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.
Chzz, I'm wondering if you have answers to a couple of things? Are you familiar with the automatic bot that archives editors' talk pages? If so, can you help me with that? I'd really like to get it to archive every 6 mons. or so! Next, there's an amazingly great photographer who wants to plug into Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and who opened an account under his name, Kirk Stauffer- it's just User:KirkStauffer. When I say this guy is good, have a look at photos he took at the top of the articles for Emily Robison (of Dixie Chicks fame), or Katie Melua, or many others! He has questions, and while I can help somewhat, I promised to find him someone knowledgeable and patient while he learns our ways-- if you can't help, maybe you know another editor familiar with both en.Wikipedia and Commons that can help? And, last but not least, do you know how I can sign up for a GDFL (or GFDL-- whatever the thing is called) in Commons to use to upload photos outside of my usual Flickr transfers done manually?--Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To make the bot auto-archive things older than 6 months from your talk page, copy the following to the top of it;
<!-- Auto archiving setup -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = User talk:Leahtwosaints/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
<!-- End of Auto archiving setup -->
Hopefully, quite self-explanatory. I think that should work. So - that's about it; no action required, just let the bot do its thing, and - if I've got it right - all should be well. If it goes wrong, of course, give me a shout.
Regarding Mr. Stauffer, of course, I can help wherever I can - and if I can't help, I can probably direct to someone I can. As a general guide, I suggest WP:MCQ is useful for that stuff.
Dear Chzz, Please take another look at my slightly revised Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jimmy Earl. In Reference [4], I have replaced the link to Allmusic with one to the US Copyright Office entry for "I'm Home Africa", which lists him as one of the authors. I have also removed the link that appeared just below the header "As a guest artist". This was intended as a help for anyone who wanted to browse Allmusic for more information. I did leave the Allmusic links in References [7] and [8]. These are intended only to document that the CDs exist, not to prove anything. I hope this is OK. If not, please let me know, and I will take them out.
...and yes - dozens of articles use it. There are many really bad articles on Wikipedia - it is a work-in-progress; there are so many things that need fixing. But that doesn't make for a good reason for adding to the problem. We've got to do what we can, to improve things. See also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
So - regarding the current state of the article - there are a couple of issues I'd like to see improved before we make it live;
It isn't very neutral. For example, known worldwide for his skills as a versatile electric bass player - the claim that he is 'known worldwide' would need a good reference, and the claim he is 'versatile' sounds like opinion, not fact. We need to 'stick to the facts' and let the reader decide their importance. For example: saying Chzz is a great athlete wouldn't be acceptable, but saying Chzz has won 5 Olympic medals would be fine (with ref). I hope you see what I mean?
So if you could read through it with NPOV in mind, and particularly looking out for weasel-words and peacock terms, and try to improve that, that'd be great. Have a go, and if you need me to point out more examples, let me know.
I am also concerned that it has unreferenced information. This is especially important in articles about living people.
For example, it says born on April 5, 1957 in Boston. As there is no reference, if someone later changes that to e.g. 1927, or changes the birthplace to Australia, how can we tell which is correct?
All facts should be verifiable. If there is no record (reliable source) of his date-of-birth and place, we shouldn't include the info.
None of "Early life and education" has references. And throughout the article, there are lots more unreferenced claims - for example,
n 1985, he went on his first tour, of Europe, with jazz drummer Bob Moses
all of "== New York =="
n 1989, he toured South America with Clarke, and with guitarist Larry Carlton, the United States and Europe.
This album includes the notable track "Lane's Blitz", by Shawn Lane. (also, re that, 'notable'? according to who?)
...and so on.
So, please try to ensure everything is verifiable.
For the record, I moved the article to the mainspace, as I believed it was good enough after the improvements Deer*lake made. It could definitely use improvement on the sources reliability and quality, so I'll tag the article for 'reference improvements'. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango]05:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I'm happy with that. (Deer*lake, I asked someone else to take a look - for a 'fresh set of eyes' on it). Please do keep working on it; if the remaining issues with references could be fixed within 5 days, it could appear as a "Did You Know" entry on the main page. Chzz ► 06:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz,
Noticed that the editor has the same content under 2 slightly different titles. "Undertsanding.." is the one you 'prodded The 'correctly' named one was created 9 minutes later, see here Hope this is of interest! - 220.101talk\Contribs15:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm a new user at ACC and still learning. I noticed your comment earlier about the glitch at ACC during a request. You mentioned you "reported this in tech". I'm not familiar with "tech", is it an IRC channel? The WP:ACCGUIDE doesn't seem to cover this. I'd like to learn what to do in cases like this and you're experienced at this stuff. Thanks for the help. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 20:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there.
There was an error in Wikipedia, which meant that attempting to create a new user resulted in an error saying "This Wiki has a problem". I spoke to the technical folks in the IRC channel, yes - #wikimedia-tech. And, they fixed it.
On your talk page, I typed "[[User:The Master of Mayhem/Sandbox]]" - which displayed as a red link, User:The Master of Mayhem/Sandbox.
It is red, because there is currently no such page.
If you click on that red link, type some stuff, and save it, you will have made the page. The link (here, and on your page) will then turn blue - meaning the page exists.
The 'edit conflict' notice was something I wrote; it indicates that, whilst writing my reply, someone else had written something. It is just to let everyone know that.
Please relook at the entire change by Ruth Jarman Shiraishi. "She" has added names of his children, the part you looked at and Hobbies and family life Jarman was an adventurer and avid traveller. Taking yearly vacations to Hawaii, Jarman began a legacy of activity in Hawaii by his son John Henry Jarman II. Jarman was an avid fisherman and loved the outdoors. He often went fly fishing with his son Steve Jarman and always had a few dogs around to keep him company. He was the dignified, intelligent and chivalrous. And more. Please also look at my recent change at List of United States Representatives from Oklahoma. Not a n00b, and know how to edit, thanks. 75.204.32.67 (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ruth Jarman Shiraishi (talk·contribs) has made one edit - [1] - to John Jarman. As there are no references for it, it isn't a very useful edit. Is that what you were asking me about? Do you have a question, or something you'd like me to do?
Hi Chzz. I'm having trouble finding this article that I created and would appreciate your help not only finding it but getting it accepted. Can you please help me? Cheers Bern Bernie M Smith (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ref 4 (backtothebay) shows the TV show cast - again, it isn't an article about the person - it's just a ultra-brief mention
Ref 5, theatricalia.com doesn't seem an RS either - and in fact, when I tried the link, there was no page there.
Ref 6, arts-archive - again, just a listing entry
Ref 7 - actu8.com.au - might be OK to use for some neutral basic facts but because he works for the company, it doesn't help show notability - it's a primary source, not independent
Ref 8...see note at the end of this
Ref 9, the 'adviser' newspaper thing, looks self-written; like a blog-type entry; "Posted by The Adviser from Shepparton" - doesn't look like a good reference - although, if you are not sure, you could ask on the noticeboard WP:RSN
...for some reason - probably my dodgy internet connection - I can't open refs 1 and 8 at this time.
However, I hope the above will be enough to show you the problem...that, currently, it simply doesn't show why the person is notable. There isn't the significant coverage in references that are independent.
We'd need, for example, several newspaper articles that are actually specifically about the individual.
Thanks for the response... I appreciate your detail.
There are at least five items in various newspapers which would probably meet the notability for criteria but the editors have chosen not to post online. They are profile pieces like the Shepparton Adviser which you had trouble accessing. Can you please try this link and see if it works for you? http://sheppartonadviser.ezyzine.com/Public/Template2/ThreadView.aspx?tid=16670
I don't know how to get around the print vs e-posted issue... any ideas?
References do not have to be online. The idea is, something the reader can check - verify. So, books and newspapers (which are not on the internet) are perfectly acceptable - as long as you give enough details so that someone could, if they want, get a copy. So - for a paper, you'd put the title of the paper, the publisher, location (city), date, page number, title of the article, author. That sort of thing.
If you say that a fact is referenced to something offline, then mostly we "assume good faith" and believe you. Often, people will actually check - quite a few Wikipedians have access to large libraries, and can get copies of all kinds of things.
Thanks Chzz - I've also done a little further surfing and have found some further online resoruces but am unsure how to use them and construct this page. Here are the one of interest which confirm/relate the details on Roberts. Can you please advise me on what to do next? If you don't have time then maybe there is someone else you could refer me to?
That looks like it'd work, yes; you need to add those, as 'inline references' to facts in the article. I'll add help on how, on your user talk page. Cheers, Chzz ► 00:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear sir. Why do you call my change of the Kleina article vandalism? It names two bakeries in the country which sell the pastry and the resource is a travel book. Kleinur can be bought in almost every bakery and convenience store, so this makes the article seem like an advertisement for two single bakeries.
You removed a referenced fact, and replaced it with the text, You can buy kleinur in almost every bakery and convenience store in Iceland - with no reference.
I have a question for the editor Chzz. You declined my article for creation on Innotrac on January 22. I am still farily new to Wikipedia (this is my first article), and am trying to understand the process/rules. I am working on your suggestions, but wanted to understand the best way to meet the requirements. I've looked at several other similar articles posted and they read a lot like mine, so I'm not sure where I'm missing it. Please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolanda Kokayi (talk • contribs) 18:30, 24 January 2011 (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.
There are lots of 'bad' articles on Wikipedia - it is a 'work in progress'. Some were made a long time ago, and the standards change; others maybe 'slip through the net'. However, that doesn't make a valid reason to add more; it simply means that they need fixing or deleting. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
For good examples to consider, see WP:FA and WP:GA - any of those.
One of the core values of Wikipedia is 'verifiability' - that means, the person reading the article should be able to 'check the facts' in the references provided.
As a simple example, the article says "During the last half of 1999, the company began distributing DSL equipment for BellSouth". Where can we check that fact is true?
If someone later edited the page, and changed that from "Bellsouth" ro some other name, we'd have no way of telling which was 'correct'.
Chzz, thank you for your feedback? Using your example about the "Bellsouth" example, would a company's annual report suffice as a reference? It is a legal document and filed with the SEC. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolanda Kokayi (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
For a straight fact like that, yes, that source would be OK however, primary sources must be used with great care; they cannot be used for any non-neutral claims. For example, such a source could not be used for the claim it offers a suite of services that allows a company to support their multi-channel initiatives.
Also, the article should be mostly based on secondary, independent sources.
Sorry, I forgot to sign my latest question. Here it is again. Chzz, thank you for your feedback. Using your example about the "Bellsouth" example, would a company's annual report suffice as a reference? It is a legal document and filed with the SEC. Thanks.
Upon further checking, I agree it could probably have been CSD'd as an ad; however the PROD might have worked as well.
Unfortunately, as of now, that is technically a bit of a problem; because CSD doesn't apply to things that've been PRODded;
If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deletedWP:CSD
Also, the user (as an IP) was actually permitted to remove the PROD - anyone can remove them - so the warning on User talk:188.40.86.24 isn't quite right;
If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faithWP:PROD
Sadly, it'd really now have to go to AfD, unless some admin decides WP:NORULES applies.
{{adminhelp|Please review the above; I used a PROD, which was removed, but I'm not sure if CSD applies; I don't like to waste time at AfD for this stuff, but it might be necessary - please let me know your thoughts.}}
Done. I think both G11 and A7 (as the term essentially represented both a service and a company) applied. If facebook and twitter do indeed use the service (from that URL or from others) then the term may catch on and become notable or a dicdef... but per we can't predict when/if that will happen. Good catch, both of you. 711:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, 7. I think that is a valid and sensible use of IAR, to avoid pointless hassles just for the sake of procedure. Good choice. Chzz ► 11:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that wasn't technically IAR... The comment you made above is about not CSDing an article that has been kept via a prior deletion discussion is true, but a PROD is not a deletion discussion. CSD tag was okay. 711:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm - I see what you mean. I'd previously believed that, if something had survived PROD, it couldn't be speedied. But yes - the phrase "deletion discussion" would seem to indicate AfD only, and not PROD. However, a seemingly contradictiory statement in WP:DEPROD says, If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - which seems to imply CSD is not appropriate after PROD. Chzz ► 12:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes; I think it is one of those areas where, if we try to make the "rules" too explicit, we end up with CREEP; "You can do this, except for that, unless the other thing happened, but only on a Tuesday" and so forth. Common sense should override all that. Chzz ► 12:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yo
Yo, I understand the verifiability issue, but that is too totally messed up in wikipedia - as a matter of fact, from past experience and noting these things, I can confidently say that wikipedia is a corrupt place where admins themselves regularly push POV and stuff like that. I like wikipedia, but it has now reached such a level that it is hard to have respect for it anymore. Another example is the Bulgar issue - there exists SO much strong evidence clearly showing that most probably they were not Turkic, but Iranic, even DNA evidence, I mean come on, but admins still ignore all the sources and evidence, without bothering to research on the topic themselves (like the Bulgars) and are just following blindly other admins, thinking that becuase he is an admin he must be right and thus supports him, without first thinking himself and researching the topic himself. I hope you are aware as an admin (I assume you are an admin) of the corruption happening in wikipedia - it is now close to being out of control.
