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.
Hey Chzz--
I gave the article on Jorge Cruise another go (I'm not quite sure how to link you to it?). I was hoping you might have some feedback for me on the second go-around . . . I just want to make sure that I addressed everything from the first time! (I also hope I did everything correctly . . . this is my first article, so I hope I didn't screw anything up administratively.)
Thanks a lot for all of your help, Sad squirrel (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You link by putting the whole title within [[ and ]]. So...
Thanks for all of your help (and for the lesson in linking)! Let me know if there's anything else I should keep working on to make the article more than mostly OK ;) Thanks again! Sad squirrel (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, no article is perfect! It might be better to leave it for a while and do other things; come back to it. But some quick ideas: The lede is a bit short; it's supposed to summarize the rest (see the link); the picture caption could give info e.g. date/location; "Life and Education" that shouldn't be a capital E in the section heading; "Books" could be entitled "Bibliography" and there is no need to repeat his name for each; check all the links - for example, diet plans does not work; it should probably be [[Dieting|diet plans]] which produces: diet plans. (See WP:LINKING) Chzz ► 11:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, how should I respond? (This users behaviour resembles that of hamiltonstone.) About one in three AIDS carriers suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder. [1] Denial is a symptom of PTSD.
Please note the discussuion 'Misunderstanding of "denial" in this context?' in 'user talk:HIV'.
Additional discussion on talk pages WILL NOT lead to consensus as the edit is patently unreasonable. The next logical step is to post the evidence that PTSD is common among people with HIV/AIDS along with the evidence that denial is a symptom of the disorder. However, such a post WILL be deleted. How should I proceed? KBlott (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note and edits, Chzz! I appreciate it. On the source for "Registered Investment Advisor" it would appear that the link is dynamically generated every time someone runs a search - so if you click on the link it just takes you to the search page. How should I go about appropriately noting that source? Thanks again! Andihazelwood (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I was unable to check it at this time, it says, Investment Adviser Public Disclosure is currently unavailable - Please revisit the site during operational hours.! Unbelievable, for a website. But sometimes the best you can do is give the address of the page where the information can be looked up, and maybe a comment; it's probably best done with a {{citation}} template and a note. As I say, I cannot check that these details are exactly correct, but something like this should be OK;
[[Registered Investment Advisor]],<ref>{{Citation
| title=Investment Adviser Representative Report for Ray Lucia
| publisher=Investment Adviser Public Disclosure
| accessdate = 2010-10-14
| url = http://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov/
}} (Searching 'Advisors' for "Ray Lucia")</ref>
The key principle is to give the reader enough details so that they can, if they wish, check the fact somehow.
Hey Chzz, in the spirit of disclosure, I want to let you know I opened a discussion about the nominations of Ike Robin at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Another user had nominated the same article a day prior to you and I am not completely sure how the process works in this case for a double nom.--NortyNort(Holla)03:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know; no problems, I hope Fetchcomms can correctly be given credit; I've answered on the DYK talk and the nom, too. Chzz ► 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have read your post to my talk page about the deletion of Les Cowley. I confess that, after I had deleted it, I myself wondered if I had been too precipitate, and should have held back. I suppose, though, that to undelete the article now would convey all the wrong messages, so I suppose you are right: what is done is done. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agreed; it was an odd one. I wonder why the subject did not like the article; my guess is, they simply don't want an article at all - there was nothing I could think of as disparaging, only by omission of details. But, yes, it's gone. Possibly someone will want to write a new article one day, and possibly some OTRS things might happen, who knows. Just one to chalk up to experience, I guess. Cheers, Chzz ► 14:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Sophie's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I received a request from an editor to look into an issue related to a request for feedback submitted 10 October. I see that the main page goes back to 13 October, so I clicked on the link for older items, and arrived at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/navigation#2010. Where do I find the rest of October entries?--SPhilbrickT18:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the great feedback on the Stukeley Westcott article. I can fix a lot of what you mentioned. The picture of the Providence settlement was enlarged because the caption reads "to the left of the letter C in the word Providence." If you can't even see the word "Providence" then the caption is meaningless. I enlarged the image to at least give the reader an idea of where Westcott's property was located without having to click on the image for a full enlargement. Is this reasonable, or should I just leave the image tiny and let the reader click on it?
What is ALT text, re the images?
I don't think that this article is near good status yet, but would you take a look at "William Arnold (settler)"? That article has a lot of stuff, and is meant to debunk a lot of garbage that's floating around both printed sources and the internet.
Firstly, it'd be good to crop all that useless whitespace from the image. And then, it might be worth making a 'blow-up' of that small portion, to show the detail, so that we wouldn't need to use a forced page-size, and it'd be clear even in thumbnail. We could even circle it or something.
The main use of ALT text is for people using a screen-reader, so mostly people with sight difficulties (visual impairment). It is an alternative description of a picture. An example,
[[File:Dannebrog.jpg |thumb|alt=A red flag divided into four by a white cross. |The oldest [[Flag of Denmark]].]]
So, readers who are unable to see the image will, instead, see the text "A red flag divided into four by a white cross.".
I emphazise the word 'instead' because, actually, some versions of Internet Explorer show the alt text as well, as pop-up text...but that is incorrect, really. The whole point is, when someone cannot display images, the text version appears in place of the picture. It's good for limited devices (e.g. some mobile phones, or text browsers) too.
It's a nice thing to add; over the past year or so, there's been increasing enthusiasm for adding alt text to as many images as possible, especially on higher-quality articles.
It is one of the things mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility). Along with the 'standard' thumbnail size, it is one of the things that helps Wikipedia pages to work on a wider range of platforms.
I don't think that the 'education' in the infobox is appropriate; it sounds like OR, and I doubt 'education' really applies
Check the format of dates, because in e.g. 1553–1596, some have an – some an &mdash, and spaces, etc. See WP:MOSDASH.
I don't think the lede covers a summary of the whole article well; there is probably a bit too much on the lineage business, and it seems to skip over the voyage, the Gortonites, his death, etc.
There is no need to say 'England' in the picture captions e.g. Church of St. Mary Major, Ilchester, England - in fact, there is probably no need to even say 'Ilchester', given the context; captions should be brief (GA criteria).
the will of his father, Nicholas Arnold, dated 18 Jan 1622/23. - don't abbreviate 'Jan' unless it is a quote (in quotation marks)
William married about 1610 Christian Peak who was baptized 15 Feb 1583[/84] - more abbreviation problems; this does not make sense as a sentence. Maybe Around 1610, William married Christian Peak who was baptized on the 15th of February 1583 - I'm not sure about this [/84] thing; why is there a reason for the doubt? It seems odd to know the day but be uncertain about the year. Maybe it needs a footnote. Same with his own date of death.
Born in Ilchester, Somerset, England ...and then ...daughter of Thomas Peak of Muchelney, Somerset, England - I think you can skip 'England' in all subsequent mentions; I'd just leave the first one (in this section).
Interestingly, both of these documents - remove 'interestingly' - not neutral; let the reader decide what is and is not interesting.
