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.
Again, thank you for your help earlier. I have gladly found a source which deems it PD. Granted, the website looks like it was made by a 2-year-old, but it CLEARLY features a mustang which appears to be the same as the one I am using. It also claims, at the bottom, that they are in PD, and were retrieved from PD.
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
I would think that that link is just-about enough for us to consider it PD. I will mention my opinion in the discussion, which will be open for other comments for about a week, and then we can decide if the consensus is to keep or delete.
Moving this query/reply over to the users talk page, because this whole discussion is getting a bit fragmented over many pages. Chzz ► 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi - sometime last year you kindly answered a helpme call about User:Redwoodneo who falsely claimed he was an admin on his page, and you removed the box. I've just noticed he put the admin box back. I thought you might like to know. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
A new ratings system could be based on the B-class criteria, as they seem sensible. Also looking at the Good article criteria, the rules of thumb to follow appear to be:
Referencing: Well-referenced and no original research
Coverage: Adequate coverage of the topic, and not off-topic or too much extraneous detail/trivia
Structure: A lead, headings, infoboxes, illustrations, templates etc.
Writing: Spelling, grammar, MOS all OK, clear prose that is accessible to a general reader (a non-specialist or non-fan)
Balance: Neutral and stable
If each of these were scored as 0, 1/2 or 1, then a 5-star article would be the equivalent of a decent B-class article now, and should probably be considered for a Good article. Thoughts? Fences&Windows01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've pretty much put my thoughts to this on the pump thread, and I suggest we chat over there, if that is OK.
[1] When I saw the {{helpme}}, I took a look. Mono (talk·contribs) had already responded to the help, and had placed a level 1 warning, but I noted they already had a level 1 warning from about 30 minutes earlier.
I then looked at the users contributions - three of them; the first was vandalism, and the other two were not civil. I concluded that a level 1 warning was not appropriate, as it appeared the editor did not intend to edit constructively at all. Level 1 is assuming good faith, but for an editor who has done nothing constructive but has breached basic policies and called people names, I think we move beyond the Welcome [...] everyone is welcome to contribute constructively type of warning.
Some people might have simply blocked the account immediately (vandalism only), but I decided that a big, bold 'only warning' might be worth a try, to get the message home.[2]
Having done that, and looking at the subsequent talk-page, I felt that the important warning did not stand out much, and that the other two gentle warnings might mean the user would not see the rather more critical 'only warning', so I decided to make things clearer by removing the other warnings, which also conveniently removed the offensive comment.
Unfortunately, the user seemed determined to continue - s/he joined the IRC live help, trolled in the channel, and was banned by Hersfold.
I still think that it was worthwhile clearing the page in this case, to make the 'only warning' more prominent, and not lost in the midst of the other level-1 notices; what is your opinion? Chzz ► 03:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Just one question though, s/he was banned? Do you mean blocked? The block log for that user is clear, but I rather doubt s/he was banned, as a single user cannot ban another, short of Jimbo/etc. Not really sure what you mean there. Perhaps you mean kicked from IRC? — GorillaWarfaretalk15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, quite so, thanks GW. In IRC, users are 'banned' from a channel with the +b mode setting, which prevents them from joining the channel. IRC is separate from Wikipedia, and it is an important distinction; on-IRC actions do not normally affect on-wiki actions; a user might be blocked on Wikipedia but welcome in IRC channels, and conversely, banned from IRC channels but welcome on Wikipedia. The separation is quite an important issue. And yes, the terminology makes it all terribly confusing. Chzz ► 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRO-CUT International
I agree that 'no harm' isn't a good reason for protecting things, but I wasn't suggesting it was, only that it was a reason for not needing to remove protection once it had been put there for some other reason. However, in this case I don't see that removing it is likely to do any harm either, and, as I have already said, I have done so. Thanks for explaining your reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikiproject: We are attempting to revive this project (yet again) after nearly a year of inactivity and we want some help. Please do come by out IRC channel.
About the articles: Current article is Trauma (medicine), started at a C-class, hoping for at least GA-class.
Wolfnix has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Wolfnix has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (Feedback). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:
Yes, I see what you mean; and I agree that the singles may not meet notability; if there are insufficient reliable sources, and no article can be made. We could certainly warn for adding unreferenced information; probably worth doing that. As regards redirecting though, I think that is probably a bad idea; better to take it to AFD so that the decision is all properly documented and harder to dismiss. Chzz ► 17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I didn't delete it; I just 'declined' the article-for-creation. It is still there - User:Jahanzeb1978/Wajd_(The_Band). We do not delete submissions; we just mark them as 'declined'.
As it says, you can edit it, and resubmit it for a fresh review at any time.
Some of the references you stated above are not reliable sources - such as the blog, and the forum posts; we need references in newspapers, magazines, or very reputable websites with a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'.
My turn to apologise for vanishing - computer crashed, incl. display, it's done this a few times now & I've a feeling it's a hardware issue, argh... Take care, speak later. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Good Morning Chzz, thank you very much for reviewing my IQMS article. As you requested I did delete the reference to the iqms blog. However, I did keep in the few other blog references because they are industry experts and I believe are considered an acceptable and verifiable reference. Would you mind reviewing again to see if there is anything else I need to do before this can be published. Thanks much for your guidance.
