzz ► 04:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Wondering if you know of any specific cases where subject matter in Wikipedia articles has been published in scientific literature
To: Chzz
From: Howard Z
Hi Chzz,
You had mentioned that things published in Wikipedia could be published elsewhere:
"As I said, using some or even all of the material from a Wikipedia article within a publication is absolutely fine; the only condition being that, if you copy a large chunk from Wikipedia verbatim, you should say that it is copied from Wikipedia - this may sound odd, as you wrote most of it, but that is just why we ask for the credit - if you do publish, and mention the Wikipedia article, anyone wishing to check would see that "user:Hezummerman" had written it. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content if needed. Best, Chzz ► 02:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)"
I'm having a problem with "Accounts of Chemical Research". I know one of the Editors and write him
about my submitting an article on the Mechanism of the Birch Reduction. I explained that I had written
a corresponding article in Wikipedia but that my intent was a larger article and not a verbatim one.
It would necessarily consider much of the same topics. Some of the drawings would be close to those in
my J.Am.Chem.Soc. papers and close to those in Wikipedia.
They still have not given me a final opinion.
Chzz, I wonder if you know of any specific examples where an Article in Wikipedia has be subsequently published
in a regular journal. Scientific examples would be best. This would provide precedent for what I want to do.
I realize that the scientific specification is out of your field. But I don't believe I've discussed the problem
with BDuke. Thus, you and I have had more conversations.
Don't hesitate to tell me if responding would just involve too much time or work.
Wikipedia is free, so anyone can use the material - whether they wrote it or not. We just ask that they mention where it came from. So, either you, I, or anyone else is free to use the text from that article, or any other, for any purpose. See WP:REUSE.
Many have a template on their talk page saying, "This page has been cited as a source by a media organization." - so, one way to find them is to look at what links to that template - see this link. - there are about 800, perhaps if you browse through it a little you can find a similar example.
Of course, the journals editorial policy is nothing to do with us - but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no problem. And "Charles Z__z____" ? I don't know who that is, sorry. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Works for me - I just added it to my monobook, and did a CTRL-Refresh (because I use firefox), and tried a 'random article'. Did you do the refresh thing? Or, at the risk of a cliché, have you tried turning it off and back on again? Chzz ► 15:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
CC
Hi Thanks for the link
Which dead links and duplicates did you remove ? Some were intended duplicates as they have multifunctional roles.
Hi. When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here. Also, when you start a new discussion, please start a new == section ==.
Two Items: 1) Thanks for the reply; 2) After a long time the NAS-NRC Archive person got me PDF files describing my Lilly NRC Postdoctoral Fellowship at Harvard (I don't know if this is usable or what
To: Chzz
From: Howard Z
Chzz,
Thanks for the reply about publishing. I'm still waiting to hear from my friend and Editor of Accounts of Chem. Research.
Also, I was pleasantly surprised when my contact at the NAS-NRC Archives office sent me three PDF files dealing with my
Lilly National Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowhip at Harvard in 1953-54. She had been able to find a) A description of
the Lilly NRC program for fellowships back then, also R. B. Woodward's evaluation of me at the end of the year, and my
final report to the NRC. These apparently have been scanned from some source and put into PDF files. That I could read
Bob (Prof) Woodward's evaluation of me was surprising but interesting. my final report was of interest also. But the
description of the Lilly NRC fellowship, sponsored by the Lilly pharmaceutical company, may be what you had been looking for.
But in PDF form it probably would not afford a Link of the kind wanted.
Thus do let me know if you want the PDF file.
Best,
Howard
Howard E. Zimmerman 15:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
We could only use it if it is available somewhere. The idea of verifiable references is that the reader should be able to check up on them - e.g. by ordering through the library. As it sounds like the PDFs are not 'available to the public', we can't use them - sorry. Chzz ► 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You could edit the page User talk:Chzz/talkheader and copy everything from that to your own page. You could change the text, make your own version - and change the link from {{fullurl:user:Chzz/boom}} to any page you like. Cheers! Chzz ► 10:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will. Thanks. I have the photo of the mushroom cloud on my user page. I like it, but yours is hilarious. Also, thanks for the help on the Info Box. How do I put up a different info box for Dr. Farmer? He's not a scientist, he's a physician, humanitarian, etc. He's not a guy who sits in a lab all day. He barely sat in class at Harvard. He was always out among his patients.Malke201015:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Edward Kotlyanskiy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Kotlyanskiy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Have just been looking at the Harvard referencing, and think I've managed to get it pegged. Thanks again for helping. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. Thanks for sorting out the Illingworth ref. I've had a go at doing the same thing with the other two but can't seem to get them to work. Could you take a look when you get the chance? Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
No bother at all - please feel free to ask, any time. I think it's OK now?
As I think you saw, for Illingworth, it needed year= instead of date= and it needed ref=harv - the cite book template needs that. If you use {{citation}} I think it's assumed/automatic. That was this edit.
In the case of the other two, because there is no 'author' specified, the 'cheat' is to force the linkage, with ref=(whatever the link shows when you hover over it). See this.
Fiddly, isn't it? But it's nice when it works, and a good way to have multiple references to a book/page without clutter. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, wasn't sure if you noticed or not but I left another reply on my talk page re: the question I had before. Thanks for the help. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]15:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, and believe I addressed all your concerns (unless I missed something). Let me know what you think of the article in its revised state. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There were a couple of remaining 'forced-size' image parameters, which I removed.