The impact of both of these documents has no parallel in the realm of New England genealocial research. - according to who?
The picture of "Church of St. Mary Major" is in an awkward spot, breaking up a heading. It's probably best moved to the right and up one paragraph, so that it naturally finishes within the section.
"were the early records brought... - I assume this is a direct quotation? Therefore, it needs a reference immediately after it.
Short answer / The long answer, on the other hand is not Encyclopaedic language
...publishing it in his otherwise excellent Genealogical Dictionary - 'otherwise excellent' is a bit POV
many William Arnold descendants today (2010) still find this fictitious ancestry from various sources and believe it to be true. - a) don't use the word 'today' - it's better if this can be written in a 'timeless' way, so maybe just 'Even in the 21st century' or something. b) Is this a verifiable fact? There is no reference. Is it OR?
Unfortunately, in this age of the internet, one can find websites that show attractive lineages of Nicholas Arnold back many generations, often incorporating some of Somerby's discredited work. However, not a shred of evidence has as yet been made public illuminating us to the ancestry of Nicholas Arnold. - does not sound Encyclopaedic; appears to be OR
To be honest, the stuff about the erroneous lineage sounds somewhat snippy and accusatory; I know you want to state the facts clearly, but I think it can be done with more tact; such as "Previously it was believed X, but new evidence has proved this to be incorrect." or whatever. But not things like "not a shred of evidence" (colloquial, not encyclopaedic tone) and italicising the only known ancestors - it gives somewhat undue emphasis.
I think the article is beginning to focus far too much on the error in the historical records which, really, is a side-note in documenting the life of the person.
their voyage to the New World - maybe Wikilink New World ?
Thanks for the feedback on the South Sound Speedway article. I have begun, but not finished, work on your suggestions. I understand your concern regarding the classes.(super stocks, street stocks) Unfortunately Wikipedia does not have articles explaining these topics. I however am aware of a few external web pages which explain the matter. Of course I, being quite tyronic, am unaware of how to incorporate these external links into my work. If you could assist me with such a task it would be greatly appreciated. Dylan2448 (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't include external links in the body. If we don't have an article, then, so be it - we can't explain it, until we have one. You might even want to put a red link to Super stock in the hope someone else might write one.
But for external links - they should only be in the end section called = External links == and they should only be used if they contain info that otherwise could not be added. If they aren't reliable sources, they shouldn't be used. And we try to keep external links quite minimal too. So...if there is no good way to explain what the classes are for now, that's fine - it's just another article we are lacking. Cheers, Chzz ► 02:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
For inclusion, an article needs 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' - see WP:VRS.
Are any of the newspaper articles you mentioned available online? And do they have significant coverage about this person, or are they really just 'passing mentions'?
To pass the Wikipedia notability criteria, you need to show newspaper/book/magazine articles that are, really, about the person. Coverage of the Theatre or plays, which simply mention the director without saying much about th, isn't enough - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Chzz ► 10:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You've now shut down the page because of a copyright violation. How can we write about this person and establish notability in a way that pleases you? (129.96.234.173 (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC))
Panoramio image review
Hi! I've uploaded several images from Panoramio to the Commons and they are now listed in Category:Panoramio review needed. Since I'm not quite sure what to do next and your name is listed there among the reviewers, I thought I'd ask you. I contacted the image uploader and got his permission for use on the Commons and the wiki and used flinfo tool to upload the images. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
On 20 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blue Monkey Brewery, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello. You made a decision to delete an article (about Foster-Harris [2], which I'd like to discuss.
Basically, I was just starting the article when I went into Wp's Live Talk and was told not to write it. That it would be deleted, for the reason that there are no (that I know of) published biographies of the guy. So I threw in the towel.
In the event, it seems the article wasn't given the axe immediately, but hung around on death row for 24 hours, which makes me wonder if the original advice I was given wasn't the whole story. And indeed, I've come across articles in the past that talk about a person's *work* while saying very little about their *life.*
I'm really not interested in writing an entire article if it's a foregone conclusion it'll be deleted by someone on the basis they haven't heard of the subject before. My argument for this man's inclusion into Wp is that he's an authority on fiction writing -- taught at University; wrote two books -- and on the Old West.
Also, I only know about him because I ran into his writing books used, but found him incredibly useful. It would have been a great benefit to me if Wp had listed him.
In other words, I'm arguing that the man might be *obscure*, but he's nevertheless *important*.
Hi. I didn't delete the page - it's still there, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Foster-Harris. We don't delete AFC submissions, unless there is a copyright problem or it is offensive or something. It will stay there forever, and at any time in the future it could be edited, improved, re-submitted, moved to a live article, etc.
What actually happened with that one way, it was put 'on hold' at 04:39 on the 15th, a couple of hours after it was created, by Sonia (talk·contribs) here. The reason given was "provides insufficient context" which seems reasonable, as the entire content was just Foster-Harris won the Owen Wister Award for 1974. and a list of 4 books. Short articles are fine, but it needs at least a minimum few sentences, to tell us what it is about.
As the article wasn't edited, then after 24 hours, they are changed from 'hold' to 'declined' - and that's what I did, here, a day later. I did stress in the comment I added that that was just the procedure, and that You can resubmit this at any time, whenever you think it is ready.
Now - regarding the notability of a potential article; I understand your comments, but the baseline inclusion criteria is what Wikipedia calls "notability" - which differs somewhat from a literal interpretation of that term; specifically it requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please see WP:VRS.
So, if there are several articles in newspapers, books, or whatever about this person, then it is possible to produce an article. If there aren't, we cannot, simply because there would not be any verifiable facts to write about him.
That is it, really. It actually does not matter if an article is about a person, a company, a pop song, an animal, a place, or whatever; the key thing is, the references. We want to provide facts that can be checked.
So, when writing an article, the first thing to do (after checking we don't already have an article) is to gather the sources of information. You need a few, to show notability, and they do need to have substantial information about it. If the sources exist, the article can be made; if they don't, then we can't.
An article does not get deleted because people have not heard of the subject. It gets deleted, usually, because of a lack of reliable sources to support the facts. I did actually search for appropriate reliable sources, and found a couple of articles [3][4] - but not really what we could call 'significant coverage'.
Remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, and as such, we merely report on things that other sources (that is, reliable sources) have already written about. We do not publish original research.
Thanks for the response! It does clarify some things. I still have some follow-up questions:
In this case, the guy is a published writer. Then is it sufficient to say he published this book, which is about that, and that book, which is about this, and won such-and-such an award, given for this-or-that reason -- in other words, aggregating published and verifiable information about him?
It's not enough to say a person published a book, no; that does not make a person 'Notable'. They only become notable if other (independent) people have written about them writing a book...if you see what I mean. If they've won awards, yes, that helps, definitely, but it's really important to understand that notability is not inherited - ie, even if the book has lots of reliable sources about it, that does not necessarily mean that the author is notable. We do require "significant coverage" about them, the subject of the article. Whilst there are no exact requirements, as a rule of thumb, we need about 3 or more newspaper articles which are substantially about the person themselves - ie with information about the person, that can be used in the article - saying where they came from, where they went to college, and suchlike.