Hi there. Thanks for that. I'm not sure if it will be OK; there are quite a few sections without references now, and I'd be a bit concerned about neutral point of view. However, I don't have time to re-review it right now, so I've added a comment and put it back to 'pending review' status, and therefore another reviewer will look at it ASAP. In the meantime, you're free to edit it and perhaps look at those concerns. Sorry I don't have the time to give it a proper re-review myself right now. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
TY so much for your help with my archive. Can you believe someone deleted it? Disgruntled banned editor! Hope things are going better in your life and you feel well. Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
You may complain about this, you may express your sorrow for IP vandal, but please do not remove my comments as you did here.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have my doubts about if that is indeed vandalism as for example Moses Levy (one of the persons listed in the IP contribution) has an article that says that he did slave trade. I don't really know about the rest of the contribution. In any case, that is not way of treating even a vandal. Even to a vandal what is supposed to be done is to give some orientation. That seems to be the very first contribution of that IP. If it is indeed vandalism what should be done is to put a first warning, explanation of what was wrong, links to Wikipedia's policies, links to edit tutorials. But not a dry "reverting vandalism" in an edit summary, which I still am dubious if it really is. Doing so you are certainly tempting the user to become a real vandal. The choice for the warning is also incorrect since you can not block anyone yourself. You have no authority whatsoever or capacity to block anyone. I think that even vandals or possible vandals should be treated with respect, at least in the beginning, otherwise you are making sure they will evolve to become a vandal. With better manners and education you may encourage useful contributions. Iyow2 (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, Iyow2, that isn't completely true;
I'm not an administrator either.
Anyone can warn users, appropriately, and that includes telling them they might be blocked. Yes, only admins have the technical capability of blocking users, but it is perfectly fine for non-admins to issue appropriate warnings.
However, in this specific case, the warning is not appropriate. That IP user has no deleted contributions, and their only two edits are not blatant vandalism, so a 'final warning' was not appropriate. See WP:BITE. Cheers, Chzz ► 18:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have resubmitted the declined article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jahanzeb1978/Wajd_(The_Band).
Now the sources are more authentic and they are not usual blogs. Some of the references are blogs but they are from Pakistan's biggest news channels (Geo TV) which will only feature notable artist. Second you can see from the reference of Fire Records, which is wajd's record label, that wajd name is included in the most notable artist of the record industry. See the list ,every other artist has got a wikipage, so why cant wajd have? Reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Records_(Pakistan)
Are you going to be the reviewer of my page this time as well? or is it random?
If you are reviewer just do me a favor, click the google search in a rviewer tool , you will get tens and hundreds of site mentionig wajd popularity and material for their users.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Jahanzeb1978 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Any Wikipedian can review articles, so yes, it is kinda random. I'll leave this one for someone else.
I do suggest though that you remove information that uses blogs and MySpace as references; they are not reliable sources.
Also, you should not use Wikipedia itself as a reference; you can wikilink to other articles - such as [[Wujud]], but you can't use them as references.
You are using primary sources like e.g. "pakmusic.net" to support non-neutral claims, such as Pakistan's largest music database website.
Whilst there may be lots of Google hits, that isn't necessarily helpful; what we need is "reliable sources" - such as newspapers or magazines... something with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
Also, you should remove the external links within the article. External links should only be used in the == External links == section at the end, not within the article itself.
Perfect timing - I have 20 plus relatives at the house, and I've been telling everyone about Pirate Day, and a number of them thought I was making it up. I showed one of the kids your message - perfect.--SPhilbrickT00:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I was off wiki yesterday, but I was doing some pirate talking during the day, so was nice to see your message this morning! GedUK07:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Fridae'sDoom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
chzz sir,
my net got disconnected,sry.nice to chat wit u.
chzz sir my gmail id is <email address removed>.please b in touch
chandan krishna 11:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 20 sept,2010,4:51pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandankrishna (talk • contribs)
Nice and quick
You're welcome. You may notice that I removed the hangon from the page in userspace; as soon as I did that, it occurred to me that it might have been moved without the suppression of a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yep; that explains how you came to it so quick; I was indeed about to remove that myself, too. Interesting history too; I edited at the exact same time, removed the 'hangon' and also :'d out the cats - and I didn't EC with you, presumably because my change was identical to your change to that section. Which is interesting. :-) Chzz ► 15:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hiya. Just as it says, really, Wifone; for various reasons, I'm not at my normal editing capacity for now. I should be around at least some of the time, just not as much as usual. Nice to hear from you; take care. Chzz ► 15:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
It's so super to hear from you :):) I completely didn't log on yesterday and missed out like totally on the pirates day. Damn! Next time, you'll see me hoisting your pirates flag high up there on my page :):):) Thanks so much for replying. And Chzz, do keep leaving a message or two when around. Your presence is always desired like a lot :) Bye for now and know you're missed. Wifione ....... Leave a message13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
How dare you...