Also, the image at the top of the section "Libertarian presidential nomination" was left-aligned - and that is not permitted; FAR would pick up on that. Unfortunately, that means the image plus the wikinews link is somewhat longer than the section; I'm not sure how to remedy that - it might mean removal of either the image or the news link, unfortunately, but MOS is strict about such things.
I fixed the punctuation on several references; you must not have a space between the fact and the ref tag;
Something.<ref...> not something <ref>...
There are still problems with date formats and other issues in references. For example;
The first has the date of publication after the author, in brackets;in the second the publication date is after the title. Another reference has "Retrieved 8 May 2010.". It is essential that all the references are formatted consistently, and this will be carefully checked at FAR.
The 'books' remains in template:Bob Barr - as explained previously, I do not see the purpose in the redlink.
Before FAR, I suggest careful proof-reading and copy-editing; I do not have the time to do that right now - in fact, I have to admit, I have still not read through the article properly. I happened to notice, by way of example, a couple of phrases in the 'Aftermath' section; Root is speculated to make a presidential run as a Libertarian (which I am pretty sure is incorrect use of the verb 'speculate') and Upon reflection of the campaign in April 2009, Barr commented that his exclusion by the media from the presidential debates prevented his campaign from gaining significant traction. (which is grammatically very clumsy). I recommend User:Tony1/How to improve your writing.
Later in March, Barr stated that he was "looking very seriously at" a presidential run.[12] - the reference must come immediately after the quotation, even mid-sentence. The same is true of stating that Barr is "not a shoo-in" for the nomination.[21] and "it was their (the campaign's) lack of reasonable diligence that ultimately thwarted their effort to gain ballot access here" in West Virginia.[52] (and possibly other places; I didn't check all)
Wow, that was really fast! Thank you for getting this fixed. I'm a "fan" of Victorian crime, and this bogus-seeming article bothered me. Originally I was just going to edit it! There is still a reference to it under List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom, with several names mentioned. Can that get deleted also? Thanks again--you're my hero!
We have to be very cautious with matters involving people. The policies are clear; "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (my bold; WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL). This is a 'hot topic' in Wikipedia, following this recent case, which led to increased vigilance.
Admittedly, as the alleged incident occurred in 1885, it is highly unlikely that anyone directly involved is a living person, but the concerns do extend to descendants, etc.
The article seemed concerned with the single event, and we have a specific guidance on that - "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event). Of course, if you - or any other user - can find appropriate reliable sources to form a valid article, then it could be restored. Deleted pages are still available, but for this type of thing, pending evidence, it needs to go.
I removed the other reference; thank you for pointing this out. If you come across similar issues, do not hesitate to fire off an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org and it should be dealt with promptly. Thanks again, Chzz ► 01:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
More of 'one event', coupled with negative statements. As the alleged murder was 1885, very unlikely that living people were involved; I should have clarified my concerns better on the talk page. Unreferenced strong allegations though, certainly - maybe their kids are around. The fact that those refs couldn't be found, or indeed any kind of RS, set alarm-bells ringing. It may turn out to be factual, in which case, the user can say where they got it, sho w it can be made to meet policy requirements, and we can fix things up. Meanwhile - pending any proof - I'm glad it is gone.
I responded on my talk page. Rather then template me it would have been simpler to restore the redirect mandated by the AFD. SpartazHumbug!03:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Chzz, thanks for moving my request from the blacklist to my talk page for the Valley Entertainment Monthly article. I put it there because when I tried to move it, the redirect said it was blacklisted and landed me on that page. That is the first I'd heard of it. Still tons to learn, but I appreciate all the help I can get. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Nineteen Nightmares
No bother. I'm not sure why you hit on the blacklist; I tried the same page logged out, and didn't get any matches. Did it have some other links in it, or something? The blacklist is used to prevent links to certain websites which have caused us problems with spam; it's a last resort when other attempts (to block their IP address or filter their edits) have been unsuccessful. That said, it does have some quite large domains, such as all '.cc' links (except those on the 'white list')...and there is another blacklist which covers all MediaWiki websites, so, it can be hard to work out exactly which part is causing the problem.
{{user:sophie/tb
|your message = image alignment
|my reply = yea, it does look in line and it is what i mean, did the -x-X thing on [[User:Sophie/altnosymbol]] but still looks wonky, im guessing its because of the shadow on the bottom and the middle has like a ~ line. Btw, what do you think of {{tlp|alt}}?
}}
Sophie(:12:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Gtg
Hello,
I just noticed your comments on my page about submitting the the article Locomotor effects of shoes as "did you know" article. I was wondering how you go about doing that. I'm really new to Wikipedia as far as creating an article for it so any suggestions/help would be appreciated (since I don't know anything as of yet!). Thanks for checking my page out by the way!
-gtg772x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtg722x (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
My good friend, I was actually referring to this edit:
Note the canvassing here, here, here, here...probably more but no need to keep looking. I can't believe this pissant is still bothering the adults. A review of his contribs show that he is at best, trifling. His motivations which are completely incorrect can be seen here.
Either get a clue or get out. You are distracting the productive & constructive editors with your trifling. Talk about disruptive....
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I didn't know which edit you were referring to, but now you've explained, I I found this. I agree that isn't very nice, and I've left a message about it; because others have also spoken to them, and they have cooperated with removal, I don't think any further action would be helpful. Chzz ► 12:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice to meet you again
If you want to know Thai Language and Muay Thai knowledge you can ask me in th:คุยกับผู้ใช้:EQ San. Maybe I have little knowledge but I can ask with other Thai User and tell you soon.