It sounds like you might be unable to find 3 or more such articles. In that case, it enters a murky area - possibly there are lots of 'passing mentions' of the person, which might possibly add up to "significant coverage". Ultimately, it comes down to common sense, and like anything on Wikipedia is up to the community; so if there was a live article, and the notability was questioned, we would have a deletion discussion and people would offer their opinions as to whether the person was or was not 'notable' enough to warrant an entry.
In my personal experience, I find that if you have to scrabble around to try and find enough references to establish the notability, then it's mostly not worth bothering; sometimes we just have to accept that something is not, at present, 'notable' enough. But you can always keep it on a back-burner; there is no deadline on Wikipedia. If, (weeks/months/years) later you are able to add further reliable sources, you can always resubmit it. Chzz ► 13:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
a) I have not actually tried to dig around for references for it, so I don't know if I could find any. I suspect I might be able to, if I spent several hours doing research on it (either online, or in libraries and so on)
b) It's up to you; depends how bothered you are.
My advice is: edit something else, at least for now. We've got zillions of articles that need work, e.g. WP:BACKLOG. Get more familiar with Wikipedia that way. Or if you fancy writing a new article, pick something a bit more notable at first. And then, you might come back to that one, in some time.
Apologies - you asked for a clear yes/no and I didn't give one. Mostly, whatever you decide, I hope you choose to stick around and edit on Wikipedia; I really hope this one didn't put you off. Chzz ► 14:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I *have* been editing other stuff. But honestly -- and this is a general thing -- there seems to be an awful lot of mental midgetry going on. I edit a page to have it instantly reverted because I've changed the meaning, without the reverter doing basic background research to see if the new meaning is more correct or less; there's this important writing teacher that Wikipedia refuses to mention because nobody's ever written a biography of him (but, everyone tells me, be sure to stick around and do some grunt work on stuff that you have no interest or background in).
I'll tell you, if Wikipedia had mentioned this guy, it would have saved me three or five years. There's a lot of nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.23.40 (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that way. Please realise that, as an Encyclopaedia, the idea is to collect information that other people have already documented in reliable sources. We do not do any original research - so, if nobody has written a biography on him, then Wikipedia probably can't be the first - because there wouldn't be any suitable source material.
I appreciate you would have saved time if Wikipedia had an article, but then again, what if Wikipedia had had incorrect information?
...that was it, the entire content. I hope you will agree that a) just that would have not have saved you years of research, and b) given that submission, we really couldn't accept the article.
If you are able to develop it, then we'll happily look at it again. And if you need any help with it, lots of people will be quite willing to do what they can.
I'm sure you are aware that people are constantly adding misinformation to Wikipedia. An article lacking independent references is a target for such vandalism. If we permit facts that cannot be checked, then anyone can write anything - and we'd have no way of knowing which parts were true. This is particularly important for biographic articles; I'm sure you'll agree, we must take every care to present accurate information about Mr. Foster-Harris. The only way we can do that is, if there are reliable sources for our claims. This is not small-minded or some petty bureaucratic issue; it is the only logical way to control the accuracy of the project.
If there really are not enough references, there is little we can do unless/until we find some - whether they are online or offline. If there are no such 'reliable sources' to satisfy the policies of Wikipedia, then this is the wrong site to host the information - there are, of course, other websites where you can write anything you like. But for Wikipedia, rule #1 must be verifiability.
Yesyesyesyesyes, GOD yes. Certainly. Absolutely. But of course, as I have repeatedly told you, it is not about his biography. It is about his work. You may notice such a pattern in other cases where little or nothing is known about a person's life.
On 21 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shikha Tandon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 22 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Educology, 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.
Thank you for being such an amazing helper on the IRC and with anything else you can help with. You deserve this and many more. JoeGazz ▲ 01:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Damon J. Smith was nominated by you at DYK. I'm afraid I might have gone a bit over the top but the article has some serious problems. A lot of the sourcing is unreliable, mis-represented or self-published. I'm not too hot on WP:NSPORTS but it's not clear to me he would pass for either his football or motocross.
It's practically impossible to verify he was at the Calgary Stampeders, see this search. His blog states as well as the opportunity to play pro ball with the Calgary Stampeders. After sustaining a season ending injury, Damon quickly reconfigured his goals and entered the business world. (my formatting) This makes me suspect he never played, although he did get a contract, and was then injured-out. All the sourcing on his "entrepreneurship" is self-published. The motocross stuff takes note that he competes, but there's nothing that would pass WP:GNG.
The mis-representation of sources makes me doubt the credibility of the two cited off-line articles. Can you access them?
Fair play to the guy, he's busy out there doing things while I edit here, but I don't think this article is notable, and I wanted to hear your thoughts before moving forward. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that's fine; let's see what happens re. the challenges. I thought it passed WP:GNG, and although I had some concerns, I thought it verifiable he had played for that team - but now I study the source, I do see what you mean. So, yes, let's see what he comes back with. Chzz ► 22:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Feinoha would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Feinoha to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz2. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Thank you, but not right now; my 'real life' concerns mean it isn't a great time. I do, really, appreciate the thought though - and, in some months, who knows. Thanks again, Chzz ► 02:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You have done substantial work on the AfC and have eliminated the backlog almost completely daily. You are critical to the success of the project, without you we would have 100+ submissions daily. Thank you so much! JoeGazz ▲ 01:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz! You know if you uses the {{wikibreak}} template with the message= parameter, you can customize it to be anything you want. So that {{wikibreak|message=Gone fishin’}} would produce
Gone fishin’
I just thought you might want to try it out since you’re off on a break that some of the other available parameters might not fit.
You can even create it as a separate page in your own user namespace that, when you update it, automatically updates your userpage and your talk page. You would
Oh, I am discouraged, very much so; I just realise it's pointless to go on about it. I find it incomprehensible that it is considered unimportant, in direct comparison with other ITN's that are accepted. I'm frustrated, disillusioned and disappointed. However, I'm not a DIVA, so I choose to simply step away. It's only a wiki, etc.