And for the record, more pages are better, you say it is not better if the info is wrong etc etc, but look at the album page - how can it be wrong - it lists the tracks - I meant more pages that have little chance of containing wrong info (like the album page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.116 (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying - I mean that; it's good to discuss things.
No, I'm not an admin.
Yes, there are a hell of a lot of things wrong with Wikipedia - but I still love it. Let's try to fix the wrong stuff.
I agree the article might be useful. If I didn't, I'd have removed any blatant junk, or listed it for deletion. However, the tag serves an important purpose - it categorizes the page, so that other people can find it and fix it. It flags up the problem. That really does help get things fixed. There's a truly huge backlog of them, of course - but, it helps.
If a user does some kind of query of 'unreferenced articles about South African rock' or whatever, they'd find it.
You say we don't need a reference for a track list; I absolutely disagree. I've just spent a few hours removing vandalism. If I come across that article, and someone has changed all the track names, how can I tell if it is a valid edit? It's very difficult - and Wikipedia is constantly under attack from vandals; right now, as I type, there are about 100 edits per minute, and about 10 of those are being reverted. (Feel free to have a look what I've been doing - Special:Contributions/Chzz) >>>ok you are right about that, I just cant understand why someone would go do vandalism like change the tracks, disappointing that you get people like that.
The policies and guidelines have been decided through much discussion - and WP:V is very fundamental. If you have ideas about how to improve things, then I suggest WP:PUMP - there is always room for improvement.
P.S. I will try to find references, but I can't right now; a very brief Google search though indicates the album was released in 2002, not 2003. So, yeah; that's why we need refs. See [2][3]. Chzz ► 12:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC) >>>wow, I am more aware of the problem about refs now, you're right, thanks, all the best, cheers!41.132.116.116 (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
this is not a biased statement, it is a factual one according to income, ntw, check out colts neck,nj page, if cheshire cannot be accurately described then neither should it. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.186.75 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
19:44, 26 January 2011 Ged UK (talk·contribs) changed block settings for 68.1.186.75 (talk) with an expiry time of 2011-02-02T13:57:13Z (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: Disruptive editing: threats; harassment)
Edit war on article Pavao Skalic
Hi Chazz,
I see that there's problem with article Pavao Skalic, resources, reliability etc... I've have read contributors ( 88... and something) comments and i must agree he's right. Instead of insisting on citations, resources, and other stuff for some constatations, I think this article should be cleared of any constatations ( even ones with regular citations) and leave only pure facts.
If you ask me why, there's one simple answer - editing history on this page show us that obviously there's to much conflict about his nationality... and will be in future, so that could be avoided by removing any interpretation and leaving text with simple facts which cannot be disputed. What's your thoughts on this issue?
Words of user 88... :
Compromise ? How about to leave only facts such as, he was born in, ... lived in countries,... etc... and leave disputed infos. about his nationality behind... ? And leave anyone who read it to decide for himself... isn't that more than reasonable?
Although he is acting like vandal, he has a point with this conclusion, what do you think?
Sure, I think there is a point here - regarding giving reasonable, balanced information. But if we're going to challenge what some RS state, then we need other RS.
Possibly, the detail regarding the discrepancy can be cleared up with a footnote - ie just putting "His nationality is uncertain.[Note 1]"
See Marco_Polo#cite_ref-4 for an example of that - although that is re. his birth date, rather than place of origin.
But, whatever else happens, it needs discussion/consensus on Talk:Pavao_Skalić (check out the previous arguments, over a space of years).
The same applies if you think the section should be removed, rewritten, shortened, or whatever - please suggest it on the talk page, and see what others say.
For some reason I got a Level 1 warning message from you while I was Huggling perhaps the result of an error on one of our parts? Ronk01talk20:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes; very sorry. It was a case of huggle, where I pressed the key to warn, just as you undid the edit; hence it warned you instead of the user.
Thank you very much for your formatting guidance. I do understand what you mean by the "anything can be done; whether it should be done is another matter". I will be judicious of any use
Hello Chzz! Several months ago you provided some excellent feedback on the subject article. I have finally gotten around to making amends. I have reorganized the article, and added in some new material. I have addressed your comments on my talk page: user talk:Sarnold17 At your leisure, would you take a look at your comments on my talk page, and then look at the rewritten article? Many thanks!Sarnold17 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Review collapsed here
In 1635 he, along with family and associates, immigrated to New England, where he initially settled - would 'emigrated' be better than 'immigrated'?
No, you immigrate TO somewhere and emmigrate FROM somewhere. See immigration and emigration.
I've removed the word "England" from several other places. I would still like to leave the word in a few leading places, such as the opening paragraph and the info box. As an American, and a school teacher, my impression is that even educated Americans can be pretty geographically challenged. I honestly think that too many readers wouldn't have a clue where Ilchester, Somerset is located. They might be able to guess that it was in some English-speaking country. I would balance it by putting the death places as Pawtuxet, Rhode Island, USA, but there was no USA back in 1675. Actually, to be correct I should say "Pawtuxet, Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." However, this is very wordy, and I did use it once in the lead, but opted to leave things brief in the infobox.
I do understand; but readers are from all over the world, so we do have to avoid systemic bias. They can always click the link (or use the wonderful popup gadget...by the way, do try that, if you haven't). I'd be happy with some mentions of England, of course; but the infobox needs to be kept brief.
your point is well taken. My intention was to say that this was the very first Baptist Church in America. I'm using the word "first" as an adjective, and not as part of the proper name. I'll take the word "first" out of the wikilink.
That'll work.
Done*sixteen years should be "16 years" - only numbers 1-9 should be written out; WP:ORDINAL.
I'll fix this, as this is what I learned in college and twenty years in the military. However, I have read a lot of wiki articles where even big numbers are spelled out, so I'm not sure that editors are being consistent, or perhaps I've been reading too many unedited articles.
Oh, sure, there's literally millions of 'bad articles'. There's not many GA/FA though...and quite a lot of those need fixes, too.
Done*two hundred years and six generations. Nearly three hundred years after - ditto; 200, six, 300
ditto
Done*Caption: Church of St. Andrew in Northover, England where William... - and, general comment re. captions - they're probably too long; captions need to be short, just saying what the picture is. Any detail needs to be in the body text
OK. I've been resistent to scaling back the captions, but I'll continue the process. I just wanted to relate the picture to the subject without the reader having to go to the text, and it takes a few words to do so.
The trick is...well, perhaps on that one, you'd just put "Church of St. Andrew, Northover" and the body-text would put it into context. I could live with, "Arnold's mother and oldest sister were baptized in the Church of St. Andrew, Northover."
Done*Born in Ilchester, Somerset, England - I accept that 'England' might be acceptable here, but please don't link it; it is too common a term. See WP:OVERLINK
easy fix; will do
on second thought, why can't England be wiki-linked just once in the article?
Because we should "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations" - WP:OVERLINK. It's just too common a term; surely, readers don't need a link to tell them what 'England' is? Otherwise, articles become excessivelyconvoluted with unnecessarylinks,
Done*In about 1610 he married Christian Peak who was baptized 15 February 1584,[b][3] the daughter of Thomas Peak of Muchelney, Somerset, a village about six miles (10 km) west of Ilchester. - because of the mid-sentence ref, I can't tell if the remainder has a reference. Maybe add a further ref at the end or, if it is covered in [3], move that to the end. The note [b] is appropriate immediately after the date; my concern is, where the rest of the facts can be verified - ie 'six miles'
this is a problem, and maybe you can help me. First, I should move the reference to follow the word "Muchelney." The distance is not written anywhere, I found it from Google Earth, and anyone in the world can go to Google Earth and get the same information. Do I need to reference something that is (or could be) common knowledge? Do I need to reference that water is wet? If there is a way to reference Google Earth, I'd be happy to do so, but I don't have a clue how to do it. I really like to put things into geograhic perspective. It's important to my article to show that the family was all in one tight location, which helps to refute claims that these Arnolds came from all over England.
Ah, well, Google Earth would constitute "Original research". But, look for a ref; I found one. [Muchelney] Immediately north of the monastery is the confluence of the Parrett and the Ilchester Yeo (Ilchester is approximately 10 km to the south-east)[4]
Done*Caption, The name of the ship that the Arnold family took from England to New England in 1635 is not known, but they sailed from southwestern England as did the Mayflower (depicted here) 15 years earlier. Painting by William Halsall (1882). - again, too long; the details should be in text, not caption. It should probably be something like, "The Mayflower, which sailed 15 years earlier."
OK, but by shortening the caption I'm losing some of the essence of the picture's relationship to the article. I have looked all over the place for a good picture of an early 17th century passenger vessel, and this is by far the best I could come up with. It's a beautiful painting, and I think it adds a lot of eye appeal to the article. I'll play with the caption to shorten it.
I understand, and sympathize - but from the "Wikipedia reviewer" perspective, again, beware OR. Yes, it is beautiful, but we don't have a policy about making articles look nice :-)
Done*Para starting William Arnold's parents lived... - please add refs at the end of each sentence, instead of at the end of the para, so we can see where each part comes from. Otherwise, it gets confusing if someone later adds more info. Imagine;
"Chzz is 93 years old. Chzz is English.(ref 1)" --> edited with an insertion to... "Chzz is 93 years old. Chzz likes sausages. Chzz is English.(ref 1)" - it looks like the fact that "Chzz likes sausages." comes from ref. 1... or, is it unreferenced info?
Please consider adding refs at the end of sentences throughout
Good point. I should be able to easily fix this.
Done*" Settling Providence and Pawtuxet", image: Images have to be right-aligned, at the beginning of sections. You can left-align a further image within the section (so, the map, later could be left if you wanted), but the section text should always begin on the left.
I have to take exception with this comment. Since we last communicated, I've spent a lot of time reading featured articles. Here is a list of eight featured articles that have sections beginning with left-justified pictures: Winfield Scott Hancock, William T. Sherman, Myles Standish, George III of the United Kingdom, George V of the United Kingdom, George VI of the United Kingdom, Grover Cleveland, Gerald Ford. When an article has relatively short paragraphs, as does this one, then it's tough to get a picture on the left without breaking this guideline. To me, the aesthetic advantage of pictures on the left and the right far exceeds the value of following this guideline. I've gone as far as changing my text to keep from breeching this guideline, but enough is enough. Countless featured articles tell me that we can relax a bit on this rule.
This has been discussed quite a lot, and the guidance has changed back and forth; that might explain those FA's, depending on when they passed. For example, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_104#Image Placement, part the second. I agree, it is a debatable point. I think my stance comes from (possibly too much) reliance on User:Ealdgyth/GA_review_cheatsheet which says, Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections. I can't actually find exact clarification in MOS at the moment; therefore, yes, I'd have to accept it. Personally, I think it distracts from the flow of the text - but I accept that is opinion. If MOS can't agree, then yes, it is 'acceptable'.
OK, it worked out that I was able to shift the pics around and meet all the necessary criteria. I don't like the fact that the last four photos in the article are all right-justified, but I may be able to come up with some more text to get at least one of them moved left.
Done*four miles (6 km) - "six".
No problem. Someone put all the conversions in for me; I can fix the numbers.
Better: use {{convert}} - really; that's best, long-term. It does all the formatting for you. {{convert|10|mi}} = 10 miles (16 km) however that doesn't cope with the numbers-as-words. Still, you can copy the style.
Done*Arnold's relationship with the native people was very good, largely because... - needs a ref for this specific sentence
I'll have to look at this. It may be OR, so I may have to reword it.
Done*Here William Arnold remained until the final few weeks... and Though in many deeds he continued to be called "of Providence,"... - need refs'
I can fix this
Done*"Difficulty with the Gortonites" - again, image needs to be right-aligned
see previous tome
several of the counties in England have place names that closely resemble the name given by Benedict. Another stumbling block in the discovery of the ancestral home of William Arnold was the publication of a faulty pedigree[original research?] - needs refs?
this is probably OR. I'll have to work on this. Good catch.
false/correct pedigree - I still have concerns that this is OR. It looks like it. Remember to stick to factual claims, no opinion. e.g.
I don't think any of this is opinion or OR. This is summarized, but nevertheless pulled from sources given. I'll see if I can do something with it, and then get your take on it.
OK. I do have concerns - "When the Somerby pedigree of the Arnold family was published in 1879 the damage was significant" - according to who, ie, who says the damage was significant? And so on. I'll see what you come up with.
To summarize what is currently known, iIt is a fact that William Arnold was the son of Nicholas Arnold
ie, don't put in 'commentry'.
These are the only known ancestors of William Arnold.[original research?]At the present, the parents of Nicholas Arnold are not known.[original research?]