Now; Many user in Thailand are interesting about th:ลุมพินีกันดั้ม but don't know who created this model. So can you ask your Japanese User who have knowledge about his name (Modifier) and then you can write his name in th:คุยกับผู้ใช้:EQ San. I will insert his name in that article for his hornor in Thailand.
All I could find out was, this "Gundam" character apppears in a publication No.19344 "KIDO-BUTODEN G GUNDAM "GUNDAM FIGHT THE 3D", by ホビージャパン ("hobby Japan"). I think the publication shows you how to make them, and it says that this particular character is only in this magazine. Most of this information comes from here.
I can't find anything else. Nothing on Japanese Wikipedia, and very little in Google. I could not find any reliable sources. On English Wikipedia, because it is not notable, it probably would not have an article. Best, Chzz ► 16:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
No trouble at all - and apparently it worked. I thought I would reply to help demonstrate two further things.
Firstly, it is a good idea to reply to messages directly below them, indented by using a colon (:). Further replies can be indented with two, three, four colons, etc - thus forming a 'thread'.
Secondly, there is a slight problem with that. As I replied here, on my own talk page, you might not have noticed my reply (unless you had checked back). Therefore, it is a good idea to let the other person know that you have replied, by leaving a short note on their talk page. I just did that on your own talk page, by way of demonstration, and to alert to you this reply. When anyone changes your talk page, you get the notification saying "you have new messages".
I chzz, dont know if you rec'd my last message. anyway, thanks soooo soooo much for your help. you are the best. let me know what you think of my changes. i deleted not easily verifiable facts. would love to put the CAl BAr citations in a footnote. Would that be possible? also, how do i get rid of the messages that now appear at top of the bio. (ie. this is an autobig...etc) Can i make the messages go away now that all is sourced? Trent B Copeland (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You can put anything in a footnote. Whatever you put between the <ref> and </ref> appears as the footnote. As long as you give enough information for a reader to check the fact, that's fine. I used 'citation templates', which are neat, but not essential. Just put <ref> followed by all the details of the reference, and ended with a </ref>, directly after the fact. If you want to know about the citation templates, see User:Chzz/help/refs.
I changed the link to http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/ to a reference with this edit. However, the link does not seem to work, so I found a more specific link, added here - I hope that is you, ie Trent Brehon Copeland - #136890 ?
I removed the tags; it is sufficiently neutral, and has reasonable references at present.
The reason I asked for admin as the problem with this page is long-running but stems from a few users making the same changes.. I was wondering if any Admin action was required at this stage.. It seemed I needed to ask for help as I would otherwise be caught in a edit war constantly reverting the page endlessly myself..--Vote4green (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please note i have reinserted the text without the external link, is this ok now? Also please note that User:Vote4green is a probable sock of User:DarrenBrown4645 and User:Gamergeek343 I am about to get a CU done but as it is the first time i will have asked for such a thing it`ll be a while before it is posted. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Can I just add that the above user has still failed to answer the question about whether they are an admin of the site they are attempting to promote into the article. --Vote4green (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about this, but i was being polite in asking if my partial revert was in your eyes suitable. I did not drag a content dispute here i asked if my compromise edit was ok with you as you had reverted me mark nutley (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)FYI, Because MarkNutley has consistently demonstrated a lack of ability in identifying reliable sources for climate change articles, he's been prohibited from introducing new sources into climate change BLP's except for sources that are "articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media." Given the above discussion, ot might be appropriate to consider extending this to all articles. YilloslimeTC17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being instrumental in getting this removed, I'd blocked the uploader but my PC was crashing and when I did get around to looking at it again, it was gone! Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is the template I created for a specific set of circumstances which seems to reoccur throughout Wikipedia. Tell me if you think it is useful, as is, so I might begin using it.My76Strat (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, a few things.
There is no requirement to provide inline sources. Be careful of the difference between guidelines and policies.
"Sourced wrong" has some negative connotations, probably not a good name for it
I thought you deserved this since you've been the one to respond to at least half of the {{helpme}} requests I've made so far, and have given helpful advice every time. I suspect this won't be the last time you do so, either. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]14:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up after me on the Kohler and bandura theories", AfD nomination. I was using Twinkle, so I'm not quite sure what happened. Anyway, I will try not to make that mistake again. Thanks very much for the cleanup and the help links. Susfele (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, no problem. It's quite possible that Twinkle messed it up because of the odd characters in the page name. Chzz ► 04:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
New Template
Hi Chzz, I noticed that whenever a AFC submission gets misplaced (i.e. created in mainspace or mainspace talk instead of the AFC space) they always get a WP:CSD template placed on them, even though they have a AFC template at the top of the page. When I find misplaced articles tagged for deletion I notify the tagger that it was a misplaced submission and should not have been tagged for deletion, but moved. I have created a template that has this message prewritten. This is my first template and was wondering if you could check it and make sure I did it right. It is at Template:AFC Misplaced Thank You --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Note: I tested it out on the sandbox and it worked.
We could easily make it so that {{AFC submission}} produces some output in these cases. We could include a message suggesting that editors move it into project space to be reviewed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
^this is a better idea; a message so huge and bold that even an admin will not miss it, saying "This is a misplaced AFC submission" etc, possibly with 'click to move' things. Chzz ► 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. The subject page is the more logical place for them. The only reason we use talk pages is for the technical reason that anons can't create subject pages, and in this case it is only registered users who can move pages anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, yes, well...that's something else that really does need to be resolved. Technical problems can be solved. It's confusing if some are in WT namespace and others in WP, I think. Chzz ► 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Most probably a typo
Just swinging by to give you a notice that there's a typo in the url to the tea site linked from your user page. jonkerz♠14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I am from Nepal I was workig for local wikipedia but one problam of ne.wikipedia for me. as :- I can not edit new page. I can not change any articels any more. so I creat this new acount.