A discussion has begun about whether the article Emperor of Exmoor, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Simple Bob (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Not true, VHarris44 has visited a large number of law firm articles today and deleted the list of offices (not just the flags) with no prior discussion. They have also followed me to King's College London where they have made tit-for-tat edits and left the lead of that article in a mess (I can't revert their edits there again as I will breach 3RR).Rangoon11 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
...and I just 'accepted it. I think AFC is inappropriate for project stuff; but still. Done. This would all be way easier if you made a user account though. Chzz ► 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. User:ResidentAnthropologist persists in making erroneous and improper edit reverts at Jediism. I am reporting him to you for violating RRR rule. He has reverted my edits from that article, edits which have removed mentions of nontheism and some fictitious "Way of Shao-lin" that have no basis in fact. Please come and help, this is rather tedious. The user does not post anything on the talk page, nor do I suspect this user will do so in future.75.21.159.227 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Stop trying to add the same thing, and instead discuss it on Talk:Jediism, to establish a consensus. There is no rush. It takes more than one person to make an edit-war; just relax, and talk about it instead. Chzz ► 17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. That is exactly what I have been doing--relaxing--for quite some time. Yet the reversions of improvements I make are continuing. I understand the concern about vandalism at the article, and I also forget to add edit summaries. However, I will not tolerate the continued mention of something fictitious as if it were a fact. There is no "way" of Shao-lin except Buddhist vows. Thanks for your input and help.75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, so make your points on the article talk page. If you can explain good reasons for the edits, other editors will concur, and then the edit can be made without fuss; however, the constant battling on the live article is not constructive - it will just lead to the article being protected, and accounts being blocked. As long as users discuss things instead of battling, all is well - and please note, this is entirely unrelated to who is "right or wrong" - it doesn't matter. It's all about collaborative, calm discussion. If something you wish to change is disputed, by another editor, then you must not repeat the edit until there is agreement to make it; see WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISCUSS, WP:BRD, WP:NAM, etc etc.
I see. So it is preferable to allow my corrections to be reverted back to fantasy and inaccuracy? Even though I have posted, begged, pleaded on the talk page while this editor only posted today?75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
In the short-term, yes, it is; it will then help if you make a specific, clear suggestion on the talk page (I think X should change to Y) with clear, short, policy/guideline based reasons. And then, ask other people for their opinion - don't canvass, but instead place a brief, neutral note on the talk pages of a couple of related project groups - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, or whichever applies - I mean, just add a note saying "Please could some other people offer their opinions in the discussion on [[Talk:Jediism#Whatever you call the section]], thanks, ~~~~. Then give it some time (a few days), and see what others say.
If they agree with your suggestion, then you can make the edit, referring to the discussion - and it should be fine.
I am little confused to as to what exactly the issue is here, I reverted some unsourced additions by an Ip two days ago in which sourced statements were removed and unsourced statements added in exchange. I then get an extremely angry message on my page today threatening to report me for something or other. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I imagine it's just a bit of a misunderstanding, which I'm doing my best to calm, and move to a nice chat on the article talk; that's about it, really. Chzz ► 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
nice work
The Original Barnstar
For dedicated efforts evaluating new users' first attempts at article creation, resulting in a rare clearance of the Article for Creation backlog, I award Chzz this Barnstar.--ragesoss (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping that a statement by an independent reliable source that Pariyatti is "North America’s leading source of books for students of the Theravadan tradition" of Buddhism, plus Pariyatti publishes its own books on Buddhism, plus Pariyatti is the sole source in the west for books from two of the most notable publishers of Buddhist books - - I was hoping that would be considered notable.
I'm trying to imagine what characteristics - other than articles about it in independent newspapers, magazines, books or websites - might make a publishing house/bookstore/service organization notable?
Thank you for reviewing my blank page for article on Suburban Chinatown. LOL I wonder where my article went?? There was one honest! ;-) I am sure glad I kept a copy! (somewhere-eek!) Happy reviewing, may they all be so easy! Hah! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for correcting the text and for removing the 'unreviewed' tag!! (however the tag has not been removed yet.... perhaps this takes a few time.....? ) V.fanis1 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It's almost certainly a legit charity thing, and I always have sympathy for those. Give me a few mins. Maybe we can stub it. Will write more in about 5-10. Chzz ► 14:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think it's fairly harmless as a stub now. Not clear on notability, with sources being in other languages - and very few online. But I think it probably deserves a bit of a chance. Cheers, Chzz ► 14:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop in a thank-you for your attempts at calming this, and for not having added any fire to it. I am extremely embarrassed about my temporary loss of control, but I hope you can understand me when I say a lot of people here need to practice what they preach.
Also, if you ever had some time, examining the changes at Jediism would reveal that ResidentAnthropologist simply reverts...he does not discuss, warn or explain on the talk page. If I did that I'd have already been unjustly strung up for being a vandal.
I'm responding to your message that "In Wikipedia, 'notability' means significant coverage in independent reliable sources".
Do you not consider the two sources included in the article to be independent and reliable? I believe they are. I will paste some information about them below.
Or do you not consider those two articles to be "significant coverage"? For a small independent nonprofit publishing house/bookstore/service organization to get any coverage at all, let alone coverage that calls it “North America’s leading source of books for students of the Theravadan tradition” of Buddhism seems significant to me.
Here's some info about those two sources. More info about them can be found on their Wikipedia pages:
TRICYCLE: THE BUDDHIST REVIEW
FROM http://askville.amazon.com/Buddhist-tricycle/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=460255
"Tricycle: The Buddhist Review is a Buddhist quarterly published by the New York City-based Tricycle Foundation, formerly known as Buddhist Ray, Inc. It has the largest circulation of any Buddhist magazine in the US.
The periodical is an internationally distributed, mainstream quarterly dedicated to exploring the full range of Buddhist activity and its impact on Western Life. The first issue of Tricycle was dated Fall 1991, featuring an interview of the Dalai Lama by Spalding Gray.
Tricycle claims an upscale audience of approximately 200,000 readers. According to the 2005 Writers' Market, circulation of the magazine is 60,000.
HERE'S INFO ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT BOOK PUBLISHER'S ASSOCIATION, PUBLISHER OF THE "INDEPENDENT", THE SECOND SOURCE CITED
"IBPA, the Independent Book Publishers Association is a trade association of independent publishers. Founded in 1983, it serves book, audio, and video publishers located in the United States and around the world.
IBPA's membership of more than 4,000 publishers continues to grow. It is governed by a voluntary board of directors that meets regularly to discuss and plan the association's business. Board members reflect the varied membership and serve two- to four-year terms.
In my opinion, they do not constitute "significant coverage". It is fairly borderline, but I like to see something more substantial, personally, before I 'accept' an article for creation - because in my own judgement, that article currently would be in danger of deletion.