OK, I see your point. I'll work on this. I'm trying to make a point, but doing so pushes me into the OR zone.
Done*Children; married (1) Zachariah Rhodes (c.1603-1665) and married (2) Samuel Reape. - the (1) and (2) are a bit confusing; it's a kind of abbreviation. Try to explain it, instead; "Was married to FOO from n to n (why did it end? did he die?) and then re-married..." or whatever.
Consider if this section could be rewritten in prose, rather than as bullet-points. It might be OK, but generally prose is preferred.
OK. What I've done here is put things in fairly standard genealogical form. I thought that might be OK under "Children," but I agree it might seem fairly cryptic to the general reader. I can clean this up.
Done*Notes, re. dates - can you add a reference to the note a)? Please note that there are technical problems adding a ref to a note, but it can be done; see this.
I was hoping the wikilink to the article on the Gregorian calendar would be sufficient, but I can certainly come up with a reference.
(I've also made a few minor edits, which you can see in the 'history)
many thanks!
General: It is a nice article; you've done fantastic work on it.
Thank you!
The above comments are the sort of thing I'd write in a GA review (but, in themselves, are not a comprehensive review) - so, after addressing these issues, I recommend getting it listed to GAR.
OK, I greatly appreciate your editing help and your endorsement!
Thank you for the welcome temlate, and I think it will help me. I just want to ask you if you would mind looking at the Plot on Ranger's Apprentice: Ruins of Gorlan. There was a huge summary, and I took away a lot of it, because it was giving away to much of the story. ( I have read it many times). Did I do the right thing? Please respond on my talk page. Cheers!DarkJak495 (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'll actually answer here, and leave a short 'you have messages' thing on your own talk; that way, the 'conversation thread' is kept, and it makes more sense.
I notice, actually, that someone has reverted your edit here - saying gf, but that doesn't justify blanking all of it - where 'gf' I think refers to 'good faith', ie that your edit was in good faith but the user, PrincessofLlyr (talk·contribs), disagreed with it.
So - the best thing to do is, start a discussion on Talk:The Ruins of Gorlan, saying what you think about the plot and how it should be edited - and then, put a quick note on that person's talk page (User talk:PrincessofLlyr), asking them to look at the article talk. Then, discuss it with them.
It may be possible to remove most of the plot, but keep the essence of it, in a much shorter form.
A couple of notes: you are right that the plot was far too long. However, you are wrong about the 'spoilers' - Wikipedia doesn't avoid putting in info that "gives away the story" or anything. Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler.
Also, see Wikipedia:PLOTSUM which has quite good advice and info on this topic.
I like that thing where you give me " you have messages" on my talk page. Lets keep on doing that. So, just a question, how long do you think a summary should be? How many words?Cheers!DarkJak495 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Ruins of Gorlan plot is now 700 words. I took out the minor events, and left the major events. Is that good enough? Cheers!DarkJak495 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Why you just keep on reverting lies about his nationality? This man was Croat as sure as Shakespeare was English! But no one is asking questions what is his nationality or inventing his "new" nationality! Please stop spreading lies, mistakes, etc., ... And, you know, Brittanica and some similar projects are full of mistakes and missleading facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.118.104 (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
And, no, people outside america, britain... use their own grey cells, we do not need to use someone elses work! My statement about other encs. is result of experience, ... I have found a bunch of incorrect and misleading infos. in britannica, and even much more when it comes to encarta ... Sometimes infos. on that encs. are so silly and shameful ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.118.104 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
In part I understand what are the rules but, there's more than enough evidences about Skalic and his true nationality, but in this place smaller nations are of minor importance, alongside their arguments, sources, etc., and that's unfair ! Regarding original research, my cons. aren't part of any OR, article etc., only my opinion based on exp. And consider soething else: it's absurdly that this article has more about his nationality than his work! That's also another strong argument to delete this part of text since it doesn't bring any useful information at all! It's important where he was born, lived... solely! So, go figer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.118.104 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Compromise ? How about to leave only facts such as, he was born in, ... lived in countries,... etc... and leave disputed infos. about his nationality behind... ?
And leave anyone who read it to decide for himself... isn't that more than reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.118.104 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Guess who came back and edited the Maria Amelie article in a very POV manner?, though this time with references! Cluebot still reverted their edit! <sigh> I gave them a 3rr warning, as they have twice 'reverted' to the the POV edit. Time to sleep in UTC+11 land (UzT-Universal Z Time as I call it) Don't forget to get your rest either! Happy Vandal Whacking! Regards - 220.101talk\Contribs15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Removing images from Central Bank of Ireland entry
Hi Chzz,
I see that you removed what I would describe as good additions to the CBOI entry, which are relevant, makes it more attractively visually and encourage (school children in particular) the excellent resource that is Wikipedia. I would your comments and please accept my admiration for your long list of contributions.
I am writing in response that you left on my talk page. Yes, I did do it on purpose, I was vadalism reverting and I saw that content was removed and replaced with "get off my page you bot!", or something like that. Sometimes I don't pay attention and look to see the "Talk" title next to the article/page edited. I'll be more careful next time... Sorry about any confusion. :) Hey, I didn't know that you are still on... I don't really get what went on with the whole block thing and you being off wikipedia....
Mìthrandir (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Block? I was only blocked once, back in May 2008 - and for a very short time. I've had a few breaks, for various reasons - but I've mostly been active.
Not sure how to use this page. Maybe I'm adding on to someone else's post. Not sure. Am I supposed to put this in the context of some HTML to make it my own post? It would be nice if I had time to edit my article, but this experience of just talking to other Wikipedians is enough for today. Thanks for all your help. I'll chip away. This is today's chip and I have a feeling I'm doing it wrong.
Anne Marie Jackson (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I came back and realized that all I have to do is add my own heading. Today's discovery. (Seems odd that "Edit Summary" is exposed for conversations in the background of site building.)
Nice to see you're learning so quick. You could also have clicked the little plus-sign (+) at the top of the page, next to 'edit' - that creates a new section at the end of pages.
Pretty much everything on Wikipedia is exposed; that is one of the things that takes some getting used-to. For example, I'm sure some of my talk page stalkers will read this!
Chipping away is a great approach.
Possibly, editing a few other articles a bit might be a good idea; there is always plenty to do. One place to find things is WP:CLEANUP.
The first suggestion is corrected and changes are made according to your suggestions.
Its the Legal Article about the Acts passed by Legislatures and thus all other rely on Government sources. Other can be wrong but a source of Government can be never wrong. But also added some other important websites.
2 refs of Wikipedia are removed and other resources are provided.
Reference from heading is also removed.
This article is about Acts and thus much can't be described as such. The information provided by is the best as there are about 140 Sections in the act and only 4-7 important sections were quoted.
In Legal subject the most reliable source is Government. As such there are very few sources about Indian Legal System available online and in most pages only and only Individual problems are discussed.
You can check there is very less information available on Category:Indian_law and the main reason behind is that no body wants to go beyond their problem. As such it is the small but important Legislation of India and thus created and you can also check Google the article is already index by them.
Vineet Gupta, Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh [India] 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC) and request you to again Review Negotiable Instruments Act
That all seems reasonable. Nice work. I removed the "unreviewed' tag.
Of course, it can be further improved. I do understand your saying about the gov being the best source, however, the best way to write a well-rounded article is to use as many sources as possible - as long as they are reliable, of course.
For some good examples of similar article, and to seek inspiration, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:FA#Law.
Your page of User talk:Chzz is created under Category:Indian_law as sub-page and I don't know how to remove this page and thus request you to take necessary steps;
I visited Wikipedia:FA#Law and what to tell you that all the links provided under Wikipedia:FA#Law as talking about specific person or specific Incident and nothing is provided about law. It is not regard to only Indian law. Nothing much is provided about law only talking about the incidents or about persons nothing else.
From my point of view it should describe the important sections under the Act and what was the impact or want are the Lank mark decisions under the provision and what has been decided. If you look on Any Legislation passed by any Government nothing is provided as such only provided who are the persons involved under the Legislation process. They are also important but nothing is provided about Legislation.
I want to create a separate project as WiklProject Indian Law. What to create maintain the categories and sub-categories pages as such now [[Category:Indian_law]] is not maintained properly. Presently going to main the [[Category:Indian_law]] page and shift them to WiklProject Indian Law after some time which got the maximum 20 good Articles.
Legal Portal of Wiki Legal should provide about the Enactments passed by Parliaments and what are the objects of the Enactments and What the important provisions under Enactments. I would also like to re-categorized the Articles under Indian law and do my best to provide max information.
I am going to provide the more information on Indian Laws Only.
Re. category - ah; that was because, above, you'd written;
You can check there is very less information available on [[:Category:Indian_law]]
...and if you put [[Category:WHATEVER]] on a page, anywhere, then it puts that page into the category :-)
No problem. The trick is, to put in a colon - so, [[Category:Indian law]] - and that makes a link instead of making the page a cat member, so it appears as: Category:Indian law.
I added a colon into the previous message, to fix it.
I suggested those articles, to give ideas only - because they are good quality articles, about similar topic areas. Civil Rights Act of 1964 is about an act, so should be comparable to Negotiable Instruments Act. Notice that, whilst it does describe the sections of the act, it also talks a lot about it; using many independent sources. That was what I wanted to show you.
Setting up a WiklProject for Indian Law is a good idea, but I suggest you wait a while before starting it. Running a project is quite complicated, and you are new to Wikipedia. I suggest you wait, until you have been on Wikipedia for some months, and have hundreds of edits - when you have more experience. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, you will see that there is a lot of work involved.
I am, but not in #wikipedia-en-help - for boring reasons. I'm always in ##chzz if online. Or you could look for me with /whois Chzz and PM me with /query Chzz. Chzz ► 13:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Bill Arnie
Thanks again for your help and endorsement on the William Arnold article! I still have some work to do on the Ancestry section based on your comments, with which I agree. Once that is done, I'll move the article forward. You've been a tremendous help!Sarnold17 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hassan Ragab is mentioned a few times in Wikipedia -- as the founder of the Egyptian Green Party in 1990 and also as the scientist who rediscovered how Papyrus was made. This mention in in the main "Papyrus" page. However, Dr. Ragab is also perhaps most famous as being not only a noble and important scientist in Egypt, but also an Egyptian General during WWII, and one of the educated military leaders who accepted the leadership of President Nassar in 1952. Because of this, he was the first ambasador to China in 1956, as well as the ambassador to many other countries in the 1950s. He retired from government service early to focus on this interest in papyrus, and also to establish a business. I have heard Hassan Ragab referred to the Ben Franklin of Egypt... and I think that is about right. Your help in getting his photo and article published would be helpful to Wikipedia users. THANKS in advance for your help.
PLEASE ALSO SEE the following reference in Wikipedia:
Green Party of Egypt
It was founded by former diplomat Hassan Ragab in 1990, experienced a hiatus in 1995, and was revived in 1998. The president of the Green ... 2 KB (253 words) - 07:24, 11 February 2010
Liberalism in Egypt
Liberal parties and Liberal leaders : Hizb Al-Khodr : Hassan Ragab See also : Egypt's Liberal Experiment Politics of Egypt EULY List of ... 9 KB (1,282 words) - 12:30, 12 December 2010
Papyrus
tourist trade was developed in 1962 by the Egyptian engineer Hassan Ragab using plants that had been reintroduced into Egypt in 1872 from France. ... 16 KB (2,178 words) - 17:00, 26 January 2011
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, please add new comments at the end of talk pages - in a section. I've moved your posting down here.
I'm not sure why you think the photo is copyright-free; the webpage says, CopyRight ® Embassy of the People's Republic of China. We can only use pictures if we absolutely know that they are appropriately licenced. See Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial.
Thanks for reviewing the content of this page. It definitely needs some work sourcing. I'll get on that when I have some free time. Couple of questions for you. What does it take to remove the "New Unreviewed Article" tag at the top of the page? Also, you didn't mention notability in your review. Do you see an issue with notability at all? In the past that has been a problem for articles I've started. Thanks again for taking the time. Udeezy (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, anyone can edit - therefore, anyone could remove the 'unreviewed' thing; personally, I chose not to, right now, while some improvements were made - but that's my own opinion. Of course, anyone else could put it back; or, they could 'tag' the page with various other notices;
...or whatever. And, of course, if you resolve issues you can remove tags yourself.
I don't think the article is in imminent danger of deletion; it appears to have some reasonable references. We look for 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' - which, usually/typically is three or more newspaper articles with substantial coverage; I think it has that.
Thank you for reviewing my article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forevermore_%28Whitesnake_album%29 ). As per your suggestion, I will probably remove the bit about the new single now streaming.
Also, as per your request, I will try to look over a few articles. If you have any advice on how to do a good job at reviewing, I would greatly appreciate it as I haven't ever reviewed articles before.