--राम प्रसाद जोशी (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The account name "Rameshti" does not have an email address set, so you cannot reset the password for it.
It is not blocked.
If you can log in as Rameshti you could delete that page, or redirect it to your new name.
If you have forgotten the password, we cannot prove that you are the same person, so we cannot delete it.
No problem at all. I suggest you get an account, for various reasons - but mostly, because it makes it easier to help you, as you'd have your own talk page. It only takes 2 minutes to make one, it's free, and you are certainly welcome to stay anonymous (as I do) - in fact, with an account you can be more anonymous because your IP address isn't shown. Cheers, Chzz ► 18:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Safari problem solved... well sort of
Please see my talk page User talk:Alpha Quadrant. I figured out what part of wikipedia is causing Safari to shut down. It is one of the editing tools I have enabled. One of the tools I have enabled must have been broken with the update. I started thinking about it and I edited a article right before I had this problem. Immediately after I edited the problem returned. So we know what caused it. Now we just have to figure out how to fix it. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Only if it is vandalism. For example, if someone removes a section with good references, then yes. However, if someone removes an unreferenced bit of vanispamcruftisement or something, then no.
thanks for you help yesterday evening with my first article. I have made all the suggested edits (i think!) and am eager to know if i did them correctly. Only two things i cant figure out, how to correctly use one reference for a whole paragraph. Do i use [1] after each sentence or just at the end of the paragraph?? And linked into that is how to cite the same source multiple times for different statements, using the same citation number a few times rather than [1][2][3][4][5][6] i would prefer [1][1][1][1][2][2][2][3][3][3]. Hope that makes sense. Either way i think my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sifu_Tan_Siew_Cheng is ready to go!
Cant wait to start my next one, all about "the beggar's art" which is a ready cool type of kung fu.
Re. the references - you want to use named references. An example is shown in user:chzz/demo/namedref - edit it to see the 'code' - and it is in the 'How references work' on your talk page.
Thank you for your considered response; it is appreciated.
Also, thank you for correcting my spelling error. I am happy that the date was removed, and happy with the change to the reference format.
My motivation in adding it was, there have been over 150,000 people seeking the term on Wikipedia.[1] I agree that the term lacks WP:GNG and does not warrant its own article, but I think we cater to readers better if it is mentioned in the article, rather than them landing inexplicably on a page that does not contain the term.
Of course you may remove it - I stated WP:BRD, and I stick to that; if you choose to remove it, we can start discussions on the talk page towards a consensus.
If you do choose to leave it for a week, and nothing else happens to it, I will be happy to discuss it further on the article talk page. Events might overtake us - others may intervene and make changes in the meantime, we shall see.
Hi, Thanks for helping me with the Virginia Wright page. Yes, I was panicking. But once I saw your notes that it has been moved to draft for me to work on, I felt better. Can you tell me when I feel it is ready, how I get it moved back to where it is visible on Wikipedia for viewing? Do I just let you know? Again.... I appreciate all your help. I've taken your thoughts under advicement and have been working on the edits.
Best Regards,
Virginia Wright 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Virginia Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaWright (talk • contribs)
Hi there. You could actually move it back yourself, but it might be better to get others to check it out first. there is no deadline, and now it is in your userspace - not live - you can take your time with it.
To get someone to check it, you might want to ask in WP:FEED - that takes a few days, but should get you better feedback. You can also, of course, ask me here. Or, use a {{helpme}} on your talk page.
I have just looked at the article again;
Please try to use inline references - as shown in the 'How to use references' on your talk page. See also WP:CITE. references are the most important thing.
ALL the facts should come from reliable sources. I would think that quite a lot cannot be reliably sourced - for example, "Virginia met her husband, David, and they were married in 1976" - unless it is reported in some newspaer interview or something, it doesn't belong in the article. You may think this harsh, but think of it the other way: it protects the person. If another editor changes it to say she "met her boyfriend Mark in 1974", how can we tell which is correct?
Do not link to websites within the article (ie "St. John's Preschool and Kindergareten"). Links to external sites should onlye be either a) used as references, or b) in a special section at the end called 'External links'
So, please work on it further. Use facts from reliable sources, and do ask for help with it. Thanks again, Chzz ► 04:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
My draft of Virginia Wright
Hi Chzz, Would you take a look at my page now and see what else I might need to do, I'm thinking I am getting there. I listened to what you told me about adding things that would be hard to verify, such as the year of the marriage.
Also I wanted to mention, when I looked for Virginia Wright in the search engines, I found many legit pages for her, but I did find the Wikipedia Virginia Wright page that says this page was deleted. So, when you click on the link in the list of files referencing Virginia Wright, it takes you to Wikipedia where it says the Virginia Wright page has been deleted. I'm certain this is not good PR for Virginia Wright. Is there anyway to remove that message saying that Virginia Wright was deleted?
Also, how do I take the block off the Virginia Wright Page?
Please use inline citations - see WP:CITE and my guide on your own talk page, "How references work"
In "Member Affiliation" - you should not use external references within the body; they should only be used as either references, or in a section called "external links".
Re. the notice and search engines - the search engines should update themselves; this is, of course, out of the control of Wikipedia. The notice regarding deletion of the page is just a log entry, and would not be removed; it is a useful record. This issue has arisen in the past, but there is no way to remove the message, other than the creation of a valid article.