My opinion is, that you should wait until you are able to add further sources to show more evidence of notability. However, I accept it is opinion, and you can, if you wish, simply move it to a live article, and see how it goes; it might well be fine; it's quite possible nobody will question it. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I bit back a little at Talk:Sydenham#Disambiguation_required. Do you mind taking a look and advise if I am being argumentative? I am wondering if I would be better off avoiding the multiple move requests on other UK cities raised by the same user by taking them off my watch-list rather than expressing any opinions or risking giving an impression of hounding. If you would rather not give advice on this one, let me know and I'll ask another experienced editor. Cheers, Fæ (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what you wrote, and no, I don't think that it was argumentative. It seems rational. I don't know how many of such discussions have already happened, or will be created, so as to whether it is disruptive/point I can't say; also, whether you personally want to bother watching for them or not is up to you; I don't see any particular danger in doing so. If it does become a POINT issue, then it'd be best raised somewhere, to avoid lots of useless discussions when it is quite clear the consensus will simply oppose, because they're effectively the same case. But, as always, sometimes it isn't worth bothering about. Chzz ► 21:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll proceed with caution, I don't really want to be accused of making a point over someone being pointy so I think I'll back off and leave others to complain if they want to. I do not see this anything like needing dispute resolution. From the requester's tone I suspect they might now regret raising so many requests at the same time so it seems a good moment to say meh and walk on. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. What I normally do in such cases is take a little note to check back on things in e.g. a few months from now. On the basis that, as you said, it's not worth the bother, and it doesn't matter if things are 'wrong' for a while - you can always change it back in some months/years/whatever. Chzz ► 21:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Business Consulting & Design 21, which you PRODed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Chzz, yesterday you wrote: OK; I've tweaked a few minor things, and removed the 'unreviewed' tag. Cheers, Chzz ► 13:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC) but the template has not been removed from the page..... I don't think I can do it (sorry, I don't know how this works....) V.fanis1 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You have been invited to comment in a special Request for Constructive Criticism page. I am looking for areas in which I can improve. I have identified you as both an experienced and trusted Wikipedian, and as someone that has had sufficient contact with me to able to recognize areas in which I can improve.
Please feel free to visit and post any comments or criticism you have. At a certain point, I cannot improve if no one tells me what I need to work on. Thanks in advance, Sven ManguardTalk00:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
On 30 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jameela Jamil, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Jameela Jamil has been pulled from DYK per BLP sourcing concerns raised at WT:DYK. Feel free to join in the discussion; the article didn't see much live time so we could put it up again if the issues are fixed. Shubinator (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
As noted at the top of this page, I may not be online much; however, I'd be grateful to anyone who could check this. I am sure that Sky can be considered just as much an RS as other major news outfits. The "look" article can be seen online here; it is only entitled 'Interview: Jameela Jamil" (so I added that). I would think that this article on "Who What Wear" would be OK, too, so I'd like to know why not. I hope this can be sorted out. I was careful to ensure every fact checked out, when I wrote this. Please reconsider it for DYK. Chzz ► 18:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be quickest to ask SandyGeorgia on her talk page, since she's the one who brought it up. I'm busy today (spent far too much time on Wikipedia already) and tomorrow, so I can't do a thorough scan, but if you two come to an agreement I'd be happy to put it up again. Shubinator (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I might not have a chance; I'm really on a wiki-break; so I'll just note here;
I don't know why "Sky" is not a reliable source; it's a major UK News provider, with a reasonable reputation. I've removed those tags. It's British Sky Broadcasting.
I added the title to the 'Look' article; there is a scanned copy online here
"whowhatwear" seems a reputable source to me, with a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy', and it has editorial control. I would have thought this an acceptable source. If not, feel free to remove content sourced to it.
I left a note at the article talk; Sky seems fine, Look seems to check out now, the WWW I removed (along with the IMDB) because WWW's disclaimer also says it's purely opinion-based and it reads like a blog. I removed some of the poorly-sourced stuff, so it looks fine now to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/22:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
On 5 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emperor of Exmoor, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi there, and thanks for your comment on my talk page. You asked what I thought was wrong with this article; essentially, it's not so much the way it was written but the content it contains. It has far too much trivial information which is only of interest to a fan (height, size, childhood memories, favourite foods, etc) to be acceptable as an encyclopaedic article. As a suggestion of how it should look, I've boldly cut it down to the content which is relevant to an encyclopaedia: see [5]. That's a pretty drastic reduction, and feel free to revert it if you want; but this article should look more like that than the version I found it in. It's not about whether content is verifiable or neutral, it's about whether it belongs in an encyclopaedic biography at all. Robofish (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted, mostly because you messed up all the referencing - please note all the large red error messages at the end of this edit... but also because I entirely disagree that information such as a persons height, upbringing, early career, and published works can be considered 'trivia' inappropriate for a BLP. Chzz ► 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean about that Holidayinncambodia username, I just thought it was some holiday inn hotel or something ;) - I'll give that song a listen, sounds pretty good from the reviews! See you around! P.S. - Thanks for the constructive criticism; I really appreciate it! --Addihockey10e-mail01:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
That page's content, "faythe bashaw is hot" didn't meet the criteria for G1, which requires utterly meaningless text, garbled to the common English speaker. This content was not, and would've been better tagged with A7, the "no reasonable claim of notability" criteria. Maybe this is just bureaucracy at its best, but if you're going to categorise something, it might as well be done (more) correctly. Happy editing, --Patar knight - chat/contributions02:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I say G1 was better as a google search turns up no person under Faythe bashaw so it would be utterly meaningless text. Sophie(Talk)14:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I agree with Chzz, such articles can be considered G1. It could also have been classified under G3, or A7. It's just a matter of what tag is picked. --Alpha Quadranttalk14:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
New Guns N' Roses album
I saw your proposal for deleting the article "New Guns N' Roses album", and after reading the guidelines for future albums I think it's fair enough. Just one thing, you wrote that much of the references and information were gossip which have been refuted. I was just wondering if you could be more specific, as the information and sources are coming directly from the band members Axl Rose and Dj Ashba. None have been refuted to my knowledge. Spirit83 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is simply not enough factual information about it. We don't know the title, or release date. You could make a similar article about any/every band, because we could assume they will, at some point, release an album. The fact that GnR have half-mentioned some ideas in interviews does not seem enough.
By 'refuted' I was referring to the heading "Rumored Songs" and such information as that about 'fake titles'.
Encyclopaedias are not for rumours, only verifiable facts.
Thanks for the reply. No, I guess the article can be removed, I just wasn't aware of the specific wikipedia guidelines for future albums. Only reason I asked about the "refuted" comment was because I thought you might have known something I didn't, that's all.
As for the rumored songs, all titles listed are confirmed real song titles, but uncertain if they'll be used for the next release. Spirit83 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Apart from WP:NALBUM and WP:CRYSTAL (as mentioned), the one that springs to mind is WP:HAMMER - although that is a user-essay, not a guideline.
Personally, I view all articles in relation to WP:GNG. In this case, I honestly don't believe we can state enough verifiable facts about this specific topic to present an article demonstrating this 'significant coverage in independent reliable sources'. Chzz ► 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit filters
Hi there - it's Addihockey10, I was just wondering if I could help improve edit filters a bit, however, I know nothing about them ;). Is it possible for you to help me "learn the ropes" with edit filters? Thanks for your consideration! Happy editing! --Addihockey10e-mail16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the best person to ask, for a couple of reasons. a) I'm not active right now, and b) I'm not great at edit-filters. Yes, I have the access, but really only to be able to see them, which helps with some socking issues and advising, etc. I'll find someone more appropriate to recommend as a mentor. Chzz ► 15:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, is there any particular reason why the links in your sig are redirects? It'd be better if it just linked to your actual user/talk pages; for one thing, it works better with the Wikipedia:Popups gadget that way. Cheers, and best of luck w/ edit filtering. Chzz ► 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see you...