Talk at me like a pirate during Festivus. The IPU (bless her holy hooves) does not approve. Now you'll excuse me, I am quite busy scanning the heavens for Russell's teapot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm certainly not averse to hotdogs, and I rather hoped that the ecumenical nature of ITLAPD would be an opportunity to unite in peace, harmony and tolerance, against those utterly imbecilic buffoons, the heathen ninja supporters. Splitters! Chzz ► 07:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Article on "Candid Marketing" needs your attention
Link: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Candid Marketing
There are 5 links given each pointing to reliable and credible sources like Business Wire, Economic Times and Business Standard (one of the largest national dailies in the country). I have given the reference for "Candid Marketing" on context. I have read the policies under WP:VRS, WP:PRIMARY. I think it satisfies all the wiki criteria for it to be considered as a credible source. Just to give an idea of the credibility of the sources - Indian Express has a readership of about 1.8 million Indian people across the country. Request you to review the same. Thanks in advance!Knowourba (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for highlighting that; I will do my best to look at it, ASAP - if another reviewer does not beat me to it!
In the meantime...I am trying to write a good article about a guy who just swam the 33Km from England to France - and he has no arms or legs. Pretty amazing. So, please help me with it; it is Philippe Croizon. There are some sources in French on his website, and there are lots more here, on Google News; I'm also trying to get a copy of the book he wrote, and I've emaield him for pictures.
AAARRRGH me hearty!! Ahoy from yon Antipodes. Thanks Chzz for the Pirate greetings :D Sorry I missed ITLAPD ;( but I was born with a wooden leg and a parrot on me shoulder, so it fits me like a glove! Melba1 (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Melba1 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Hello Chzz, Thesevenseas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks a lot for the welcome Chzz, I will be sure to read all the links. Already I'm getting the hang of things. Once again, thank you! :) See you around. Tdubell (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with move — The actual title of this game appears to be "The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie", as shown on this Google search. The (video game)" qualifier is an appropriate disambiguation for the game, instead of the movie. THQ (the producer) call it that (press release), and the word 'game' does not appear on the playstation edition of it.
Agree with move - Search Google [4] for the ASIN of the video, and it does appear to be the correct title. Press release also. BBC seems to use that title [5] as does Comedy.co.uk although that does mention AKA: Cracking Contraptions. I think the new title is correct, for that one.
Uncertain - ASIN B001FB6T5I search [6] is inconclusive; Amazon variously has Mr Bean Animated: 1-6 Box Set [DVD][7] and Mr Bean - The Animated Series Vol.1 [DVD][8]. News sources [9] vary. I think I'd lean towards agreement with the move - on most shopping-sites, it does seem more commonly to be "Mr. Bean: The Animated Series".
Hey Chzz, while my searches weren't as exhaustive as yours (thank you!), I reached similar conclusions, and feel quite strongly about 1., which triggered my curiosity in the first place. Would you mind moving that one back? It's bedtime here... ;) Drmies (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I am using Firefox, and I have turned everything off and back two times, and it still is yet to work so i'll go straight to the twinkle bug talk page. Thanks! Candyo3222:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Chzz, Qwerp has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks very much for adding the photo of Jose Luis Orozco. I am still very new at all this so it was a huge relief to have you finish it up for me. (:
Hhfreund (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it is not a likely redirect. I think there is verifiable information (stuff put out by the television network) which could be reliable sources, such as episode titles and synopses (in fact on further investigation, one of the synopses was a copyvio from just such a source). But a list of episodes page for a show with only one episode is a bit unnecessary. It's a bit unclear the criteria for speedy deletion in this case, but I think putting it through AfD is not necessary. -TeaDrinker (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at WP:UAA. Message added 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I noticed that the last message before my reply was a couple of hours ago, so just to let you know I responded to your request for UAA clarification. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Featured sound
I don't really know the processes there (despite popping up once or twice)- I know FPC can get very uppity about that kind of thing. Perhaps try Jujutacular (talk·contribs)? He's generally pretty clueful and I know he has done at least a little work at FSC. J Milburn (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The graph says it all, really; massive increase since we cleared the backlog and introduced a bit better system. As I've said before, it is a 'victim of its own success', I think. Currently, it is pretty backlogged.
Quite a few get missed, as you can see if you flick through the archives - but I don't know what we can do about that, really, other than hope more people give feedback.
The long-term solution would be to keep these editors; so many come to just create one article, and are never heard of again; if just a few of those stayed, and started giving feedback, then we'd have a more workable system.
(I've send this message out to a small number of people that I think/hope will be interested; people who have given feedback, etc. if wrong, apologies, let me know.)
Thanks for your responses. The article is obvioulsy from the source originally published offline in 1995. Now that I have in fact put the the template there though, it is from a government publication. Even though there is a specific author, is the fact that the goverment published it make it public domain?--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Usually, material published by US-gov is public domain, but like all aspects of copyright, there are exceptions. I don't feel confident in giving a definitive answer in a specific case, so please could you ask on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, where I hope several people will see it, and can answer more fully.