There is no 'block' on the page; anyone can create a page with that name. However, if a page created does not conform to the various requirements, it may be deleted. Chzz ► 07:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome Template
Hi Chzz. I just wanted to tell you that I think you created the best Welcome template I have ever seen. Your Welcome is better than the standard one given to new users. One thing I like a lot about yours is that you kept only the useful things that are the most helpful to new editors. I also like how friendly you made your template. Good job. I wish I had your welcome when I first started. Cadencool10:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
kay, I have done all which I would for this article, if no one adds anything to the article I myself wil add it to wikitionay. Udgikerian (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chezz - I saw that you added a PROD tag to the Mia McKenna Bruce article. I don't have much faith that it won't be removed prior to deletion as the young fans of the Tracy Beaker series seem quite intent on keeping these non-notable articles. Unfortunately they just become a repository of unsourced trivia if not watched carefully. If the PROD is removed I would suggest seeking a protected redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns, which has worked for similar articles such as Amy-Leigh Hickman and Jessie Williams. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh14:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned about protecting the privacy of children who are not necessarily 'public figures'. So, yep, I'll keep an eye on it - cheers! Chzz ► 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know I am getting your messages; I just don't have as much time for Wikipedia at the moment as I would like. The mushroom dye article certainly is interesting- I'll see what I can do with that. J Milburn (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope this message gets to you. I have gone through life meeting a lot of bad people that wouldn’t help anyone if their life depended on it. I have to tell you it’s so refreshing to see that there are really good people out there left like yourself. Thank you so very much for showing to me that there are still human beings out there that will come to the aid of others. Thanks for your help!
Hi, thanks for replying to my question on my talk page. I followed your advice and started a new thread on the WP:FEED talk page here. You can be involved if you want. Thanks again. Chevymontecarlo. 17:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Question: Could you consider changing your sig a bit so that there is a link to your user talk page? You could link the 'montecarlo' bit, perhaps? It's handy, but not a requirement.
Thread - I've added my comment supporting. I'll poke a couple of others who delve in the area, too.
I'll try changing my user signature - I've been wanting to change the colours for a while but haven't got round to it. As to the last note - :D Chevymontecarlo. 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I like that more than having the link separately. I noticed that your userstamp has the talk page link in that little arrow...It's a good idea- I think I'll probably go with that instead. Chevymontecarlo(Talk page)18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Mariah-Yulia, please don't jump to conclusions. :-) Accidents happen and Chzz wasn't looking for a nationalist controversy. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
All is forgiven . I just wanted to make sure Chzz would never forget Ukraine . — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:34, 21 May 2010
re British Empire Threw Out History.PNG
Thank You for being so considerate and notifying me of the proposed deletion. It was very professional and 'fair' as you would say. Outback the koala (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Chzz, Could you take a look at the page I have been working on, which seems like for days now, I've spent hours and hours on it... You've given me some tips on things I should have changed, such as adding references, make an external link box for the external links, etc. I would hate for the Virginia Wright page to get deleted again, as I have said, I literally worked hours on it.
So, I am wondering... if you would be willing to work on it for me? Anyone can work on any page on Wikipedia, so would you work on the Virginia Wright page, and I was wondering if you could take what I've done, add to or take from it, and then move it from draft to the Virginia Wright page. I would be honored to have you work on it. Thanks.
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.
I can help with formatting and any advice, but I can't sort out referencing. I can't see anything on the linked page 17 of the newspaper that verifies any of the information given.
I have just added two 'sample facts' with references to the article, to show exactly how it is done. I added this;
This is a sample fact, to demonstrate how inline references work.<ref> These are the
details of the reference. For a newspaper, you would put the name of the publication,
the date, page number, author, and other information here.</ref> This is another sample
fact.<ref>This is a second example reference.</ref>
Please see User:VirginiaWright/draft now. Notice the small [1] and [2]after the facts. You can click them, and it links to the references at the bottom.
That is what you need to add - references to show where each piece of information comes from. As I cannot find the article you mentioned in the online newspaper, and I do not have access to the other references, I can't help with that part.
Bangor Daily News, (Tuesday, August 29, 1989), P. 11, Leavitt, Bud. I checked the Archives, and I coudln't find this reference, either. For that year, for some reason they don't list the newspapers. But for the reference 1983, I found it in the newspaper.
The same goes for the magazine and anthology. But... I have the newspaper article, the magazine, and the anthology. I could scan the page where I have my work published and upload them to wikimedia, but I would need help, as earlier I uploaded a photograph, virginia_wright.jpg to wikimedia, it uploaded fine. But from there, I had no idea how to get it over to my draft. So, if I scanned the articles in question, could you help get them over to the Virginia Wright page I'm working on? I could maybe attempt that tomorrow or Friday.
As you can see, on the article, I have linked to that specific edition of the newspaper, with this link - but I am unable to find the story. Am I looking on the wrong page or something?
To be honest, at the moment, I do not think we have "significant coverage" - I think that the article would be deleted again. You would really need several articles about this person - not just something that they had published. See WP:BASIC. Chzz ► 11:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Long time no tea.
Hi Chzz. Hope you remember me (MUFC, Go, IRC)? Hope you're well and enjoying your tea & sausages.
May I ask: how do you display the "Chzz (talk • contribs • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)" on your UserPage? I tried editing it, but can't spot the template. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Trafford! How's it going? Gonna see you back on IRC?
The template is {{AWBUser|Chzz}} - I 'stole' if from one used to list people asking for auto-wiki browser permission.