He eh. Nice to see you around Chzz. I was awfully surprised when I got an edit conflict and saw your name. Are you back for the long haul or just stopping by? Sven ManguardTalk21:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
For now, just stopping by; I am doing real-life stuff which precludes my normal Wikipedia activity-level; I occasionally get a chance to drop in.
Longer term, I don't know, although I do hope to 'drop in' when the opportunity arises. And I might return more fully, depending on what happens.
On a side note, it would appear that AfC has not completely collapsed without you, although as always, your return would bring a level of experience and expertise which few posses and many strive to reach.
May your travels bring you great joy and inner piece, Chzz.
Orphaned non-free image File:Bob and brian logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Bob and brian logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk03:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Due to legal concerns and personal info, I reverted the edit and advised the oversight team. I am certain that Eagles247 will understand. Please don't discuss it further on wikipedia; instead, please email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org - thanks for understanding. Chzz ► 23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Finkelstein is a nationally known Jewish intellectual. There are at least ten categories under his page that indicates his ethnicity.
If you go to Albert Einstein's page, you wouldn't find any sources about his Jewish background either. That's because it's pretty much common knowledge.128.151.91.93 (talk)
I meant the actual image, File=KHSCrest.jpg - I know that someone had updated a vandalised version of it, but I got the impression from the history that the first version uploaded was legitimate, ie the real school crest - but I didn't have a chance to actually view it; if it isn't valid though, that's fine. Cheers, anyway. Chzz ► 17:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
On 20 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Windmill tump, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Windmill tump is a tumulus burial mound in Gloucestershire which contains the remains of ten adults and children? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
This page and your user page have both said "Chzz is taking a break from Wikipedia" for quite a while, even though you you have been active here. Is this an oversight? There is at least one case of a user being misled by the notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I know that Chzz is in the process of moving/taking an adventure and does not know when he will be back. He is very very active usually and some edits here and there are considered taking a break for him. Chzz is indeed busy and cannot assist at a full capacity. No, it is not an oversight he is going to be inconsistently editing because of his real life. That is why he is taking a break. I am just a talkpage stalker but I know about this. JoeGazz ▲ 15:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, as above. For personal reasons, I'm not currently truly 'active' as I have been in the past year or so, hence added the notice. I'm getting online when I can, but it's sporadic. This week, I have managed a few sessions online, during which I've done things such as NPP, reporting username vios, and a couple of sessions of Huggle - avoiding getting involved in anything complex. I also knocked up a couple of brief new articles which went into DYK, as noted above.
I don't think the above is really 'confusion'. I helped 'em back in May, but did not notice their request for help or the subequent responses; I'm glad others stepped in to help. If I'd been told about it, I might've been able to look back on it, but I was unaware of it.
However, in the interests of taking on-board the comment - as I certainly don't want to mislead anyone - I've just removed the specific 'break' messages on here and my user-page. I honestly don't know if I'll be back online later today, or not for the next couple of weeks. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I do think there are 2 versions of a wiki-break. One being where you don't edit wikipedia at all and the other being is where you are still active in the user space such as talking to other editors. Sophie(Talk)03:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Soph, that is exactly it. I wrote that I was on a break, simply because in the past year+ people have been so used to me responding to their questions within hours...and I knew I might not be able to be so prompt in responses. I thought I might not have access for days or weeks. Mostly, as it happens, I have managed to get online fairly often, and deal w. things - but I wasn't certain I'd be able to, hence the notification. Chzz ► 04:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, I noticed; twinkle overlap. I've removed mine, and the duplicated notification, and just added my comment instead. Ta. Chzz ► 23:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hotel Colorado
WTF Dude, I changed the editing, didn't add any new content, How about you do some of your own research before chastising me for not citing reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.233.65 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Also, when you add messages on talk pages (like this), please could you add them at the end and in a new == Section ==
On 27 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black Carts Turret, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although the Black Carts Turret Roman fortification is connected to Hadrian's Wall, it was probably built before the wall itself? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Chzz, Hope you are fine--long time since we talked. There is an article, Mario Kleff, largely autobiographical, that I nominated for deletion. For some reason I could not add it to the aFd page. Can you please look at it and finish the process? I tried several times with no success. Thanks. รัก-ไทย (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Nice to hear from you!
I see that you've added a 'proposed deletion' - that is different from the AfD process, as there is no discussion required. Anyone can object to the proposal and remove it if they wish, but if they don't it will be deleted soon after 3rd December.
If somebody does object - even without giving a reason - then we'd need to start a deletion discussion.
Thanks, Chzz. As I suspected, all the labels have been removed--as soon as someone adds one, it is promptly removed. Can you please walk me through the deletion process? I tried once before with a different article,, but the mechanics seemed beyond my comprehension--you are my experienced mentor! Thanks again. รัก-ไทย (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. It is much easier to use a 'gadget' to do it, so;
Go to "my preferences", and look under the 'Gadgets' tab. Under 'Editing Gadgets', you should see "Twinkle" - checkmark that one. Then 'save' at the bottom of the screen.
Then go to the Mario Kleff page, and there should be a tab labelled 'XFD'. If you click it, you then just need to fill in the reason and click 'submit', and it does everything for you - creating the discussion page, transcluding it, and notifying the user.
I enabled Twinkle, but could not locate the tab "XFD" on the article page. Perhaps I am missing something. Please do this one for me, and I will try myself the next time. (Reason: This person lacks notability. It is autobiographical. The references are from local Pattaya advertizing sheets.) Thanks, Chzz. รัก-ไทย (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. My question was the result of my misunderstanding and a graphics-user-interface / human factors effect. It is shown by a comparison of the results of a
Google search on "sulphur" and a
Google search on "The Professor and the Madman". Because the keys "sulphur" and "sulfur" are short, look very similar and have the same sound (and I know they are equivalent) I take it for granted that I have found the Wikipedia article for what I want, without having to look at the next line to see that this is so. "The Professor and the Madman" and "The Vicar of Crowthorne" look and sound so completely different, it took me about 20 seconds to realize I was looking at the appropriate link. I assumed that the Google entry was a consequence of the Google indexing algorithm, and did not know that it resulted from a Wikipedia redirect. I feel confident now about constructing redirects, finding pages that redirect, and recognizing their effects on Google searches.
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.
It's fine to have replied here, but 'best practice' would be to reply below the message, but to also put a quick note here to let me know you've replied. You could do that either literally by putting a message on here saying "I've replied on my talk page ~~~~" or by using the {{talkback}} template (click on it for instructions) - so that the other person (me, in this case) would get a "you have new messages" alert.
That's exactly what I just did; I replied directly below your question here, on my own talk page, and then I edited your talk page and put {{Talkback|Chzz|Redirect question}} ~~~~
Reviewing the Deletion of Karma: A Very Twisted Love Story
Hi Chzz,
I believe you're the moderator who proposed the deletion of my article on this short film (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karma:_A_Very_Twisted_Love_Story) and wanted to get in touch to see if this decision could be reviewed. I've provided some online references I found that might address the original issue, lack of notability and significant coverage.