If the material is indeed in the public domain, then that means there is no copyright holder. No attribution is required, at all; it is totally free for anyone to do anything they like with - including pasting it into Wikipedia.
We can add a comment saying where it came from, but there is no requirement to do so.
This is separate from the requirements of verifiability, of course; whether the source used is a reliable source, or if other appropriate references have been used, is another matter entirely.
Hello Chzz/Archive 26, You left a message on my talk page:
The graph says it all, really; massive increase since we cleared the backlog and introduced a bit better system. As I've said before, it is a 'victim of its own success', I think. Currently, it is pretty backlogged.
Quite a few get missed, as you can see if you flick through the archives - but I don't know what we can do about that, really, other than hope more people give feedback.
The long-term solution would be to keep these editors; so many come to just create one article, and are never heard of again; if just a few of those stayed, and started giving feedback, then we'd have a more workable system.
(I've send this message out to a small number of people that I think/hope will be interested; people who have given feedback, etc. if wrong, apologies, let me know.)
My reply:
ok :) what needs doing :), its been a while since iv done any wiki work
If you can not see your message anymore, I have probally archived it.
I located the source of the copyvio (Facebook, surprise surprise), and I cleaned it out of the article right after you tagged it. The first couple sentences are OK; if you think it's A7 material, go for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
So, are you saying you don’t like it, or what? I put it into the Sandbox precisely so we could play around with it instead of churning the main article. Useddenim (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No, to at all; sorry for any confusion. I was just adding a 'reflist' to stop it showing the error when looking at that page, and making it only display it when looking at that specific page - ie, when transcluded on the article, the refs will appear in the normal references section. My edit summary was me ranting at myself, because I'd got it wrong; I'm sorry about that. The layout looks fine. I just wanted to help with that 'trick' to add a reference list in a subpage without it causing problems when used on another page. Chzz ► 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
For personal reasons (nothing major, just other stuff happening IRL), it ain't gonna happen for at least 6 weeks, probably 2 months. Beyond that, I will consider it; feel free to badger me then. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I was told that I had 24 hours to make revisions to my proposed article. Also, A7 does not appear to be a relevant cause for dismissal in this case, as being the author of five New York Times bestselling series is--by almost any standards--an indication of importance.
While I appreciate your attempt to provide "constructive" criticism, these were concerns previously addressed by Alpha Quadrant on which I was working, until you rudely and prematurely declined my submission.
Hi there. The status given is purely procedural; it does not really mean anything. As it clearly states at the top, you can submit the article for a new review at any time. We do not delete articles for creation (unless they are copyright violations or something offensive) - you can work on the page as much as you wish.
If you are able to add references, so that the article meets the guidelines, we'll be happy to move it to the live area.
Hi. I am currently working on this. I am gathering the awards now,(he has been nominated and won at least once). I am adding more onto the article every second. Mocha2007 (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately, we won't have to wait months. I have gathered plenty information, should finish in less than three weeks (1.5-2ish). Mocha2007 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thank you Chzz, is it possible now to remove the template? and what does it mean "once the page has been reviewed by someone"? could you do it or i have to ask for another feedback ? véronique --V.fanis1 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit hard for me to check the whole thing, with all the sources offline. The main question is, is it all actually verifiable? For example, it says Maurizio Bolognini was born in Brescia, Italy. and at the end of that paragraph, the reference is "Bolognini, M., Democrazia elettronica. Rome: Carocci, 2001." So - I think (from Googling) this is a book. It helps if you can give more details, and assuming I got the right thing, I've added some - so please see this edit. I tried to find details of the book, and put them in, but I am unclear; is it published by "Carocci editore S.p.A"? If I want to check it, how can I obtain a copy?
We need to ensure that all the specific facts are in the sources. Does that book actually state that he was born in Brescia?
Also, that would be a primary source, as it is written by the subject. So great care is needed, in using it as a reference for anything other than basic facts.
For example, it goes on to state that he studied urban planning and social science at the University of Birmingham, UK (MSocSc) and the University IUAV of Venice (Dottore in Urbanistica). - we really need some independent, reliable source showing that; for example, if the University itself has some published details, or if that is recorded in a newspaper article. If details cannot be verified, they should be removed.
There are some other stylistic issues; the 'external links' should be right at the end. There should not be any external links in the rest of the document, unless they are references. The 'Bibliography' is long, and I'm not quite sure what it is; is it books he wrote, or books about him? If it is the latter, they should be used for facts, as inline references, instead.
OK Chzz! i understand the point and i'll try to make the changes you suggested. This will take a few days..... vera --V.fanis1 (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Actua
On 2 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Actua, 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've no idea, but I was not asked to review those. When deciding whether or not to accept an article for creation, we have to assess whether or not we believe the article would be likely to be deleted; when we make an article live, we take responsibility. In my opinion, for the stated reasons, this article might be deleted if made live.