Hi Chzz, The article you mentioned was the correct article. Virginia Wright is mentioned in it, as a matter of fact, they are showing recipes that a Maine Guidesman used in the wild, one of the Maine Guides had a recipe in the book by Virginia Wright, "Ayuh, Another Downeast Cookbook. It was mentioned in that article. This is before Virginia Wright started writing children's books. Nonetheless, a couple of the articles referenced in the Virginia Wright draft page was not showing up in the Bangor Daily News, the archives actually skip several years. I have copies of those newspaper articles that are skipped, there are at least three where Virginia Wright has been mentioned in articles. That is why I said I can scan them, upload them to wikimedia, and then upload them to draft page. I truly have appreciated all your help and input; you definately know your way around Wikipedia. For now, I may just leave it in draft and work on it over time, as I find articles.
One last question, can there be more than one Virginia Wright mentioned on a Virginia Wright page? There is Virginia Wright, Virginia Wright-Wexman, Virginia Wright-Frierson, Virginia Wright-Peterson and Robin Virginia Wright. I know there are several author's that go by that name. So, just wondering if someone else does a Virgina Wright page, before I get mine suitable-- does that mean, I can't put the information I have on Virginia Wright, up on Wikipedia?
Once Again Thank You...
Virginia Wright 15:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Those really do sound like 'passing mentions', and you need something more substantial to satisfy the notability guideline - you need several articles about the person, or at least with quite a bit of information about them. Being mentioned by name a few times ins not enough.
In response to my request of the client, and via an external Word doc for me to review in advance of uploading the changes to Wiki, Bruce has highlighted those words and phrases he would like interWiki or externally linked as well as sections of the text where he requests either a deletion or insertion of an additional space. I am attempting to assign the proper Wiki like code to Bruce's recommended links at this time.
In the interim, there is still the question of subjective speech as it applies to an art critic's, art historian's, or art curator's quote. For example, how can we objectify the quote below without falling victim to inaccurately quoting the attribution? By definition of the role of the art critic, it stands that s/he would more frequently make subjective statements as a means of expressing an opinion on the art the critic is critiquing, no?
Excerpt from Bruce's article:
“Beasley continues in the tradition of modernist abstract sculptors such as David Smith, Anthony Caro, and Eduardo Chillida, pursuing pure form and shape as an expressive and communicative human language. Beasley’s sculpture is profoundly and proudly visual. Rather than resembling any one thing, his works evoke many things. His sculptures immerse the viewer in an experience of form that triggers feelings and sensations.” -- Philip Linhares, Chief Curator of Art Oakland Museum of California
The most recent Wiki editorial response to the article, contained, among other concerns, the comment that "...Beasley's sculpture is profoundly and proudly visual..." is too subjective a reference for Wiki's standards. Well, correct. It is a subjective statement as it represents opinion, and, in the tradition of the finest of critics of art and literature, it hopefully represents an informed opinion by one who is entrusted by virtue of his years of scholarly endeavor to be positioned to make such informed statements.
So as we continue to refine the article and upload the requested links, please further help us understand how to define art and an artist's contribution to the category without using the subjective statements of those entrusted to provide them.
It's fine to use short quotations of opinion by critics, as long as a) it is not excessive, b) every direct quotation is followed by a clear reference to a reliable source, and c) due balance is given to all opinions. Be very very careful not to introduce opinion. For example, it might be OK to say Foo magazine say that he is a "great sculptor"<ref>...etc but be very careful of anything along the lines of, "many consider him a great sculptor" because it immediately raises the subjective question of how many is 'many'. I hope you can see why it is not acceptable at present, e.g. Many experts in the art world have praised Beasley’s contributions - see WP:WEASEL, and see also Wikipedia:QUOTEFARM#Overusing_quotations.
It is also vital to keep a balance, and not give undue weight. Negative sourced quotations may also be included, to show the spectrum of opinion.
The article content should not be subjective at all. It might be acceptable to say e.g Foo Magazine considers Chzz to be a "great artist"<ref>...etc -- however, it would not be appropriate to simply state that Chzz is a great artist. - because the latter indicates that it is the opinion of Wikipedia itself, and we do not offer opinions, only verifiable facts.
The can't be tamed semi protected edit you did....you mis-understood what i meant....those release dates are for the album, not the single....can u fix it.....
Relating to deletion of Mkhitar Sebastatsi Article.
I just added the respective information on the article and I will continue to develop it during the time. I hope the restriction on the article will be removed. Thank you. George
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.
Also, please link to the article, ie [[Mkhitar Sebastatsi]] - producing a link, Mkhitar Sebastatsi - so that I know what you are asking about.
The question is, actually, how do I (or anyone else) verify that it is public domain? The fact that someone may have told you is not clear evidence of permission. There are several possible ways;
1. The copyright holder could upload it themselves, clicking 'this is entirely my own work', and they could release it to the public domain that way. In that case, we would generally assume good faith on the part of the uploader, unless the picture was used elsewhere on the internet.
2. The picture could appear on some other website (such as flickr) with an appropriate licence
3. The copyright holder could email a specific release of copyright to the Wikimedia Foundation. An appropriate text is in User:Chzz/help/myboilerplate, and the address is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
There was a request for more links to this article and I've been putting some in.
BUT, some of the links work and some do not. They all seem put in similarly.
When they don't work, the link words are left in red and say that "Möbius–Hückel concept
doesn't exist.
One link which does work is in the article Edgar Heilbronner.
Ones which do not work are in Hueckel's Rule, Woodward-Hoffmann, and Moebius Aromaticity.
I can't leave this to check that I am correct about the last paragraph since then I lose
this site.