Thanks again for checking over my new article. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of the users there are very new, so it is mostly the basics. Almost always, there are unreferenced facts, non-reliable sources or primary sources. Often, the references are not formed correctly - e.g. all at the end, instead of after facts. It can be good to directly edit the articles - feel free, even if they're in user-space; they're asking for help. You might, sometimes, show how to put one or two references in the right place. And there are common basic formatting issues, such as section titles (often they use '''Bold''' instead of == Sections ==), external links as wiki-links or inappropriate external links in the body, huge pictures in the middle instead of |thumb, no wikilinks at all...that sort of thing.
It isn't a comprehensive long review; it's just a few pointers on how to improve the article, and advice on whether we think it is good enough to go live - or, if live already, if we think it is in danger of deletion.
Best thing is, just have a scroll down some other people giving feedback. But, mostly, just go for it; it's nothing complex. But it is backlogged - and them getting almost any advice is preferable to none at all! Thanks very much. Chzz ► 09:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, I'd used Twinkle a few days ago to PROD the Greater Santa Barbara Ice Skating Association article. I just revisited the article to see if the PROD had been reverted and when doing that realized the only person I'd notified before was an inactive apparent WP:SPA that had created the article. I see that you reviewed this article on 6 October 2009 and at the time decided to allow it to remain. Thus it makes sense for you to take a look to see if the PROD makes sense or if this should be taken to WP:AFD. --Marc Kupper|talk07:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I've never paid attention to the wiki projects but dropping a notice on the California page makes sense as that improves the chance of people drifting over to see if the PROD seems reasonable. Before the PROD I did a check for news articles and there were two with both being coverage of publicity events by newsletters that were distributed in that part of Santa Barabara. I also checked the Gale Cengage news database and there were zero hits for "Greater Santa Barbara Ice Skating Association" using the full article text mode. Thus it seems the odds are low we're deleting an article on a notable subject. --Marc Kupper|talk21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree, totally; I know that the California Wikiproject is quite active, so yes; I think it is worth a try. Cheers, Chzz ► 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Sebastiane Award
Good Morning, As you have commented after your review, I have improved the references in the article Sebastiane Award.
Anyway, after beeing in contact with other reviewers of this article, Kevin Rutherford and Dusti, I thought the article only needed format changes.
I have included a lot of internet references to think it is relevant. Sebastiane Award is a translation of the Spanish Wiki article (Premio Sebastiane)and bask article (Sebastiane Saria). In both of them, they considered "relevant".
Sebastiane Award is a award included in the awards given by San Sebastian Film Festival as a minor award. Sebastiane is similar to other film awards given in the Berlin Film Festival (Teddy Award) and Venice Film Festival (Queer Lion). Both of them have their article in Wikedia.
Please, let me know if I have to do other changes. I would like to include a photo, but I though to do it later. If you consider that this could help to publish the article, I will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinesebastiane (talk • contribs) 09:00, 31 January 2011 (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.
Wapedia, and blogspot, are not reliable sources.
We need somewhere we can check the facts. For example, it says;
Krámpack[3], from the film director Cesc Gay, was the first film awarded with Sebastiane Prize.
That reference - to Wapedia - does not help us check the facts given. We need reference(s) to show that it was directed by Cesc Gay, and that it was the first film awarded that prize.
The, it says,
The film reflected with originality, humour and tenderness the awakening affection of a gay teenager
That is not neutral; it isn't facts, it is opinion - and we cannot have opinions in articles.
Next, it states;
The jury of this edition was made up by the writter Luis G. Martin, film critic Begoña del Teso, Angel Retamar from ZERO magazine, Gehitu members, Patricia García and David Montero.
...again, we need evidence - a reference to support this; a newspaper, magazine, book or something to show that they were in the jury. If the fact cannot be verified somewhere, then it needs to be removed.
That is the requirement throughout; we need references so we can check all the facts. I hope you see what I mean now. Best, Chzz ► 14:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I know what you mean, that's important to be objetctive and to introduce references as much as possible. What I wrote, it was not an opinion but a traslation of the reason said whey that award was given. It is necessary whenenever you give an award, to put in a press note why you give that award to a film (in this case Krampack, in 2000). This reason, I extracted it from a magazine in paper (not in internet)that I pun it now in my wiki article. Zinesebastiane (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ace. And I kinda need your help. I'm trying to build consensus over at Talk:John Byrne#Requested move. So far, not so good. I just need to find people willing to express an opinion here. I didn't think it'd be this hard. Eh. I guess this is just a slow peiod. Ah well. If you can top by in the next 24 hours, that'd be great. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
23:18, 31 January 2011 Killiondude (talk·contribs) blocked ClaudioSantos (talk·contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Disruptive editing: edit warring on User talk:Jayen466 & violating talk page guidelines)
Help Launching Article onto Live System
Hi CHZZ You helped me a while ago and launched an article for me last year.
I've tried via Ukexpat but he seems really busy and hasn't replied since 7th Jan!
I've got an article in my User Space named William France Jnr (Cabinetmaker & Upholsterer) which I've worked on for a while and would like to move it into the live system.
I've also updated and improved the one you launched for me last time for William France Snr and would be glad of your comments.
Any help would be appreciated.
Jackross (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It needs better referencing; all of the facts in the article should have a reference - ie, a numbered footonote directly after the facts. You have a few, but not enough; so I can't tell where I can check things, such as Vile and Cobb were, at that time, one of London’s leading cabinetmakers, George, Prince of Wales, was among their customers, in 1762 the King purchased Buckingham House, In 1764 the partnership between Vile and Cobb was dissolved, and so forth.
The references you have given need more detail; just "The National Archives, Kew" is not enough for someone to track it down - you need to give some reference number, the specific document title, the author or page number or whatever - so that, if they wanted, a reader could find and check the fact.
I suspect that most of the info comes from those books you listed under sources - but, you need to change those to be inline references, at the end of each fact. Chzz ► 18:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I'm finding this process quite impossible.
I can look at any number of articles on 'live' Wikipedia and don't see annotations for every individual fact. The vast majority of the information comes from the Published article on the France family by Geoffrey Castle. I can quote that every time there's a statement in the text but I thought that would be a bit cumbersome.
Also are you talking about both articles or one in particular?
Jackross (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Most articles on Wikipedia are not very good. I'm sure you want to make a good one; also, the standards have increased over the years, so that new articles come in for more scrutiny than older ones. For decent examples - where every fact should have a ref - please look at some featured articles or good articles.
It is, actually, policy requirement for all facts to be referenced inline. It can be considered "acceptable" to have just a ref at the end of a paragraph, but that does cause problems; consider, for example, if I wrote;
Chzz is from England. Chzz is 103.<ref>"Book of Chzz", etc<ref>
Now, imagine another editor adds a fact;
Chzz is from England.Chzz is 8 feet tall.Chzz is 103.<ref>"Book of Chzz", etc<ref>.
It now would appear that the 'height' fact is covered by the same reference; but that might not be the case.
Therefore, it is considered "best practice" to add (at least one) reference at the end of each sentence.
It's not too cumbersome, because you can use 'named references'. If you give a reference a name, you can keep using it, and it only appears once in the ref listing.
Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009.
</ref>
Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>
Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.
P.S. Oh, if you do look at 'featured articles', you might well note there are no refs in the first section; that's because it is a summary of the rest, and therefore doesn't usually require references - all the facts in the lede should be elaborated upon, with refs, in the main body text.
OK I'll give it a go over the next few days.
I'm not trying to buck the system and really do understand why you have to do it. I don't want a Wikipedia full of inaccuracies myself.
Unfortunately Geoffrey Castle did a lot of research himself to try to correct many of the innaccuracies which exist in the 'recognised' works themselves.
Jackross (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, great; please do.
And regarding any discrepancies in sources - the answer there is, to show all of them - state any issues. "Although books in the 1900s said THIS, later publications disputed it, and said THAT."refs
You can use little notes at the bottom, if necessary; but if you can pin down problems like that, it saves trouble later on. There's a great essay about it, WP:TIGER.
I do think you are slightly overstateing the case here, Chzz. "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Certainly it is good to have a wealth of footnotes, where such is appropriate, is a Good Thing, but on occasion a source can stand for a whole paragraph or even section. RichFarmbrough, 07:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
I shall carry on as stated before but Rich Farmbrough summed it up better than me - this is how I thought it should be - ie. not every individual fact in a sentence had to be backed up with a specific referenced note.
Jackross (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for the generosity you displayed with all the help you've given me on
User:Cmckibben/Andrea Michaels.
I will go over it with a fine-tooth comb and correct all the mistakes I've made and absolutely remove any conflict of interest aspects of the piece. I do a lot of marketing and PR and often have a tendency to "play up" things too much. The subject of the article is also a long-time friend, and I was the editor of her most recent book.
Once I've finished it, if you have the time, I'd love your opinion.
Today I went to the new sub-page you created for me: User:Cmckibben/Andrea Michaels. I made a bunch of changes and saved it several times. I spent about 5 hours on it. I saved it, logged off and went out for awhile. Just now I came back and logged on, went to the sub-page (I thought) and none of the changes were there.
I think the issue is that I don't know how to move around WP well, and I don't know what I did wrong. Can you help me? I got rid of so many external links, coming up with valid references. I still have more work to do on it. But one way to tell is that I got rid of all the client listings and listings of events she has done. And obviously the external links in the beginning are gone.
If you look at your contributions - which you can also click on at the top of the screen - you can see all of the edits that you have ever done (when logged in as Cmckibben). If the edits aren't there, then I'm sorry, but they were not saved to Wikipedia. As you can see in the page history here, (which is also available through the "history" tab on the page itself), the last edits were made by me, on 1st Feb.
Re your edit here, just to let you know that I took it back a bit further as the article's subject (by her own admission) also edits via the IP beginning with 81.159... [5]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
<!-- Auto archiving -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
<!-- End of Auto archiving setup -->
That is, to archive things after 30 days with no reply (30d).
Note that it won't archive very small threads or things with no sigs in (ie no date) - you can cut those yourself and paste them into the archive page if you wish. Chzz ► 09:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I forgot to mention - it takes up to 24 hours to kick in. I think it will hit your name/page at about 17:00 GMT, each day. Chzz ► 13:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Ruins of Gorlan
Well, I have done as much as I could for the plot. It is now at 523 words! =]. But me, and a guy named Sadads, are going to expand it. Would you llike to help?DarkJak495 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Signature looks good, yep; although it'd be nice if you perhaps customized it - using another colour, symbol, or something - so you don't look the same as Pedro (talk·contribs).
I haven't read that book, so can't help much; but if, after working on it, you need it proof-read, then please ask me. The most important thing is, the references; for the plot, references are needed - but for every other fact, you need to reference an appropriate reliable source. Good luck, Chzz ► 14:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I've checked out this G12 you tagged - as far as I can see (I might be wrong!) lots of text matches pages in the web, BUT they have taken their content from Dragon Ball, so it looks like Dragon Ball Z AZ is some sort of WP:FORK of that page tarted up for the latest series. I suspect that it might be better to tag for a merge? Ronhjones (Talk)01:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't know; maybe it came from that 'dragonball wiki' thing. Or, they copied it from us, or we copied it from them, and they copied it from us. Not sure; if someone can dig, that'd be fine; but meanwhile - pending - it really should go, I think...pending us getting some Sherlock Holmes on the case. Chzz ► 02:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, for some reason this archive is listed at CAT:SD even though I can't find anything there to suggest why. Just wondered if you've got any ideas? SmartSE (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I don't either. I asked a couple of people to look, and we suspect it was some transcluded page putting it in the cat, but we didn't find it - and then, the problem went away. So, best just to blame aliens, pretend it never happened, and move along. Thanks for telling me, Chzz ► 15:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Article title correction
Comment - Could you please correct the title of the article for film director Elliott Hong? He has TWO letter T's at the end of his first name, not one:
Why is my file not saving? I save it at the bottom when I make changes. But then when I try to move away from the page I get a warning that my changes won't be saved. Could you please explain to me the procedure for saving an edited file? What I currently do is:
1. make edits.
2. preview edits.
3. Save page.
Everything is fine until I leave the file, and then none of my edits are saved.
Thanks so much for your help. Looks (and works) great. I tried to collapse one of my sub-pages, User:Buster7/Gleanings and move it to my Userpage but no luck. Could you show me how or lead me to the tutorial that explains. Also, from the above threads, I see that you might be willing to critique my Page. I'm an artist so I don't mind the "hodge-podge" quality that it has. But there are also some glitches that I can't seem to fix. Run-overs I call them...where threads seem to visually meld. Anything you do in my behalf is appreciated. Nice to meet you.Buster Seven Talk12:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to simply display the current content of a subpage on another page, then just transclude it - that is, put {{User:YOURNAME/PAGE NAME}}. That will display the whole contents of the page "User:YOURNAME/PAGE NAME" on the page you put it on. You can transclude it in a collapsed thingy, if you want, e.g.