Regarding the other articles, please fix them or nominate those for deletion; there are many, many bad articles on Wikipedia. It's a work in progress. Please help. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thanks, Chzz ► 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Noraft, but this is a bit too much of WP:CANVASS for my comfort; the best way to speed up the DYK review process it to review the suggestions of other editors.
Given the definition at WP:CANVASS, I don't think this is canvassing. I actually only intended to make the request of two editors, then saw Tony was online, and remembered that we'd worked together before, so I shot him one, knowing it would likely get reviewed fast. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!02:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough; it's no big deal; I really just wanted to keep things in one place to avoid duplication. I see that someone else has looked at it, so I think it's all in hand. Chzz ► 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Password Reset
I got an email today saying
Someone from the IP address nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.
The new password for the user account "Sophie" is "*******". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.
If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.
think someone might be trying to hack into my account. the ip doesnt have any pages here or any contribs.
(talk page stalker) Hi Sophie, I'm one of Chzz's "talk page stalkers". I'm not sure that Chzz is online right now, so I'll take the liberty of fielding your question ;-)
Basically: don't worry about this. It happens quite a lot. You can continue to use your old password, and ignore the message.
What's happened is some silly idiot has tried (unsuccessfully) to sign in using your username. When that didn't work, they found the "send me a new password" link, and tried to use it. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for you!) the new password was sent to the email address you registered.
Hope that helps! Chzz is more technically-minded than me, and may have some more detail to add, but in the meantime I know enough to say "don't worry!"
That's about it, yep; nothing much to add; just ignore it. Anyone can request the password reset, but the email goes to the address you registered. If you don't use the new random pasword, it expires. So, just disregard it totally. Chzz ► 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it could be just-about considered an ad; given their other contributions [14] - however, it does seem to be a real condition. Is "Female Anti-itch Powder" really a brand-name? Possible, I suppose. I just thought it unlikely. I thought redirecting might just help, as the user seems to keep recreating - but it's not looking good, and I imagine they'll need to be blocked quite soon. Chzz ► 08:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The rule of thumb is that non-free content should never be used purely to show what a living person looks like. Your argument that "we cannot find a free picture, so we'll use a non-free one" is invalid is correct, but only up to the point whereby it seems that it is impossible that free content could be found or created, otherwise we would not be able to use any non-free content at all. In theory, it is the responsibility of those who wish to use non-free content to make an effort to have images released if possible; it is certainly the case that they need to make an effort to find some. We should not have the mentality of waiting until someone dies and then uploading a non-free image at the first opportunity; we should still make an effort to get a free image, but, when it seems a free image is not possible, non-free content would be acceptable (provided, of course, all the other criteria were met). For a case where this happened but we subsequently acquired a free image, see Charles Mackerras. Hope this answers your question. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.
Do you think those specific cases are acceptable? (Sorry; I'm not expecting you to actually check them in detail; I'm sure you have better things to do; just asking) Chzz ► 01:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you for your input on my AFC. I have read the links and help guides suggested and have made some of the adjustments you suggested, including adding more verifiable references. I am puzzled about how many references to add - it seemed that you were suggesting I cite each and every fact separately (i.e year of birth). This is not something I see in other similar articles (see Wendell Lovett. I have however placed a reference at the end of each paragraph, in addition to specific quotes and links, and all facts are derived from the listed articles. I would appreciate some guidance here. If any other sources are not considered acceptable, even as one of several, please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architectsea (talk • contribs) 05:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for working on it. Yes, all facts need a reliable source. For example, at the moment, it says Fred Bassetti was "AIA Seattle, President 1967". How can we check? Most importantly, what happens if, later, someone edits the article and changes the date to 1977 - how do we know which is correct? Everything does need verification.
Re. Lovett - yes, there are lots of bad articles on Wikipedia, and the only response there is, to please help fix them - try to find references for unreferenced facts, and so on. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Best, Chzz ► 05:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I understand that all facts need verification and all in the article can be verified by sources/external links cited, but I am puzzled. What level of individual referencing is required for publication? (individually referenced with a footnote ref as opposed to referenced with a footnote ref at the end of that paragraph. If individually, that could mean several references per sentence, or a least one per. I have yet to see any article written with this level of referencing (see wiki articles for I. M. Pei, Frank Gehry, Arthur Erickson, Frank Lloyd Wright, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter... I am not trying to be difficult and perhaps I am missing your intention. Is there an example of an article whose level of referencing you feel is a good example for emulation? Many than,ks Architectsea (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Please look again at Barack Obama. The very first section of it has no references, because it is a summary of the rest. But the remainder does indeed have references for each sentence. The same should be true of all featured articles. The references are not normally put mid-sentence as it can break the flow, unless it is an especially controversial fact or a direct quotation; adding several refs to the end of a sentence is fairly common.
Obama was born August 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.[5][6] His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born in Wichita, Kansas, of mostly English, some German, [7][8][9] and Irish descent. His great-great-great grandfather hailed from County Offaly.[10]...
The trouble with a reference on the end of a paragraph is, if someone inserts another sentence mid-paragraph. It can then appear to be covered by a reference, when it is not. So, yes, one per sentence is preferable. There is no exactly defined requirement for an article to be accepted, but, anything lacking a reference could be removed by any editor.