Chzz, a further problem is that I haven't figured out how to type umlaut o's and u's.
I seem to need to copy and paste one already there. Some helpful editor has fixed a
number of these.
Looks like they've been fixed. Diacritical marks are important, because yes, for example Müller is a different page to Muller.
As to how you enter them, it depends on your operating system. Windows lets you use international keyboards to enter such characters. If you are only occasionally using them, then copy-and-paste works fine. You can also select 'Latin' from the little menu at the bottom of the edit screen (which defaults to 'Insert'), and choose the characters from there.
Chzz, thanks for the reference for umlauts. I still have a problem with Go and Search for the "Möbius-Hückel concept" article
To: Chzz
From:Howard Z
Chzz,
I think it may be too late in England for you to read this today.
But, first of all, thanks for the page on umlauts. I guess for Windows I have
to use alt-148 and alt-129 to get ö and ü.that means only two numbers to remember.
In word it is a lot easier with Ctl-Shift-: and the letter.
But Chzz, the problem with finding remains. Just on doing a Search or Go, the
search goes to the text string Möbius-Hückel concept" in one of my references or
somewhere else. And curiously, with the Links put into other articles, they
sometimes work fine and sometimes give rise to the error of "the article Möbius-Hückel concept" doesn't exist. Yet the Link is generally written the same way.
This may be a "bug" in the Wikipedia programing. Or it could be something I don't
understand.
I did ask for help on a Help page and didn't get a response.
If you have any suggestions they are welcome.
Chzz, I put in that new article and also one other one (Stereochemistry of Ketonization of Enols; Kinetic Protonation". These were items which seem
to be useful and I don't mind other editors adding to them. Also, they
correspond to items I'd like people understand. Also they are related to other
Wikipedia articles. AndI won't write so much on any article that I can't write
on that subject for chemical journals.
Chzz,I've thanked you for all the help in the past. But accept my thanks again.
The article "Möbius-Hückel concept", with a minus sign between the two names, did not exist; the article is called Möbius–Hückel concept with an En dash - and that is a different character, but looks very similar.
Hey Chzz. I was wondering if you could help me out with a little problem I am having. You seem really experienced here, so I thought I would help you. I requested a peer review, and they told me to fix some of the references, including number 1. The article is Days of our Lives, but when I click on the first reference it doesn't highlight anything for me to fix. I found that weird, because it's still listed in the list. If you could help I would appreciate it. Sami50421 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: Edit-conflict; I know that you removed this q but, at the same time, I'd already written the following reply - which I hope will be constructive, therefore I've restored your q to this page, so that the answer is incontext...
I see that you have (now) added the 'publisher' to ref 1, and that is indeed what they were criticising (in the version they looked at, it lacked a 'publisher'. However, whether 'soapoperafan.com' is a reliable source in the first place is a bit questionable - I think that it isn't. So, I would either a) find a better reliable source to show that the program is indeed known as just 'Days' (such as a newspaper article), or I'd remove that alternate name.
Note that, currently, the other 'alternative names' seem to lack references too.
References are the most critical part of an article. I see that you've been working on them, but I'd ask you to check, double-check and triple-check; they should all be the same layout (so, dates should all be in the same format), and they should all have appropriate details. Reflinks is a good start, but it's not perfect; you need to manually improve them too. For example, as I look right now;
Ref. 2 is used as a reference for the fact that Ted Corday and Betty Corday were creators - but I do not see any mention of Betty in that reference. It's also used for the fact along with Irna Phillips in 1964 - but again, not in the link. Maybe it was a tweet on the page before or something; definitely not a reliable source.
Ref. 3 is Tv.com - does that site really have a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' (per WP:RS)?
Ref. 4 is from "Curt Alliaume’s Utterly Irrelevant Web Site" - again, doesn't sound too good to me
Moving on to the more technical aspects, ref. 15 (for example) has the date as "TIME Rates the Soaps". TIME. 1976-01-12." but ref. 17 (for example) has the date as "Soap Opera Digest article, issue of February 10, 1998, page 42" - the format of the dates needs to be consistent throughout.
Ref. 16 seems to be a book, Gilbert, Annie, "All My Afternoons" - but it does not give a publisher, date, ISBN or anything.
I hope this gives some ideas for improvement; I also suggest a good hard look at the references in any featured article, for example todays' is Victoria Cross (Canada). FA's make good examples (mostly).
Thanks for the information. To be honest I'm not too familiar with a lot of the references here, except for the ones that I've added. However, I know the history of the show. Some of the references are reliable, and some aren't. That's what I find difficult when editing Soap Articles. It's very hard to find good sources for notability, etc. I will take a look at what you suggested, and see what I can do. I want to get this article up to featured article status. Thanks. Sami50421 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Chzz, thanks. I've learned something (minus sign vs dash)
To: Chzz
From: Howard Z
Chzz,
Thanks.
I now need to determine how to definitely get a Dash.
I had been using the key below the underscore next to zero.
Chzz, there is a statement that I should remove the
You have new messagesHello, Chzz. You have new messages at [[User talk:Chzz#{{{1}}}|Chzz's talk page]]. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
template
in order not to continue thinking that I still have a new message.
When you get a chance, please let me know where that {chzz/tb}} is.
Best wishes,
Howard
PS Keep signing the "signature" and yet get a request to use for tilde's.
I'll do both this time.
Howard E. Zimmerman 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
--Howard E. Zimmerman 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The dash-thingy is explained a bit more in WP:MOSDASH
Re. the {{user:chzz/tb|name of a section}} - the easiest way to do it is to just remove that bit (on your own talk page) - but better, to keep the record of it but 'deactivated', change it to <NOWIKI>{{tn|user:chzz/tb|name of a section}}</NOWIKI>.