Ek praat 'n ou taal van Vlaams wat baie soos Afrikaans lyk
2024
"Unhockey" - Is that Canadian for people who still have their teeth? (Space4T)February 2022
"The last time...despite knowing every evil he committed, 74 million people still voted for Trump." Don Winslow
"Not all those who voted for Trump are Racists, but, all those who are Racist voted for Trump"
"I choose the moments of my Life"
"I own my Life"
"A is A"
"Why? Because!"
"Vanilla or Chocolate? You choose"
"Opportunity exists only in the future"
"Tears In Rain Monologue"
fleeting and fragile life truly is for us humans. Everything that I am: my memories, my experiences, my emotions...are all unique to me, and only me. No one else can ever live them or understand them; even if I were somehow able to upload them to a computer for future playback, no one else could possibly understand why I am who I am today. Treasure the life that you have - truly live it
Collect the clips of your life that you think are important enough to save...and important enough to share with your future generations
Regarding "Run off" problems, I'm not sure which page you want me to look at - your user page, or this 'Gleanings' one? But anyway...I think you mean the problem with images and section-headings and things. A simple answer is to put {{clear}} after an image - that means, any further content will not begin until the entire length of the imagine has been displayed.
[[Image:Lake whitefish1.jpg|120px|right]]
[[Image:Lake whitefish1.jpg|120px|right]]
[[Image:Lake whitefish1.jpg|120px|right]]
This text will be along-side the fish,
{{clear}}
...but this will be after the last one.
This text will be along-side the fish,
...but this will be after the last one.
---
Having multiple images along-side each other is...more complicated. It's best done with a table (the lines of which can be transparent), or with use of DIV.
For the moving images at the end, it's probably best to use a gallery.
<Gallery>
File:Pi-unrolled-720.gif|Describing [[Pi]]
File:Straight Square Inscribed in a Circle 240px.gif|Construction of a [[Square]]
File:HexagonConstructionAni.gif|Constuction of a [[Hexagon]]
File:Using the caliper new en.gif|Using a [[Calipher]]
File:SierpinskiTriangle-ani-0-7.gif|Creating a [[Sierpinski Triangle]]
</gallery>
Do not remove Sagarika's controversy. She is a CNN-IBN deputy editor. Please let me know what your issues with this version are and may be we can find a common groud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptcongress (talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 February 2011 (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.
Ref 15 is YouTube - not appropriate as a ref; and probably an illegal copy of a video, anyway.
"forum.warwick.de" won't be a reliable source, I don't think (used in a few refs)
There's some refs linking to "search.boston.com", which is a bit weird; can't they link to specific articles?
30 is also Youtube
31 is Google translate; that isn't appropriate; it should just link to the actual source, even if it is in another langauge
32,33,34 allmusic is not a good reliable source.
35, imdb, isn't RS either
37 is YouTube
Some of the other refs might not be RS either; I've not checked in great detail.
Claims such as, "The show was popular and met with critical acclaim" needs evidence - references to the actual acclaim.
I think there's probably quite a lot of facts that, actually, are not referenced. As an example,
In that year, he recorded Jimmy Earl, which featured David Batteau, Mitchel Forman, Gambale, Deron Johnson, Gary Novak, Rique Pantoja, Randy Roos, Steve Tavaglione, and Dave Weckl.[30]
The ref for that shows Weckl; however, it does not mention David Batteau and the others.
As I say, that's only a brief look, but I hope it gives thoughts and ideas on how to improve it. You might wish to request a peer review, for more detailed analysis and feedback. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback on the page. If there are any specific references I can change or you felt were PR, please let me know. Thanks again for your time. Cheers. Manaboutkc (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)manaboutkc
Ref 1 is really a very brief mention of Halo - and it doesn't, of course, even mention "The Halo Group" - just "Halo Advertizing". It might be OK to verify who opened that, in 1994, but it doesn't help show any notability for "The Halo Group".
Ref 2 just shows a person who works there wrote an article. The article itself being totally unrelated to Halo.
Ref 3 verifies the award, but has no details about Halo - ie, just a listing entry.
Ref 4, I am wary of anything relating to PR; was this article ever published, or is it just an online thing? A lot of these PR-type websites will pretty much report anything on their website. It certainly reads in a very promotional way; is it really an independent source - or, did Halo have involvement, in writing it, or paying for its inclusion?
Ref 5 I cannot see all of that, because it requires subscription; but a) it again looks like PR, and b) it seems to be, really, about Liebherr, b) it looks like PR
Ref 6 - is this an independent source? "Dolan Media Newswires"?
Ref 7 for the claim 'featured in adweek' - but, again, this article is not about Halo at all; it just mentions them, at the end.
The link in the article. (Yes, I tried Google first, too, and then thought, hold on, this must be copyvio). Prob uses flash, or some shit, and doesn't get indexed by Google. Chzz ► 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh shit; I never actually clicked the link. Still kind of weird we couldn't do a text search on it, though. I think I've actually found flash sites using it. HalfShadow21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I figured out that it was one external link that I had put in the file that was causing all the problems. I deleted it and have been able to work within the file and save it with no problem! Thanks again! Cmckibben (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that is wonderful; I'm so pleased.
I know how weird Wikipedia is for new users, and I saw your cries for help being spread around, and it all getting very confusing. It's really cool that you worked it out.
Some sites get 'blacklisted', and yes - that can cause problems.
I still recommend saving changes quite often though; just as general good practice. You never know when your computer will crash; and Wikipedia is quite happy to record 100s of small edits instead of 1 big one. But, people work in their own way.
When I have it ready, would you be willing to review the article again for me? I'm trying my best to keep this article extremely neutral, and I'm trying to follow all the rules correctly. Before I submit it for review, would you give it a last look? I'm willing to be it needs more work!
Change She is an original member to Michaels is an original member. It makes it a more 'encyclopaedic tone', if you see what I mean. Consider that throughout; make it sound a bit more formal.
Don't put (See below). - avoid any such 'meta information' - just, state the facts. It is fine to say "featured in three analogies" without a ref, as long as the details are in the main body - that's fine. The one exception to the rule about "everything needs a reference" is the first bit, the lede - because it is a summary of the whole thing, then it doesn't need references - because all the facts in the lede will be elaborated upon in the main body.
Speaking of the lede...you need to put more context. Consider the audience is worldwide; you need to say, in the first sentence, what this is all about...so, say where she is from. England? Sweden? or whatever it is. And it says, "As founder of Extraordinary Events" but we've no idea what that is; so put something like As founder of a Swedish massage parlor called Extraordinary Events... (or whatever type of thing it is)
"Early Life" has two references - "Class of 1961, Ceralbus, Burbank High School, Burbank, California, 1961" and "Interview with Andrea Michaels via Carol McKibben, February 3, 2011". Those are absolutely not reliable sources - the information is not verifiable. How can I, as a reader, check it is true? It is particularly important, because it states things such as, The marriage to John Viescas ended in divorce - without solid references, that is potentially libelous; we absolutely cannot have unreferenced claims about living people.
You put [[latchkey]], which makes a link to latchkey.The linked page does not give me any idea of what the term means.
...but, anyway, all this info seems based on "class of 1961", and thus is not verifiable
{xt|began working with the Ron Rubin Orchestras in 1973.[citation needed] Seeing an unfilled niche,{{POV-statement} Michaels convinced Rubin to pursue the planning and production of special events.[citation needed]SheMichaels became one of the early pioneers of event production,[according to whom?] and, in 1978, the company was renamed Ron Rubin Productions.[citation needed]}}
...throughout the remainder, there are lots of similar issues. "Interview at Andrea Michaels' home with Carol Mckibben in January, 2010." is simply not a reliable source. Unless the interview was published in a newspaper or something, we cannot use such information.
Wow, Chzz! If I can't find "verifable" proof of such things as divorces or graduations (which were a long, long time ago, do I just delete them? I've gotten all of this information from interviewing the subject, but they aren't all necessarily in magazines, books, etc. They just come from the live subject herself. Please advise. Should I just delete this information?Cmckibben (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It's best to remove it, yes; sorry - and especially biographic info. "Bob Spritz" might well not want to appear in Wikipedia, and we have a "presumption in favour of privacy" - see WP:BLPNAME / WP:NPF.
This is exactly why we discourage editing about something/someone you personally know; because there is always the problem of using unverifiable facts. Not only that, but if we were to publish it, it would be original research, which is not permitted. As an encyclopaedia, we don't write anything 'new' - we only document facts that other reliable sources have already published, elsewhere.
I'm sure that the info is true, but...well, anyone could edit it. Anyone else could add other facts...and we can't check who is adding it; that's why we need references for everything. Again, sorry; hope you understand; but verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Chzz ► 19:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Chzz: Makes perfect sense. Since your last message, I've gone back in and found that with her four books, I can substantiate most of the information and have deleted the rest. Thanks so much. Cmckibben (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Chzz: When you have time, can you look and see if the file is better now? I've added a multitude of verifications. Also, I tried to insert the photo. I've read all the directions. They simply say, insert photo, edit the article to accommodate it, add the specific syntax and save. I did so, and I just got a funky box with the caption. The syntax I added was: File:Andrea Accepting AwardCropped3.jpg/thumb/Andrea Michaels Accepting 2006 Gala Award. I'm not sure what I'm doing incorrectly. I did send the email from the original photographer to the appropriate WP email address. Let me know when you can. Thanks! Cmckibben (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Please don't put your email address.
I've edited it, to tidy it up; I fixed some of the "Wiki links" - please check them.
Please don't bother to use <br /> - you don't need it; just leave a blank line. (I removed those)
You can link from some words to another. For example, Chzz is a [[Dentistry|dentist]] from [[Colorado Springs, Colorado|Colorado Springs]]. – that makes, Chzz is a dentist from Colorado Springs.
resubmitted Article of "Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri"
Dear Chzz
Thanks for your time and support for the re-submission of my article.
I have re-submitted this article with the guide you have explained to me. Sorry for wasting your time as I am not familiar with wiki-article creation. Actually this article existed before but some one with fake ID deleted it and added with some abusive material.
upon my complain this article was removed from wikipedia and I been invited to create a new one and I becuase of this I had created this.
Anyway, thanks for your time and hope this time my article is OK, if not then please make the necessary changes as you like.
Hello dear,
I need a small help from you.
I have no idea how to upload a company logo and add copyright and other details.
I am writing an article of a company within my user page. User:Its019/Taj_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd.
Hi. One small problem; for 'fair use of a non-free image', it has to be a live article. You can't use a logo in user-space; if I upload it, it would be deleted. So... please tell me when it is live, and then I can easily add the logo for you. Cheers! Chzz ► 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thank you for prompt responce.
Sorry for live link problem.
Plese try again it live.
I have to use the logo on companys article page and not on my personal user page.
The logo is also available on Tajpharma.com Home page.
Thank you and cheers--Its019 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
We can not add the logo until the wikipedia article is live.
I have completed my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Its019/Taj_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd.
Now the logo can be added.
But i have no idea how to make my article live.
If you can help me doing that.. it will be great.
Please have a look at the article and free to make any relevent changes if necessary.
And if possible make it online.
I thank you again.
I have some bigrophies to discuss like skoda founder etc. let me know if interested.
Hi, I saw the note saying "Please try to address the concerns explained in the 'feedback' request" In the feedback request, you said:
Please be very careful about drawing conclusions - for example, saying The problem is that some marital goods are difficult to trade. - that isn't appropriate encyclopaedic language (saying "the problem is...") and, it appears to be original research, which is not permitted; see also WP:OR.
There are also unreferenced claims, such as Evidence supporting the Zelder paradox can be found in higher divorce rates for couples with children - again, that looks like original research, unless someone else has published that claim.
My reply was:
Thanks for your comments. Instead of "the problem is...", how about "In order to be applicable, however, the Coase Theorem requires frictionless trading between parties. In marriage, some goods are difficult to trade. (footnote to Zelder 1993)"
On the second comment, this claim has been published. I meant the Zelder 1993 reference to apply to the whole paragraph. I'll change it to make that clearer.Barkrich (talk)
I made these changes, which you can see on User:Barkrich/Zelder_Paradox. Do they address your concerns? I'm sorry for the fragmented discussion - I'm still learning my way around here.Barkrich (talk)
I can see a few other, similar problems; nothing too major, but things that need checking. I'll have a proper read, and explain here as soon as possible (which might be a day or more). Chzz ► 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Divorce is destructive when one spouse wants to remain married more than the other wants a divorce - this sounds like a bold claim, with no reference; maybe this is the opinion expressed by Zelder, I don't know - but without a ref, it sounds like it is a "statement of fact". So you might need a prefix of "According to Zelder," or something.