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.
Yes, the article was deleted back in June. I'm not a moderator or anything - just a normal user; I did list it for the deletion discussion, and four more people supported deletion, with nobody opposing, during the open discussion from 4 July until 13 July.
If you think that you might be able to show notability, you should contact the admin who deleted it, and ask if they could consider giving you a copy of the article to work on; see WP:USERFY. The admin in that specific case was Cirt (talk·contribs).
I do suggest that, if you think you can write an article that passes the notability requirements, you first do so in userspace, and ask others to check it over.
Please note that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source - ie for the Rome festival thing. You really need sources such as newspaper articles (with more than a 'passing mention') to show why it is notable. See WP:VRS. Best of luck, Chzz ► 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Nympsfield Long Barrow
On 2 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nympsfield Long Barrow, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that haematite found during the excavation of Nympsfield Long Barrow may have been used to make face-paint, so that the dead could appear alive? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey there! I noticed that you were the person who blanked this page. I currently have an OTRS email from the New York University Archives department releasing the material for use on Wikipedia. Could you please advise me on how you would like to proceed? I noticed there were some issues with the trivia section but I wasn't sure if that was enough of a reason to decline the article's creation. Thanking you in advance! PanydThe muffin is not subtle22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If you wish to use content copied from the uni archive, then please let me know the OTRS ticket number - that solves the blanking thing; if I can see the ticket number, it can be un-blanked, and you can edit it to work to satisfying the other requirements..,.and we can discuss that, once the (c) problems are sorted out. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added {{OTRS pending}} and restored the 'old hold' version.
You could put the 'confirmed' thing, and ticket link, on the page itself for now, if you like. If accepted we could move it to the live article talk page. Thanks, Chzz ► 21:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
for dealing with this. If you look in the history, it took him 7 tries to get it, and 6 just to get it to become a db-reason tag (and never got it to be the G11 tag he was trying for). I am the one who tagged his page for G11 initially, because it was the poster child for it, and this is a textbook example of WP:POINT. Thanks again, or should I say おうきに (or ありがとう, whatever your preference). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Waterfox would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Waterfox to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz 2. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Chzz, I know you may be busy IRL now, but I'd like to endorse the above proposal. I am but one of the many editors you've first welcomed & then kindly, patiently & tirelessly helped to learn & follow WP's ways & standards. I can't imagine a more capable & helpful admin - and there will be literally hundreds of fellow-editors who will feel the same way. Good luck if ever - or whenever - you have time & inclination to accept your natural calling. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both very much, for the kind suggestion.
Yes, at the moment, I am too busy with real-life matters; I hope that will be respolved quite soon - and I really hope before Xmas. After that is all sorted out, I will think about it, definitely.
Adminship would be very useful, but I'm quite reluctant, just because I know how horrible the process is. But I will definitely give it consideration, hopefully in a couple of weeks from now.
Thanks. My 'in real life' issues will be resolved on Jan 1st, because that is when I move into a new place to live...and after that, I can start thinking about it. Cheers. Chzz ► 17:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for signing the Online Ambassador interest list. We're gearing up for the next term right now, and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program will be supporting considerably more courses, with considerably more student activity... possibly upwards of 500 students who will need mentors.
If you're still interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon. (And I'll just add, pretty please? I think we're turning a corner for next term with the ambassador program in terms of getting the assignments and communications with professors and the campus ambassador roles into good shape, and I'd really like to have your wisdom as an Online Ambassador to help us keep up on the online side of things.) --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no deadline, although before mid-January would be best since that's when the courses will get started. The university terms last approximately mid-January to early May, so it's preferable if mentors can be active for that full period. But there's some flexibility there; we can reshuffle mentor assignments if necessary. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Mid-Jan might work. I'm "homeless" right now, staying w/ friends; I move in to a new place on 1st Jan, and once I sort myself out there, I should have time for the project again, I'd hope. I'll keep in touch. Chzz ► 03:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
O Fir-tree green! O Fir-tree green!
Your leaves are constant ever,
Not only in the summer time,
But through the winter's snow and rime
You're fresh and green forever.
O Fir-tree green! O Fir-tree green!
I still shall love you dearly!
How oft to me on Christmas night
Your laden boughs have brought delight.
O Fir-tree green! O Fir-tree green!
I still shall love you dearly.
May this holiday season bring you the music of laughter, the warmth of friendship, and the steadying hand of love. Cheers! /ƒETCHCOMMS/04:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Jameela Jamil
I created the article on Jameela. I'm glad you've expanded on what I started. Its written on Twitter Feb 2010 she mentioned her birthday on Feb 25 and her "old Indian father dancing in a cringe-worthy fashion.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think twitter will suffice as a ref - and I'm only saying this because, I've had problems referencing it before. It was on DYK very very briefly, after I expanded it, but taken down because someone wondered if Sky was a reliable-enough source; I contested that, and hopefully folks agree it is. However, I am still - a month down the line - waiting for Shubinator (talk·contribs) - please see User_talk:Shubinator#Jameela_Jamil, and please feel free to comment there, if you like. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Uh, that's exactly why I didn't source it.. But it should be as reliable as a magazine interview if not more because she said it herself. Yeah some of the article is a bit too magazine-like. Her favourite foods and that are not appropriate, I guess that's why they showed concerns...When I started it the amount of decent sources on her were very poor..♦ Dr. Blofeld16:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Mmm. Well, I've tried to stick to appropriate refs; yes, some is 'gossip mag', but then again that's pretty much where anything about her is likely to be. I personally think the article is OK, as it stands...but I've been asking (for the month) what, exactly, anyone would need fixing in order for it to get back into DYK - without success.
Yeah that's what I thought, I was seeing her on TV every day and was amazed she didn't have an article or much written about her on the web. It was quite some time before I started the article too. It wouldn't qualify for a DYK now anyway its too late.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It was on DYK for a very brief time after I 5 x expanded it, and the person removing it has, in principle, agreed to reinstate it, as long as some concerns were resolved - as far as I can tell, they have been - ie the people complaining have not fed back anything. See User_talk:Shubinator#Jameela_Jamil. Chzz ► 19:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Chzz, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan[talk] ≈15:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Comparison of IPv6 support by major transit providers
Well, yes, of course IPv6 is notable, and I am quite familiar with it. But the version I tagged was this one - do you agree C1 tagging was appropriate there, or was it not?
I know, subsequently, it has been edited - and so I quite understand your removing the CSD tag; that's fine.
As it is...I'm just a bit concerned about the total lack of references, for something making such bold assertions. Even the title itself is not neutral/original research in making the apparent decision about which are "major transit providers". I'll just tag it as unreferenced.