Surrounding code with a <NOWIKI> and a </NOWIKI> stops it from being processed as wiki code.
I just did that to the old one on your talk page, with this edit.
Signature - you only need to type four tilde signs, and the system then automatically inserts your name(with links) and the date/time. You don't need to type it manually, if that is what you were doing. So, you should just end messages with e.g. ...end of my message.~~~~.
On 26 May, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rocky Iaukea, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
...I'd expected to see a whole bunch of deleted edits, though. :) Thanks for letting me know; this guy clearly wasn't here to help spread knowledge. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz,
you seem like a cool guy.
I need some help with this wiki site.
you were kind enough to explane to me why I was being shut down by the other admins.
And I really need an expert to get this Heartfulness page up and working in a good way.
If you have the time I would really appretiate if you could walk me throught the process.
Kindest regards
Benjamin. Epsteins (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
My advice is;
Do not copy from other websites
Do not create a live article. Instead, make a user-space draft, and get others to check it.
OK; see what happens, I guess? The example could be better; ie linked up, demonstrated with example usage, etc. See what others think. I'm...not sure yet. Cheers, Chzz ► 18:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a new comment to this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naked_mole_rat , and I thought you might want to look at it. If you want to insure the information gets appended correctly, feel free to do so while I am at work. Otherwise it is my intention to edit the information into the article this evening. I will first copy it exactly as it is, and then proceed to make an edit which corrects some of the bad grammar and such. that is my plans for now. Have a good one. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, Twinkle goes on your local system time. Some s/w I had was complaining about being over its trial period, hence my system date...meh. Checking others. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. I'm sure you use most elegant ways of cancelling a talkback that a user has put on one's talk page.
What's the elegant way to cancel the one you placed on mine - I tried adding in tl and tlp parameters, but doesn't look elegant.
Arigatou, Trafford09 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, tricky. The 'tlp' assumes template namespace, and that is in user namespace.
So, I just made {{utlp}} for 'user-template link with parameters' - used it on your page, and seems to work. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
To Chzz and Sophie
When a user asked a question at the help desk, it is common to place a "Done" image on the page, so that others coming along to help can skip over it. I see the situation differently at Feedback. While we very rarely have more than one person providing feedback, that's because the place is generally understaffed. It is very rare than any one person's feedback completely answers all questions the editor might have. Consequently, I don;t see many cases where a "done" image is warranted.
I Understand that Chzz is trying to think through the archiving issues, but I'm not sure that adding a "done" tag is the right approach.
It's a part of the archive bot's current setup. There's a line of code in there (|archivenow={{done}},{{resolved}},{{Resolved}},{{Done}},) so if any of those templates are used, it will be archived more quickly. I believe that's why those are being used. Killiondude (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
yes Killiondude, Chzz was adding them in manually, so when i added the {{done}} it showed that it had been done and ready to archive Sophie(Talk)12:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
speedy deletion of file uploaded in error
Thanks for your help with the deletion of the file I uploaded in error, American.jpg. one of my errors was that the file name was already used. So as not to cause further confusion, it should be stated somewhere that it is the May 29th upload that needs to be deleted, not the file that is currently being used with that file name. How can I make should that that is clear to whomever deletes it?--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
My article is not a joke, I'm sorry if it came across like that in the talk page. I have provided all the notability the Wikipedia guidelines require and it is indeed a famous thread and worthy of mention on Wikipedia. Anyone who has ever been lonely and searched google for help will almost indefinitely know of it. Please try to keep an open mind to what is allowed here, you may not have heard of it but it is notable.NexCarnifex (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Looks like my further reply on your talk and the above overlapped.
It is pretty borderline on the notability guideline - it has some coverage, sure, but not necessarily enough to pass muster. However, the tag is just a tag - designed to help improve articles. It's not been nominated for deletion or anything; it's just flagging up that it might not be notable.
So, take it with that intent - try to show the notability with further references, if possible.
If you disagree with the tag, remove it and say why - that's fine - see WP:BRD. You could also speak to the user who put the tag on there, and discuss it with them - that is, My76Strat (talk·contribs).
-
The I am lonely thread is not a meme, it is a place were many lonely people have gone for help and have received it. It is not something you would find on Encyclopedia Dramatica if that is what your thinking, and has certainly impacted the world much more than most of those have, aside from things like Rick Rolling. Not only this, it is significant for the study of internet physiology, and one studying such an area may find good use in this article. Maybe I could expand on it more, but it's a new article, and is certainly something to belong on the most expansive encyclopedia in the world.NexCarnifex (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Washington Post stories to add to Kathryn Troutman article
Dear Chzz,
I trust you've been well. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, and am gratified to see that the Troutman article survived April's attempt to delete it. Thank you if you played any part in that.
In the first story, Troutman is described as a "federal resume and job hunting expert and erstwhile GovExec.com columnist." She is also described as: "She has long been one of the world's leading experts on navigating the federal hiring process. I would like for both quotes to be added to the article, if you concur, using the WPost story as the reference.
Please let me know if you need more information. Thanks!!
Hi there. I've added this request on Talk:Kathryn Troutman#Request re. Washington Post - just because that's the right place for it; I will do my best to action it ASAP myself - if nobody else beats me to it.
Done
. I just wanted to make sure Chzz would never forget Ukraine 
. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:34, 21 May 2010
CSD'd
Hello! Your submission of Australian Institute of Family Studies 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! Allen3 talk 10:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)