Regarding the paragraph that begins with So called marital public goods are produced... - there are four references at the end, but I wonder if they actually specifically discuss the Zelder Paradox? If they do, that's fine; but if they do not, that would be "novel synthesis" - see WP:SYNTH
The marital good most commonly considered to be public is children[according to whom?] - ie, again, this sounds like a straight factual assertion - and, I imagine other people would have a different view. Again...maybe it is the opinion of Zelder
(Of course, some of the benefits... - not Encyclopaedic tone, to say "Of course"
There are two aspects to the paradox[who?] - is this original research? Similarly, The key factor is that... - who says this is the 'key factor'?
I think, overall, maybe you are writing too much of your own opinions about the Zelder Paradox, and not simply stating facts that other, reliable sources have published about it. That is the key point; we do not do any original research.
Some other comments, for potential improvement to the aritcle;
It is probably best to avoid linking "love, children, sex" - they're such common terms, and the linked articles don't really help understand this one. Divorce, yes, is so relevent and critical to the topic that - even though it is also a very common term - the link is useful; ie someone reading might go there for further related details.
As it is fairly long (more than two or three paragraphs), you might consider adding a preliminary paragraph which summarizes the whole, and splitting the rest into == Sections ==. See WP:LEDE
It would be helpful to add the ISBN for the referenced books, if possible
(Some of the above, of course, being asthetic - an article does not have to be in any way 'perfect' to be accepted via AFC; it just needs to be neutral and verifiable).
I hope that helps. If you work on it further, then I suggest you 'resubmit' to AFC; there are instructions on how, at the top of the page. Best of luck, Chzz ► 06:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
This user hasn't been active since asking this, but I want to archvie it, so I'll copy it over to their own talk, for their ref in their own time. Chzz ► 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Rose Hill School, Alderley
Hi,
I see that you have rejected my submission for the new entry "Rose Hill School, Alderley". What I submitted is what used to be the entry for "Rose Hill School" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Hill_School&oldid=321370155) with some further detail provided by myself. The "Rose Hill School" entry was taken over by the Rose Hill School in Tunbridge Wells after the Rose Hill School in Alderley closed in July 2009. In view of the closure of the Rose Hill School in Alderley, it seems fair enough to me that the Rose Hill School in Tunbridge Wells should take over the "Rose Hill School" entry, but then that means the loss of an entry for the Rose Hill School in Alderley, hence why I have submitted one for it. As a former member of the Rose Hill School in Alderley, pretty much all of the detail I have added is from personal knowledge/experience, which I would have thought was self-evident as the originator. Do I really need to somehow reference myself? The alternative to creating a new/separate entry for the Rose Hill School in Alderley is of course to reclaim the "Rose Hill School" entry, thereby trashing the information for the Rose Hill School in Tunbridge Wells. This would no doubt lead to some sort of edit war which would benefit nobody, least of all Wikipedia. Would you therefore please reconsider accepting my submission?
Sorry, yes, you need references in reliable sources - otherwise, there is absolutely no way to check if it is a valid edit, or erroneous information. All articles require several appropriate reliable sources, such as newspapers or books or whatever. That's a core policy, regarding verifiability. I understand that you may have personal knowledge, however such facts cannot be checked by readers.
The complication here is, yes, you were adding something that existed previously. The article shouldn't have been usurped in that way anyway. But from the "Articles for creation" side of things, I can't accept a new article without references. (There's lots and lots of old articles which lack them, but that is another issue; standards have changed, and all it means is, that the old ones need fixing).
It might be possible to get an admin to 'split' the old versions of the article Rose Hill School, to make the two. You'd have to ask an admin for that; maybe using an {{adminhelp}} on your own talk page.
But really, the best solution would be to write an 'acceptable' article with references to several reliable sources, such as newspapers, books, etc.
I certainly do not recommend just trying to take over the article; that will just compound the problem (and yes, could lead to a silly battle over it). Chzz ► 02:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I have now added a number of references for statements in the article, including quite a few from UK Government websites. I trust that these are sufficient? Alexandrews (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Certainly better; the references mostly help, although 'friendsreunited' isn't a reliable source (because anyone can post info there, and it isn't checked), and I'm not sure about "rosehillmemories" - you could always ask on the reliable sources noticeboard.
I'm also a bit concerned that all of "School Life" and parts of other sections are unreferenced; anyone could just remove that information; without refs, it would be classed original research - and, again, if anyone changes it we'll have no idea who is right.
But, anyway...it is listed for another review, and there is not much of a backlog, so I imagine someone (if not me) will re-review it quite soon. Thanks, Chzz ► 20:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I included "friendsreunited" as a reference purely on the basis that they verify the existence of a school, etc before they will include it on their site. Similarly, the school's former official website, rosehillschool.com, has been taken over by a school in Pennsylvania, America; "rosehillmemories" was set up as the official website for Old Rosehillians and therefore has become the de facto official website for the school. It is in fact the only place I have ever seen the school's motto! Regarding the "School Life" part, I have written all of that from personal knowledge/experience. I don't think it would fit the "original research" classifiation because no-one is likely to object to it or challenge it 8-) And as a former pupil, surely this is an instance where it is completely appropriate for my Primary Source information to be accepted ("Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment...")? If it's that big a problem, I can take it out. Alexandrews (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes...that absolutely is "original research" - something which cannot be checked by other people. It's likely to be 'challenged' - or, just removed - either during, or immediately after the AFC review. The reason for this insistance is, partly, because of the vandalism troubles. You'd be amazed, how often, articles like this run into problems. If facts have no reference, we can't tell which parts are true, and which is vandalism. Let's imagine if, for example, someone added that "the school was rated the worst in the country". OK, well, that probably wouldn't be accepted, without a source. But sometimes it is even more tricky; you said "boys typically making up at least 80%" - what if that is changed to 'girls'. And, believe me, this sort of vandalism happens every minute, every day, 24/7. You can see it in action, if you look in Special:RecentChanges.
One thing to be extra careful about is, the named people - the teachers, etc. I wouldn't think that they're "public figures" - that is, I doubt they've been in the newspapers and suchlike; therefore, they really should not be named on a Wikipedia article. Consider that they might not want their names all over the net. We're very wary of that, and have various policies, e.g. WP:BLPNAME. Best of luck with it, Chzz ► 10:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your extra help with this Chzz, and good point about the BLPNAME issues. I just accepted the article from AfC (Rose Hill School (Alderley)) after the author added additional references and removed some unverifiable material. I think it turned out rather well, and it's certainly better sourced then the vast majority of new (or existing) articles on Wikipedia. Zachlipton (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's not bad. I've just spent some time improving references, and tweaking things. I think it should be nominated for Did You Know - perhaps you'd like to do that? (Or I can, whatever) - cheers, Chzz ► 10:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi again Chzz, I see that you have been tidying up the article page now that it has been submitted, thanks for that. I also notice that you removed the names of the new owners. The reason I wanted to include this information is because I'm sure other former pupils will be interested in writing to them - I for one certainly intend to do so. The name appears all over the planning request documents on the Stroud Local Government website, and also on the Humphrey Cook Associates webpage (the one in the list of references), so would you mind putting it back in? Also, I added a specific external link to the Google Maps satellite image of the school because the geo-location just takes you to a page of map providers; even then clicking on the Google Maps link there takes you to a standard map, and you then have to click on "Satellite" to get the image that is of rlevance. For less internet-savvy users (which I'm sure will be the case for a lot of the former members of the school), it would be much easier to have a simple one-click link on the Wikipedia article page which would take them to the satellite image of the school and grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrews (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Names - I'm not happy to add back the names; sorry. I appreciate that the information is out there on the web, but my concern is, in revealing the name and address of a couple of people who are not public figures - and we have a "presumption in favour of privacy", and take great care over biographic information about living people. Please look at WP:BLPNAME. That is, however, just my opinion; I can see your counter-argument. If you think you can make a good case for it, please start a discussion on Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley), and we can see what other people think.
I see you've already added the satellite image; personally, I don't think it should be there (nor the 'bing' one), because we've got tight restrictions over external links, and I think there are too many - but I won't remove it or anything.
Names - Yes, I looked at the WP:BLPNAME guidelines. They state: " When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." The names of the new owners do not appear in news articles but in publicly accessible official records. The guidelines also state: "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." As I said, I'm sure a lot of people with connections to the former school (pupils, teachers, etc) would be very interested to know who owns the property now that the school has closed.
Links to Map Images - It really does take quite some effort to navigate the web in order to find decent map images of the former school's site, so I think their inclusion is justifiable especially when Wikipedia's policy is not to have lots of images on the article's page. I don't quite understand the objection to including these in the external links - they seem to meet Wikipedia's policy no problem: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."
How do I (or can't I?) create a new category in Commons? I have a load of saddlery restoration / repair pics to donate (for possible use in future articles etc.) but can't find any category for pics of this type. (Or, as I'm a true Idle Get, could you create the category for me? And then show me a real quick'n'easy way to stuff a load (and I do mean a load!) of pics all into the same cat [oops! that sounds soooo wrong! Poor kitty.......... lol!]) I'm working on a Mac, so Windoze stuff ain't no good for me :o) (PippaRivers (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC))
Hee hee, yes, when I first saw the heading, I was planning to begin with well, you take a mummy-cat and a daddy-cat....
Making a category is easy; if you just went to e.g. Commons:Category:Some new category that does not exist - the alternate/usual way to get there is, you'd go to commons, and in the 'search' box you put "Category:Some new category that does not exist".
For uploading lots of files...I've never tried, but I hear there is something called Commonist, which is supposed to make it easier. And I know WMF are working on a new upload system, which should be cool, but at the moment is only in testing. You can see it in Special:UploadWizard. Won't work though...and IDK when it'll happen, but I suspect quite a long time. (I know this is a bit useless for your immediate question; sorry about that; just thought I'd mention it)
Otherwise, maybe as on Commons:Help desk, and you might be able to find a person who could help you further...or even someone who, if you give 'em a whole load of files, could upload on your behalf...or something. I don't know about that, but it is possible, I'd think.
Bearing in mind that my username is actually pretty identifiable as me, I'm considering the possible wisdom of changing it for something more anonymous (thinking it's probably better to do before I make x-thousand contributions, etc.) How easy / practicable is it to do it? And is it a good idea? Or am I being paranoid about stalkers, or wossnames? (PippaRivers (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC))
My own opinion is, it's best not to use your real name...but, that's just me; I don't have a facebook page either.
Many editors choose to openly say exactly who they are, on their user page - for example, Alison. Some editors might want others to realise who they are - e.g. a professor, like User:H. Zimmerman (who is Howard Zimmerman).
Others (like me) don't; all anyone knows about me is, that I'm English, I'm not a kid, and I like tea and sausages; nobody on Wikipedia even knows my sex.
There are 2 ways to change name, with advantages and disadvantages;
If accepted, after a short time (usually a day or so), your username changes, your user/talk pages are renamed, and the 'history' of pages you edited will show your new user-name. This is the most common method; the only disadvantage is, if someone wants to dig, they could find the request and see what your original user-name was.
Option 2: To avoid that problem, another way is, simply to make a new account. If you do that, you should scramble the password on the old one, and forget it. You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking out adminship or similar functionary positions. Failure to do so may be considered deceptive, and be poorly received by the Wikipedia community. (from WP:CLEANSTART) - and if you go this route, it is worth just sending a quick email anyway, just to avoid anyone ever claiming there was any "funny business".
With option 2, your existing edits will of course stay with the old account - so you'd be starting from scratch, contribution-wise.
And if you then proceeded to edit the same article/s, it wouldn't take much for people to make the connection.
If you ever have any 'serious' questions about this type of thing, then - for obvious reasons - it's best not to write it on the wiki. Instead, email wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org - they'll be happy to advise.
Sorry that is all a bit complex, but that's the way, with privacy. Happy to discuss/explain further, if you like. You could email me too, if you wanted.
My own advice: use CHU, change to a nickname instead of a real name, but don't worry too much about people tracing things back. Chzz ► 13:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I've not encountered any Wiki-related problems at all, just thought it might be a wise idea (there are some darned odd quasi-humans in this world, after all, lol!), so I shall go ahead and do dat ting :o) (PippaRivers (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC))
Why have I never seen this before? It is the answer to my prayers on RC Patrol! I love you, thank you for setting this page up! -- roleplayer15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks :-) I wrote it in user-space, as I found it handy to explain the core idea to users asking for help; another person moved it there - actually, WP:VRS is easier, or WP:42. But yes...I do find that such a short, simple explanation helps; it isn't perfect, because it is necessarily a slight simplification; however, anything beyond a single page of big letters is tl;dr for some people. So - thanks! Chzz ► 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I too think it's excellent and now build it into my standard spiel about notability. I'd value your comments on User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard which I have similarly written because I am constantly explaining the same thing. I would like in due course to promote that to an essay, but it needs more development. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Pretty good, JohnCD. I can see where you are coming from. I think you should stick more to the specific 'noticeboard' analogy, because there are so many essays and attempts at covering more-or-less the same thing, and it's easy to drop into the kinda "same old rhetoric", ie repeating the same basic points said in so many essays - such as the WP:AMNESIA you link to.