Actually it was A1 for no context (C1 is unpopulated categories). Anwyay, I'm not sure how it applies even to that early version, since we were both able to "identify the subject of the article". Lack of references isn't a criteria for speedy deletion, although if no references can be found, it's a candidate for regular AfD. As for the title, we could move it to "Comparison of IPv6 support by internet service providers" or something. Feezo(Talk)19:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. I've actually advised the user via email; the concern is one of OR, because the information, although 'available', is not published as such. They're considering alternatives, including getting it published by a university and then referencing that, which would appear RS. Chzz ► 19:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to follow up on the reason for declining submission of the Deloitte Central Europe Top 500 page. The entry doesn't appear to be written in a self-promotional way--it describes one of Deloitte's popular programs which annually ranks to the fastest growing companies in this region. The companies also often reference the rankings themselves and it's usually reported in the media. Can you tell me if there's something we need to do or change the way it's written to make it passable? Thanks! Jcc813 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you involved with that company? If so, please do not write about it; if it is notable enough, someone else will. See WP:COI, WP:BESTCOI and User:Keegan/Butterfly.
Apart from that...note that all articles need to show notability with independent reliable sources...they must show significant coverage in e.g. newspapers, and suchlike. Please see WP:VRS. Listing entries are not 'significant coverage'.
On 4 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jameela Jamil, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Channel 4 music presenter Jameela Jamil was struck by a car at the age of 17 and was told she might never walk again? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I don't care too much, when I login I can make edits normally and not be affected by the ban, however, I am curious if there was a recent edit that I made that spurred my warning from you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.80 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it only seemed vandalism because of my background on this account... and I thought you were referring to an edit I made on a date, I forgot about the actual edit. I don't believe in censored education though, some people might find having sex with 77 people relevant (as a record). I don't think that its vandalism to point it out... I guess I don't understand what the limit is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.80 (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Partly the account history, and partly because it appeared to be defamatory regarding a person. If the actual fact is true - which I can see it could be - then you have my apologies; as a 'false positive'. Without a reference, I'd rather err on the side of caution for some claim like that. At the time I actually reverted and warned, I must admit I hadn't investigated the specific person who I now see is a porn-star, thus it is a 'credible' claim.
I hope you can imagine that, when checking for such things, it is actually quite hard to identify the difference between that edit and, for example, these other 2 I just reverted [7][8]. We need to speedily deal with any such BLP content, and sometimes we get things wrong - as apparently I did with yours. Again, sorry; just thought I would share those examples, in the hope it might help explain the difficulty. Please make sure you add a reliable source, and then it shouldn't have problems. Chzz ► 08:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. What do you need? A short explanation of NPOV, or...what? Some links? I could say, perhaps...erm...
One of the core principles of Wikipedia is neutrality - we need to maintain a totally neutral viewpoint. It is one of the five pillars.
The most common problem with neutrality occurs when facts are not suitably referenced. If we stick to information that can be checked - verified - in reliable sources, that helps to keep things neutral. All facts should have a reference - and when that happens, naturally we use proven facts, and thus it is more neutral.
Sometimes though, that is not enough; if there are several viewpoints about a topic. For example, if there were 10 books saying that "Chzz is a great writer", but another 10 books saying they are not...then we'd need to provide balance in the article. If we only used the 'good' references, then we'd be introducing a one-sided point of view.
One of the biggest problems we have is with conflict of interest. When an editor is too closely involved with a subject (for example: a company they work at), then it is so very hard to be neutral - which is why we strongly recommend not editing articles you are closely associated with.
That can seem counter-intuitive; at first thought, it might seem better for an article to be written by people involved...but, oddly, it is better if the editors are removed from the subject mattter. In that latter case, then the editors do not have personal information and they have to rely on facts gathered from references.
...well, that's some brief thoughts. Hope that maybe helps a little? Let me know if there is more I can do.
Hi Chzz, you never seem to be on IRC at the same time as I'm in there anymore so I thought I would send you a message here instead (!). I think there is some issue with the auto-archiving setup on my talk page; some threads aren't being automatically archived even though they are older than 14 days. I'm not sure what's going wrong; I think it might be an issue with a timestamp somewhere but I don't know. Any help would be much appreciated.
On another note, how are you? Have you moved to your new place yet? I know you were staying somewhere temporarily over Christmas.
At a glance, right now, it looks OK - but maybe you manually archived things?
Remember, it won't archive threads if it cannot find a timestamp; also it won't archive very short threads. It's not perfect. If you are having consistent strange problems though, I suggest asking on User talk:Misza13.
And...yes, I'm great, thanks. I've moved - and I'm unpacking and sorting myself out a bit; I don't have a good internet connection yet, so I'm still only 'here' part of the time. Cheers! Chzz ► 07:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The tea helped, thanks ^_^ Normally I think more along the lines of the WP:DGAF-ians, but for some reason this particular set of articles was really riling me up. I think you're right, I'll go and work on something else and take a deep breath. - ManicSpider (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, great! Nice to hear. We all need that sort of thing, on occasion, I think; it really is hard to be properly detached. It takes the Buddhists years of study to 'let go', so us Wikipedians have a lot to learn. Anyway...of course, tea always fixes everything. And I also like to remember that "There is no deadline" means that you can simply wait for everyone else to get bored and go away, and then fix the article(s) properly, say, in a couple of years or so :-)
Howdy! The actual name of the act has the year in it. If the page was moved for only that reason, could you please add the date? Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 08:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sure; the name should be the best translation of the actual name of the act. So would it be "Tobacco Control Act 2010" or "Tobacco Control Act of 2010" or...what would you suggest?
There is no need to have 'Bhutan' within the title, unless either a) it was part of the act name, or b) if we had two or more pages called the same thing - in which case we might have things such as "Tobacco Control Act (England)", "Tobacco Control Act (Bhutan)" or whatever.
Anyway... please confirm if the best name would be "Tobacco Control Act 2010" or whatever.
Haha, I just edit-conflicted with you again! I've never had that happen before. I was about to say it turns out my wording wasn't right either. The PDF says "Tobacco Control Act of Bhutan 2010." Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 08:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Except I mis-linked to WP:ESSAY - but I fixed that. I think there is a page about not writing essays, but I forget what the link is.
Anyway...yes, I think PROD is best. Although really, in cases like that, I sometimes wish it'd fit a CSD cateogry so we could just get rid of it; it's hard to imagine how it could be 'fixed'. But if CSD doesn't apply, PROD is the best we can do. And then the user will remove the PROD, and then we'll waste a bit of time in AFD. But, such is life.
thanks for your response....
but my new problem is I cant unify this ac to other ac in other wiki projects......
and thus I cant use single username to login to all wiki project...
Isn't there any deactivation to user ac which are not in use for many days???
If it has very few contributions (less than 10, usually) and has not been used in over a year, it might be possible to usurp (take over) the account; however, I'm guessing it has more edits than that, in which case...no, sorry. But if you do need more, you're probably best asking a bureaucrat - they deal with this sort of thing. Special:Emailuser/Bureaucrats, or e-mail wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org. Best of luck, Chzz ► 07:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Herman ring 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 13:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz--TalkToMecintelati 17:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Done Chzz ► 13:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Fæ (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org. Best of luck, Chzz ► 07:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)