Articles for creation/The Art of the Improvisers & Ornette on Tenor
I don't know if this is the right place to write this, sorry if it is not.
Both submissions were declined with the following comment:
This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria A7 and/or guidelines on music-related topics. Please provide more information on why this musical artist or musical recording is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
So I read the guidelines on music-related topics and there, in the "Albums, singles and songs" section I can read: In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.
Both albums were officially released and Ornette Coleman is a notable musician as anyone can see in Ornette Coleman. So, following these criteria, I think that the significance of the album is demonstrated. If I didn't realized something let me know it please, so I can make the right changes in the articles. Thank you very much for your time & sorry if this is not the right place to write about this.
--83.36.171.102 (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Albums for notabile musicians may have an article, yes. However, all articles require references showing "significant coverage in independentreliable sources. See WP:GNG. "albums may have sufficient notability" indeed, but they still need to demonstrate it; notability is not inherited. Chzz ► 15:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
ok, thank you. I will try to get more references for the articles. Allmusic.com is an independent and reliable source, isn't it? (At least I thought it was) And jazzdisco.com??? Thank you again.--83.36.171.102 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Allmusic is generally acceptable for a review, and jazzdisco verifies it is part of their catalogue, but because it is a listing, that doesn't necessarily confer notability. If you can possibly add a couple of references about it, for example in published magazines or newspapers - they don't have to be online - that would be great. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Verifiable sources vs. produced by creator in IQMS article
First let me say thank you for your patience with me and my article on IQMS that you recently declined. I have removed any adjectives that might tend to make the article look like and advertisement. My biggest question is that there appears to be a lack of verifiable sources, and most of the sources are "produced by the creator of the item being discussed." I have made sure that none of the sources have been produced/created by IQMS. So I am in a quandry as to why this keeps coming up. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
The article at the moment is not neutral, and has unreferenced promotional claims. Specific examples include;
system that encompasses all processes and business activities from the manufacturing shop floor through the top floor as well as throughout the supply chain. - unverifiable, promotional claim
offices across North America, Europe, Asia and India - unreferenced claim
used in eight languages - unreferenced claim
around the world - not neutral; meaningless; not verifiable
founded IQMS to fill a void for commercially available manufacturing software - 'to fill a a void' is a non-neutral claim, an opinion, and not encyclopaedic / factual.It's not appropriate to speculate or offer opinions on why the company was founded; simply state facts.
The sentence following the above, and the next paragraph, are unreferenced and contain further non-neutral claims*
It goes on to say, the most up-to-date technology platforms to keep pace with evolving industry - I hope you can see why this language is inappropriate; it is not Encyclopaedic, it is promotional.
Several of the referenced sources are blogs, which are rarely considered reliable sources. If you wish to check whether or not a specific reference is an acceptable reliable source, please ask on WP:RSN.
Again, I remind you to consider the business FAQ, which explains why it is so difficult to write a neutral article if you have a conflict of interest. The policy strongly recommends against it. If you do decide to try and write one, I personally suggest you try working on other, existing articles first; please have a look at User:Keegan/Butterfly. Best, Chzz ► 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Possibly, but not in next 6 weeks min, due to real-life stuff. After that, if I'm around, I'll be thinking about it perhaps, yes. Cheers, Chzz ► 07:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That's always a tricky one. Is it the same person, removing their own comments? Possibly; can't tell. 192.31.106.35 is Lockheed Martin Corporation, Denver, CO. 192.35.35.35 is General Electric Company. Not in the same range, but then again, people edit from different computers.
It's not appropriate, anyway, to refactor talkpage comments that appear to be written by another IP - we simply can't tell. So, it can be considered 'disruptive editing'. It might need an explanation; to ask the user to add further comments, by all means, but not to remove existing ones. Chzz ► 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I kinda mentioned you on a request...basically you replied and then they made improvements as a result, but wanted you to take another look...I hope you understand! It's here. Chevymontecarlo17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed it earlier, but as I can't speak the language, it's a bit hard to check the ref. I'll try to add more to it if I can though, when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, maybe) Chzz ► 18:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Chzz for showing me how to thank people!!!
The Original Barnstar
Chzz, I really am thankful that you showed me how to thank those who are willing to help everyone out with problems or any issues on Wikipedia..especially those of us who are not fluent in computer lingo..(myself!) You made everything incredibly easy to get and I was able to do that with no problem. I appreciate your assistance and the way you handled each of my questions! Dreamer444 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Great stuff :-) You're very welcome, any time.
I've replied here, to kinda demonstrate a bit more. It's usually best to reply directly underneath a comment, like here, to keep the conversation in one place. Also, we can 'indent' replies with a colon at the start of lines, as I have here.For further comments, you could use two colons at the start of lines, and thus we form a 'threaded' conversation;
I also left a quick note on your own talk, to let you know there was a reply here. That's a good idea, because otherwise, you might not notice it. If this discussion was on your talk page, then you'd get the 'You have new messages' thingy. But as it's here, it's worth telling you when I write back.