Speaking more cynically, I have to say: very very few of the target-audience can actually be bothered to read any of these great essays, sadly.
I've written similar things myself; maybe it might give ideas - see User:Keegan/Butterfly#Company articles (which also needs developing), and User:Chzz/help/coinn (the latter being one of the pages I keep to copy/paste and adapt, for specific cases)
Thanks - I'll keep working on it. I have expanded the start to explain the word "manifesto" which I don't particularly like but can't think of a better, and my son suggested that a couple of the sentences were too convoluted. I don't expect people will read it in advance, it's mainly intended as an explanation, e.g. to accompany a copyvio notice so they don't just go off and make a copyright release and re-post their Facebook page. I had a smile the other day when someone asked me to email him the text of his promotional piece, while protesting that it was not promotional:I sent it, but it was intercepted by his mail system's spam filter! Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Re spam-filter; wonderful irony, hoist by their own petard.
Re. manifesto - one crazy, passing thought; imagine a picture showing a corp website 'about'-style page, alongside an Encyclopaedia (possibly looking like a book Encyc)....a rough idea...
Chzz Sausage Co. has been serving the finest sausages in the world, since 1823.
Chzz Sausage Co is a sausage maker, based in England.[1] It was founded in 1823.[2]
Our dedicated friendly staff of over 9000 provide a wonderful, comprehensive service
I have now 'amended' the William France, Sr (cabinetmaker) entry to include multiple references where applicable, some new references and some Notes as per your suggestions.
I hope this meets with your approval and you can sign it off, so I can go on and similarly update my other entry in my userspace for William France Jnr.
Thanks
Jackross (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It certainly looks better. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'sign it off' - it looks fine to me; of course, all articles can be improved. I made a couple of small edits; I think there's some duplication with 'References' and 'Sources' that could do with fixing - all the info should probably be in references, as numbered footnotes. And it's tagged as an orphan, because there is only one article linking to it.
WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for Creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your pretty extensive cleanup work tonight on Rose Hill School (Alderley). I had approved it out of AfC after I did some cleanup and ran reflinks on it as it was much improved, but obviously the article still needed some fairly significant improvement. Perhaps I was a bit hasty... I'm also not sure why my reflinks run didn't collapse all the duplicate links, but I'll keep an eye out for this in the future. In any case, thanks for cleaning this one up. Zachlipton (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, everything can always be improved - but it was fine to accept it as AFC; I'd have done the same. I only fiddled around with it a bit because I felt like it.
I hope you noticed my suggestion in the section above - to DYK it.
For reflinks, it'll struggle if there are any differences between the contents of the ref tag. The best thing to do is, remove everything except bare URLs (first), and change any duplicates to named refs. Then use reflinks in interactive mode - but it is always necessary to check what it is doing. It won't sort out e.g. Google book refs; they're best done by hand - because reflinks will just treat them as a 'web reference', and really you need to get the book details as well, and use {{citation}} or {{cite book}}...
<ref>{{citation
|pages=216–217
|title=Creating paradise: the building of the English country house, 1660-1880
|author=Richard Wilson, Alan Mackley
|publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group
|year=2000
|isbn=9781852852528
| accessdate = 2011-02-09
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=rZ2DGwyd4lYC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA217&dq=alderley+house#v=onepage&q=alderley%20house&f=false
}}</ref>
Apart from page number (shown in the link), URL and access date, all that comes from the 'about this book' page on Google (down near the end of that page).
There may well be problems with the non-ref'd headmasters, and the ?'s on those doesn't look very 'professional'. I was debating that, but really, it is probably best to just remove the ones that don't have good refs.
Hi Chzz
I tried out something new for me - creating an article Edward France (Cabinetmaker) and moving it into mainspace.
It said 'Move (redirect?) succeeded' but when I type in Edward France into the Wiki search box nothing comes up as if it's not there.
However the links to and from William France, Sr (cabinetmaker) work perfectly and it comes up as an entry in a google search.
So, what have I done wrong?
Jackross (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You didn't do anything wrong. The search suggestions are not instantly updated; it could be several hours before it appears there. If you type the full name in the wiki search box, it will work. And the 'predictive' name will appear after some time – very likely within 24 hours.
Happy Friday, Chzz. Just dropping by with a nod of thanks for taking the time to help iron things out. It is refreshing to see that in the midst of a perplexing scenario, as long as one stays calm, cool and collected, thoughtful folks like you are willing to come in and make sense of it all with the same healthy approach.
Most kind; you're very welcome. Really, credit for fixing the problem lies elsewhere; all I could do was humbly poke a few people with appropriate special permissions. I'm pleased it was all sorted out without fuss. If I can help with anything else, any time, then "my talk page is always open". Have a good weekend yourself, too. Chzz ► 17:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
CharlieEchoTango 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}}!
shut up.... i can do whatever i want on my page and you can't tell me my views are wrong... i don't need your gay comments...
[[File:Nazi Swastika.svg]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mìthrandir (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 February 2011
Hi.
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
I apologize if my moderation or the way the discussion in IRC was conducted in general drove you out. It was a frustrating afternoon for everyone I think, and it's usually not that chaotic. If you'd like to still get your questions about statistics and research at the WMF answered in-depth, I'll do my best to get them answered (either on or off-wiki, doesn't matter). Steven Walling at work01:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Steven; that's really good of you; extraordinarily considerate.
I worry greatly, that the IRC-Wikipedia interface is poory regulated and that the control mechanisms are arcane and anachronistic.
Mostly (in this inst.), I feel sorry for the new WMF members, who were not able to state their case.
I appreciate your candor; my requests re. statistics does, indeed, stand; but I hope to elaborate on those concerns further in a forthcoming 'signpost' thingy. Best, Chzz ► 01:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Its again with great disappointment for me towards the Wikipedia.
I have created a new biography article of Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmir and has been reviewed more than dozen times by two or three administrators of wikipedia and every time they came up with new things to do and I have done what ever possible as they instructed. Now, I have been asked some silly questions to add and have been declined after week's discussion:
I wrote He was born on 1958 and been asked "Citation needed", What I have to do???? PROVIDE WITH HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE???????? and in another sentence I wrote Mr Kashmiri has his early education from Government High School, Trarkhal in 1973 and again asked "citation needed".
I wrote From 1980 to 1997, Mr Kashmiri had organised several[quantify] seminars, rallies and meetings in various[which?] cities of Kashmir.
I HAVE NO QUANTITY OF THESE SEMINARS ETC FROM 1980, THESE ARE COUNTLESS AND HE MR. KASHMIRI TRAVELLED ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY AND ITS NOT POSSIBLE TO JUST MENTION SOME OR ALL CITIES!!!!!!!
IS THIS A JOKE WITH ME or their are influenced Administrators who are anti-Kashmiri, I am confused. WHEN SOME ONE WITH FAKE ID PUBLISHED ABUSIVE AND INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL, IT WAS PUBLISHED INSTANTLY AND WHEN ON MY REQUEST THIS WAS DELETED AND ASKED TO CREATE A NEW ONE, I HAVE TO GO THROUGH INTERROGATION LIKE A CRIMINAL, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY MAKE ME FEEL BAD. I am holding position of Media Secretary in this part (United Kashmir People's National Party-UKPNP) and also provided links to our website.
I HAVE PROVIDED WITH MAXIMUM REFERENCES/SOURCES AS I CAN, FROM AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, HUMAN RIGHT WATCH, MR. KASHMIRI'S PARTY WEBSITE AND MANY MORE. ARE SOURCE AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND THEIR REPORTS NOT TRUST-ABLE OR RELIABLE? OR WIKIPEDIA DON'T WANT TO ADD THIS ARTICLE TO THEIR SYSTEM. PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
Looking forward for your prompt reply in this regard.
The whole idea of verifiability is, that we only have facts that the reader can check - by looking in some appropriate reliable source.
Therefore, for example, "He was born on 1958" - if that fact has been published - perhaps in a newspaper, magazine, book, or something - then it can be referenced and used. It if has not been published somewhere, then the fact should not be included.
A birth certificate is not appropriate, as it has not been published in broad circulation; it would constitute original research.
The reason for this insistence on verifiable information is to protect the subject. If we did not insist, then possibly someone else might edit the article, and change the year of birth. We would have absolutely no idea which one was correct.
Dear Chzz - Thank you for your help with moving iGuide to MediGuide. Now, why is it appearing as mediGuide instead of MediGuide while when I edit the page, it appears as MediGuide ? Can you assist with that? Thanks again ערן78 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, exactly; it's just a 'trick', really, because the MediaWiki software always puts the first letter of a title in capitals. {{Lowercase}} changes the CSS to allow us to have e.g. iPod and suchlike. There is a similar one, often used on movies and species articles, for {{Italic title}}.
I just wrote "{{Lowercase}}" at the top of this page, so you'll see the top of this page will be "User talk:chzz" instead of "User talk:Chzz".
The first part of that, the "User talk:" is the namespace, so it's only the part after the colon which is affected. Live articles are in 'namespace zero' though, so there is no prefix.
This is #9001 in a series of over 9000 'fascinating facts' about Wikipedia :-)
I hate to bother you, but I need to ask your help once more:
I reviewed the live article that you so generously assisted me with on 2/10/11 at 10:30 a.m. Pacific. I found four things that I think need to be edited, and I don't dare go into it right now as I'm not sure if you're totally finished with it. They are: 1) could you change "2005" to "2006" in the photo caption? 2) Footnote numbers 37 and 44 should read "Jon Michaels" and not "John Michaels; 3) Footnote #48 Should be "What's on the Pillow?" not "What' on the Pillow?" Do you mind making these changes since I don't want to mess up anything you've done! Thanks! Cmckibben (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, I now see that I need to categorize this article. I came up with some appropriate categories as follows but don't know how to insert them. They are:
1943 births|living people|American entertainment industry businesspeople|American people of Croatian decent|American Event Producers|American Women in Business|UCLA Alumni|People from Los Angeles, California
Is it possible for you to tell me how to insert them?
I meant to ask you, actually, about the photo permission - someone looked for the email, but could not find it. Can you send it again, please - please put the filename "File:Andrea Accepting AwardCropped3.jpg" in the subject line, so we know exactly which file it is about.
Re. changes - yes, of course you can edit it. No article is every truly "finished", but certainly, anyone can edit it.
1. On the photo File:Andrea Accepting AwardCropped3.jpg, it says "Richard Didow of Catch The Moment took this photography January 5, 2005 at The Special Event Convention" - is that not correct?
2. The actual linked article for ref 37 says "John" [6] - so, while that may be incorrect, we should still state the actual name in the referenced publication. Ref. 33 doesn't mention that name (nor do any others - that's the only match of "John" I could see)
3. Same problem; the actual source says "What' Pillow" [7]. I know it is "wrong", but the references say the name of the published page we're talking about, whether correct or incorrect.
Chzz:
Thank you. I resent the email to 'photosubmission@wikimedia.org' and copied you on it. I put File: Andrea Accepting AwardCropped3.jpg in the subject line. I hope someone will let me know if it is not received this time. I sent it previously on February 9, 2011.
Regarding the photo, I believe that it was taken on January 5, 2006 because she won the award she is holding in the picture for an event she produced in 2005, and the 2005 is a typo. But we can just leave it if it's a problem.
OK; I spoke to an OTRS volunteer (again) - that is, the people who deal with the permissions. They've received the email, and it will be processed ASAP. So, that's fine. Thanks. Chzz ► 14:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Noting, most importantly, that it's just a joke page;
You're probably best leaving the WikiWolfCub one in your userspace, for now. You could move it to Wikipedia:WikiWolfcub if you wanted, and create a shortcut like WP:WOLFCUB or whatever. Someone might move it back, deciding it's not worth bothering though.
You should add more wiki-links to it, so people can understand what you mean. Things like, linking 'prey' to WP:BITE or whatever
You might want to add some kind of 'joke alert' at the top; those are useful, so people don't mistake the page as something official. For an example, look at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion.
Fun is good. Fun is necessary, or we all go stale. I shall go seek some suitable wikilinks (the prey/bite one is off-target, though - to a Wolfcub, it's the articles which are prey (typos, grammar, stubby things and so on). Thanks for your help, as usual - you're a star :o) (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC))
Ummmmmmmmm .... does that work? I added a load of wikilinks, and kinda pounced ......... I don't know how to make a shortcut, and tie up the other loose ends, either ..... (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)) Hey, I worked it out! (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC))
Hi Chzz, thanks again for your great comments at the 12 Gauge FAC. I was excited at the process, but the whole thing just sort of seemed to get "passed over" by the majority of reviewers. So I may run the article through a peer review and bring it back to FAC in the future. I hope you'll be able to take a look at it if-and-when I do! Otherwise, what comments I got I think already improved the article greatly. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies20:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds a good plan, especially now you know what pedantic gits people are, in FAR - and hell, I'm only a beginner! I admire your resilience. Please, tell me if I can help, any time; maybe a proof, one day. Cheers, Chzz ► 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A very important matter concerning the survival of the human race
Here are some sausages and a random sprig of something green (probably not poisonous[citation needed] but I wouldn't eat it).