I hope this makes sense. Wikipedia can indeed be confusing at first...but once you get the hang of things, it all starts to 'click', I find.
Thanks for commenting on my first article - Jim Savarino (musician). I'm still working on improving the citations.
I'm not sure if I'm writing to the correct person because the comment on my article is signed: "/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)", and the Feedback notice on my talk page says: "Please see the feedback given, on Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 September 23. Cheers. Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Chzz (talk) at 02:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)." Ghostwriterinthesty (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there!
Sorry about the confusion with that message; Fetchcomms actually asked me to let you know he'd left feedback...but no matter; we often work together on things.
However, you should've added your message here, at the end of my talk page, not at the start. So I moved it. When starting a new message on someones talk page, you can just click on the 'new section' tab at the top, and that adds a new part at the end.
You can reply below here, though, in this same section. And I'll make sure Fetchcomms sees it too; so if you have any questions, go ahead. Cheers, Chzz ► 04:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all; you're doing much better than average-new-users; the best way to learn it is to do things; that's the only reason I mentioned the reply thing. And, always, ask for help any time. Chzz ► 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ghostwriterinthesty! I think Chzz basically explained what happened—I (Fetchcomms) left the feedback, and Chzz left you a note saying that I had responded. if you have any more questions, you can ask me on my talk page or ask Chzz on this page. Happy editing! /ƒETCHCOMMS/21:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and some thought on making FEED a challenge
Thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it. On the subject of FEED, I'm still thinking about your observation—as many as come in each day, if 20 people did one a day, it would be enough (I didn't look it up, but I think I'm close). I know you do several a day, but I think one a day is a hard pace to keep up. If we had 40 people on a FEED patrol, that would mean one every other day. I'm trying to find a clever way to make this a small challenge.
Th main part of the goal is to sign up for n feedback comments per week or month or whatever time frame is right, then find a way to keep track of them. I was thinking in terms of a week, but let me try something out with a month. Set a low hurdle of five per month, a medium hurdle of 10 per month and a higher hurdle of 15 per month. Maybe a low hurdle participant qualifies at the bronze level, the medium at the silver and the top at the gold (for someone like you we can go platinum, for one a day)
One of the keys (and this is where you come in) is finding an automatic way to keep track. Suppose someone signs up to be a bronze level contributor to FEED. Every time they respond to someone, the edit is captured and their count is increment. Keep track of their average over the last 90 days, and if they average .17 per day, they are considered as qualifying for the bronze level. Similarly, someone could sign up for the gold level, and it keeps track whether you maintain a .50 per day average.
Maybe you don't sign up for a level it just keeps track of what level you achieve. This is roughly akin to the Service Badge concept, except instead of being a one-time award for aggregate edits, it is a continuous concept that you can maintain or lose.
Do you have any thought on the technical aspects of it? Is there a way to capture edits in the FEED area by editor?
I bet you will think these hurdles are low, but I'd really like to have a couple hundred people who are checking in once of twice a week and commenting on a couple, in addition to the ones who are more diligent. --SPhilbrickT12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
In principle, that sounds like a reasonable idea. Personally, I don't like 'badges of merit' and so forth but if it encourages people to help out, I can't see much harm.
Technically though, it is a little bit more challenging than you might anticipate; it would be possible, of course. But it's not just a case of counting sigs within the FEED pages for the month, because that would catch all those asking and not just answering, and it'd get duplications, and so on. It might be too complicated to use automation on. It would be pretty easy to get a SQL report of 'top contributors to all FEED pages for a month, sorted by user name' - and perhaps that would be enough of a starting point. Possibly.
When looking at things like this, there are always more complications than you would expect. What about bots? What about alternate accounts? What about if a user is blocked? And lots more I have not thought of.
I fully agree that the problem is the ongoing nature. If I poke and prod various people, they tend to do a few feedback requests at that time - but are not seen again, unless I ask them again. And I don't like to badger people too much. People just drift away, don't think about it. It amazes me really, how very quickly 'helpdesk' are answered (usually within minutes!) in comparison, but I don't know how we could get this paradigm shift for FEED.
I had a quick play, to get the idea. Apologies that it is rough-and-ready; just the 'top 25' contributors to September feedback pages, by count...
select user_name as user, count(rev_id) as C from revision join user on rev_user = user_id join page on rev_page = page_id where page_title like 'Requests_for_feedback/2010_September_%' and page_namespace = 4 group by user_name order by C desc limit 25 ;
Table collapsed for readability
Chzz
146
Chevymontecarlo
65
Cindamuse
40
Sphilbrick
38
Senra
31
EarwigBot
30
Chevymontecarlo alt
20
Shearonink
16
Karenjc
15
Alieneks
13
Ykraps
11
Ericlboyd
8
Zoltancsaki
7
Tikiwont
7
Yaris678
6
SylvIba
6
Sachab1
6
Mono
6
Fetchcomms
6
ErinNik
5
Teh.Cyrus
5
Reconsider the static
5
Tmstof85
5
Ktraino1
4
Lori Costello
4
I haven't yet given up on the idea, but given your lack of interest in 'badges of merit' I'll get input from other on the merit of the idea, but trust that you'll still be happy to provide input on the technical aspects.
I had thought of some of your concerns (but not all). Regarding the concern about asking questions, I don't see this as a problem for two reasons: first, If the count is over a 30 day period or so, I'm guessing the lowest hurdle would be five posts in a month, and it is unlikely that a person asking for feedback will post five items. Still, it could happen, so my second response is better. I imagine that people would sign up (possibly after a request form us based upon observing participants, so it is unlikely that someone who asked questions would be signing up.
I haven't seen enough activity by bots to worry about, but again, if only those signed up are measured, no problem. Alt accounts do make it a little tougher, but so far, I only see Chevymontecarlo with an alt account, and it looks like xhe will meet the top hurdle easily.
Maybe we could start semi-automatic anyway - do an SQL query on occasion and update a list.
On a different, but related comment, you once mentioned having a way to send a email to a number of people. I'm thinking of writing something up, and sending a note to all the editors who contributed in September, to get a sense. It isn't perfect, as the top contributors by definition are not motivated by badges of merit, and those who might be are under-represented, but it might help me gauge the level of interest. Can you tell me how I could take the list in your query and send a note to all accounts, suggesting that they check out my not yet created user subpage?
I think 'semi auto' can work out just fine. It looks like it'd just be a few users, we're talking 10-20 not hundreds, so it wouldn't be much work, given the output of the above query, to actually look what they'd done, or even to simply assume honesty, ie they tell you they've responded to 'x' queries this month, and if it looks about right from the query, give the badge. Sort of thing.
Re. message - I can do that, very easily, with ChzzBot (talk·contribs). If you write a subpage, and tell me 'send that to all the people on xxx list' - ie results from that query, minus bots, or whatever, I can do it. Note, the list above was really just for illustration, and I arbitrarily limited it to the 'top 25'. We can just dump 'all with >3 contribs to the pages', or whatever, and look at that; just let me know.
I'm hastening to extend my intense thanks for your tender attention, my tenacity has tended to be somewhat attenuated of late, despite my intentions, and owing to extenuating circumstances: I'd attend more often, but the tenor of WP tends to make me a little too tense, hence my penitent abstention. And, thanks for the vid, ten out of ten! Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I ,m writing to thank you so much for your help editing my first article and I,m now much better than the day I posted my first article. I,m now ready to write about notable Iranians who made some work internationally. Science, finance, sports or ...any other fields I know about..
Anyway, I have added some new sources, links and external links..would you please make me a favor and look at at..your opinion is so important to me.. would u please wikify it a little more as you are the wiki-God to me. I read some notices that says the article might be removed or I,m misreading it? as I,m not that good in English. the only thing I can tell you is that S.A Ghafari is someone notable in his field in Iran and internationally and I couldn,t find more reliable sources as I,ve done already. I really appreciate your help Chezz and looking forward to have your comments on this. One more thing, is there any girl groups in wiki as I,m a girl and would suite much better with them if there is any. Thanks again and looking forward to have your valuable advices.
I've tidied up some of the grammar. The article is not, currently, listed for deletion. I think that it might be, some time, because I do not think it meets the notability requirements - WP:BIO. But if that does happen, there would be a discussion.
I'm sorry, but I do not know of any female-only groups on Wikipedia; however, it doesn't really matter. Some editors (including myself) do not even disclose whether we are male, female, or even if we are human!
Thanks. I just noticed that you don't have a reference for the part about Mary Smith Peake teaching the children; there's no reference on the Emancipation Oak page, either. Can you supply one? Yoninah (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Chzz, Marshmir has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I would be ready to endorse you if you would be okay with starting a campaign to be an administrator. Seeing that FetchComms was sucessful I think that you could also pass.
Thanks very much, but not right now - due to some real-life things, I don't have the time for it. Maybe in a couple of months. Again...thanks for the thought though. Chzz ► 09:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Ka'Kabish
On 13 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ka'Kabish, 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.
Hello! Your submission of Ages of Three Children puzzle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with move — The actual title of this game appears to be "The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie", as shown on this Google search. The (video game)" qualifier is an appropriate disambiguation for the game, instead of the movie. THQ (the producer) call it that (press release), and the word 'game' does not appear on the playstation edition of it.
Agree with move - Search Google [4] for the ASIN of the video, and it does appear to be the correct title. Press release also. BBC seems to use that title [5] as does Comedy.co.uk although that does mention AKA: Cracking Contraptions. I think the new title is correct, for that one.
Uncertain - ASIN B001FB6T5I search [6] is inconclusive; Amazon variously has Mr Bean Animated: 1-6 Box Set [DVD][7] and Mr Bean - The Animated Series Vol.1 [DVD][8]. News sources [9] vary. I think I'd lean towards agreement with the move - on most shopping-sites, it does seem more commonly to be "Mr. Bean: The Animated Series".
Done Chzz ► 05:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