Actually...on second thoughts... I'm not too sure about this idea of "survival of the human race". I'm not convinced it is a good idea :-) Chzz ► 15:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
"But in practice not everything need actually be attributed." WIKI guidelines.
I think you have overreacted in your editing of my article. The facts are all contained in the literature cited, and there is nothing contentious unless indicated in the text.
As edited by you the article becomes useless.
Hope you will take the time to look at the article and grasp my point.
Perhaps I could give you an example:
In the article about "Golden Retrivers" the history of these dogs is quite properly foot-noted as there could be some doubt or other opinions about their origins.
But under the section Grooming, it is not felt necessary to mention that they are hairy beasts that take a lot of grooming. This a matter of observed and non-contentious fact (I used to own one!), and it would be pedantic to try and foot-note it.
Similarly, it would be pedantic to foot-note that the Tang Dynasty issued such and such a coin, which is a historical fact, well know to Chinese historians, and Chinese coin fans.
On the early issues, where the facts are not quite so clear, there are foot-notes to indicate this.
I'm sorry that is not correct; you are misunderstanding core policies. Your example of "a lot of grooming" is a perfect illustration of original research leading to non-encyclopaedic pseudo-facts.
Referring to other articles for comparisons is not often helpful. In that specific case, however, I took a look at the section on 'Grooming' and I believe it is not in accordance with policies and guidelines, so I have removed it. I started a discussion section, Talk:Golden_Retriever#Grooming.
Thank you for your detailed advice regarding my article on The Jones Sewing Machine Company. I very much appreciate the time you spent on this and I shall address all the points as soon as I can.
On an interesting developing company that is challenging the status quo. There are a lot of articles about them, but are 'blog-like'. I think there is a balanced way of writing this article, referencing 'good' blog-like sources. And of course fcc ex-parte filings, the legal case documents, etc. But 'the main corporate information' is mostly from blog-like sources... Could you provide any advice?
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 think that there is enough to show notability, but I advise against adding anything from blogs. They're not considered reliable sources. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by 'blog-like sources', but it doesn't sound like they'd be acceptable. If you have a question about whether or not a specific source is appropriate, could you please ask on WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard.
Buy my main advice is: stick to facts that can be verified in something with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and "editorial control" - that is, usually, newspapers, magazines, books, and the more 'decent' news sites (CNN, BBC News, etc).
You will no doubt notice that there are many articles on Wikipedia which do not conform to these requirements; however, that doesn't make for a good argument in adding more - WP:OTHERSTUFF.
...if I completely ignored you on IRC this evening... Was having a few problems. In any case, I'll hopefully be getting on IRC a little more in the short term, but work is meaning less and less time for Wikipedia. Probably won't be back properly for another few weeks. I'll see you then! J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem, not at all, J. It was nice to see you, and always is. You're always such a fun guy. yes, -9001 for originality Have a great time "IRL", whatever the hell that is. Keep in touch. Chzz ► 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Festival of Light Australia
Hi Chzz,
Thank you for your edits in the Festival of Light Australia page - I've been trying to ask Users to look over requested edits for some time but with no luck. I've made a few more changes so please feel free to look over those as well.
Kind regards, NWAnonymous (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
In general, it looks fine. I tweaked a bit of formatting. If you do put requests on the talk page, put {{Request edit}} on the page - that will get more attention. It can still take a while, but it helps. Cheers, Chzz ► 13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
More "facts"
In the article on London it is stated:
"London ( /ˈlʌndən/) is the capital of England and the United Kingdom,"
But there is no citation for this. I am sure you will want to correct such a serious breach of Wiki policies and start a discussion group on the subject
Please can you 'sign' with ~~~~ instead of just "david", because it adds useful links and the date/time.
Acceptable examples of common knowledge: Geographic pieces of information easily verified by a nonspecialized map ("Dallas is in Texas") - from the page Wikipedia:Common knowledge.
Actually, re. "capital" - there is a little more to it, than that. It is elaborated upon in the section London#Status, which does have references and footnotes. It could do with more information - it's quite an interesting topic.
One exception to the rule about referencing is with respect to the first part of the article, before the first section heading - referred to as the lede. Because the lede is a summary of the rest of the article, and should not contain facts that are not within the main body, the lede itself does not require references. Chzz ► 13:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, for claims such as "The Earth is round". But not for the alloy composition of Ming knives. (Thanks for signing) Chzz ► 14:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Cheers! I haven't yet worked out how to make one reference thingy cited in several places, so I have at the moment three duplicate reference sources (same book, same page). Can you please (a) fix, and (b) tell me how to fix in future so I don;t do it again? (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
It looks fine, yes, from a quick check. One per paragraph is OK. It can be worth adding references to each sentence, because it avoids confusion if someone adds another fact in the middle - but it isn't essential. I removed the 'unreferenced' tag.
I'm sure there are some bits I could quibble with, if I tried. One thing that stands out is this paragraph (which I've marked up a bit, below, to illustrate the concerns);
Dartmoors ponies are native to Britain, but today are also seen in other parts of the world.[where?] They are often used as a foundation breeding stock for the Riding Pony.[who?] The breed makes an ideal[peacock prose] children’s mount, but it is also quite capable of carrying an adult.[who?] With their natural jump and good movement,[neutrality is disputed] they are used for hunting, showing, and jumping,[citation needed] and are also excellent[neutrality is disputed] driving ponies.
...ie, it appears to be non-neutral, not encyclopaedic in tone, and because it lacks references it looks like "original research".
Anyway - the article, in general, is fine; that's just a comment to kinda illustrate ideas for improvement - the comment I made earlier about a "perfect article" was very tongue-in-cheek, as there is no such thing; all articles can be improved. Keep up the good work :-) Chzz ► 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I could probably drag up some references to other parts of the world, if I wasn't so knackered, lol! I may come back to that one. I think if someone were prepared to trawl through the BSPS (British Show Pony Society) records of show-type Riding Pony pedigrees, it would be possible to show Dartmoor ancestry in many of them - but I don't have access to the pedigrees of everything registered since the year dot with the BSPS, lol! Not sure how to get over the peacocky bit, as it's 'common knowledge' amongst pony people. Dartmoor have carried adults for centuries, they were the Dartmoor farmers' standard working pony, expected to do everything asked of them. Similar to the New Forest ponies, which are regularly ridden by adults. (I expect there might be some show results recprds somewhere showing that pony x ridden in championship y was ridden by an adult, but is it worth it?) Again, with access to competition records one could show that Dartmoors jump as well as do 'showing', and the locals around the moor certainly do hunt on them (would one have to go to the local hunt's records to prove it? Not sure if that would even be possible, as it would be original research anyway - unless Horse and Hound has featured someone hunting on a Dartmoor!) British Driving Society records of competitions might show Dartmoor ponies getting placed or winning in competitions - but mostly these things aren't published, or at least are darned hard to track down.
I understand. And it is all just advice - it is fairly unlikley to be challenged. It wouldn't pass as a good article, without refs for those parts, but very few articles (0.3%) get to that.
You could tone down the language a bit; that'd help - avoiding "today" (because that is "recentism", whereas the article should be "timeless"), avoid using vague terms like "often", and...well, something like;
Dartmoors ponies are native to Britain, but today are also seen in other parts of the world. (but better, give actual examples ref'd to some story about 'em in Japan or Australia or whatever) They are used as a foundation breeding stock for the Riding Pony. (but do try and get a ref for that. Books, maybe? just some note from a newspaper or magazine or something?) The breed makes an idealcan be ridden by children, but it is also quite capable of carrying an adult.(This bit might not be challenged so I wouldn't worry overly-much) With their natural jump and good movement, tThey are used for hunting, showing, and jumping, and are also excellentas driving ponies. (And yes, do try to add refs one day. If there is a little news article that mentions them in a hunt/show etc, that'd do fine)
Done a couple more fixes and citations. The 'Little news article' was the Dartmoor Pony which got Champion Mountain and Moorland Pony at the Horse of the Year Show, lol! (Just a small bit of news ...) Can't find anything on Dartmoors hunting - but media don't like to link themselves with hunting (even though it's drag-hunting nowadays), so not really surprising!(ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC))
Thanks for helping with that guy yesterday. I thought of posting a warning at AN or AN/I, but I decided that probably his threats were only threats, so I have semi-protected the page and will watch it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries; just noticed the message in passing, and was just gonna add a sig, then wondered what it was about, and by that time, thought I might as well answer it :-) I was tempted to throw in a mention of Pedophile Group or North American Man/Boy Love Association, but thought better of it. It's a pity when editors like that can't be 'turned around' to actually work to improve the article (which xe probably would, in as much as, xe'd be appropriately critical of any sniff of promo) - but to be honest, I doubt very much we'll see that one back again. Re. legal - agreed; I didn't see anything that worried me; xe only threatened to contact some people, which is of course no problem. Cheers, Chzz ► 22:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Re-reading my response to your post on my talk page, I realize I typed too fast. My laughter was aimed at one particular line. The remainder of your post on the PC page was thoughtful and thought-provoking. I'm sorry my haste led to a response that could be taken as the opposite of respect. David in DC (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear, sweet (kind, handsome .. etc.) Chzz, lol! Having spent all day since stupid o'clock dragging together sufficient adequate citations to back up a couple of bijou factettes I've known for ages re Exmoor ponies and transportation, I now have only a minor challenge left in that I can't get the refs to display nicely. The more I look at the stuff in the edit window, the more my brain says "No, sha'n't!" about trying to fix the citations. (I have got to the point where about all I'm seeing is a screen full of 'word salad'!) Could you please tidy it and make it look nice for me? Many thanks! ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
That's better, certainly; my real challenge was with having Johns & Potter and Hendricks both in there twice .... I have degenerated into zombie-mode at the mo, so completely incapable of assimilating any more education on anyting at all! Sorry about that, but there ya go! ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - therefore the below may now be redundant...but I'd typed it, so here it is...
Ah, I see. I thought you were asking about that specific reference, because it wasn't displaying correctly (it actually said "publisher=..." in the ref, because the citation template was missing).
But for using different pages of the same book - there are several ways of dealing with that. The current format you've used is OK; there is no right-and-wrong.
Probably the best is to use "Harvard-style" references. Whether it is worthwhile on that specific article...I'm not sure - if it's only a couple of books, and has a lot of web-based references, it is a bit debatable.
Dartmoor Pony is far from ideal, because the web references on that one actually lack details, such as author, date, access-date, and so on. And when you have a lot of web references (long), mixed with a few short-form references, it can look a bit odd.
Anyway - you can take a look at a guide I wrote, User:Chzz/help/harvard. If you wanted to try using that style, or if you want me to convert it to that, just let me know; I don't mind doing it. If it was my choice, I think I probably would convert it to Harvard refs...if only because, as articles develop (in quality), they usually use more and more book refs. It does depend on the subject though.
If you would, that would be so good of you! Provided that I don't come back to it later with more refs and *uck it all up again, of course! I am trying to learn stuff as fast as I can, but the brain occasionaly goes completely on strike and I sit there like a lemon staring uncomprehendingly at a screen full of stuff with which I can do absolutely nothing constructive! ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll do it ASAP; I don't suppose it is too urgent, so it might be in a few days - when I get time :-)
Fucking things up is entirely fine, and appropriate, on a wiki. That's why we have the 'undo' button. I certainly make my fair share of mistakes, as do many others.
Harvard refs are very nice - and easy once-you-know-how, kinda thing. I wouldn't normally mention them to a new-ish user like yourself, but you have managed to pick everything up at an astonishing rate, so...might as well do things properly. Harv refs aren't worthwhile for all articles, however they're certainly used on most FA's.
Incidentally - and fairly unrelated - I just remembered, I wrote an article about the Emperor of Exmoor, some time ago! Probably sadly out of date. My aim, when I wrote it, was for it to feature in In The News - but sadly, the death of England's largest exeunt mammal wasn't seen as 'significant news' - see the discussion here. I also didn't get a response from emailing the photographer, seeking a nice piccie. But you can't win 'em all! Cheers, Chzz ► 23:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I bet the Emperor was descended from the Zombie Elk. On another note: You 'get time'? Jeeze, how on Earth do you manage to achieve that one, then? I have been trying to 'get time' for ages! Ta for that lovely comment about my learning rate :o) As a WikiWolfcub, I have been incredibly fortunate to find an adopter with outstanding leadership skills in Montanabw, which has helped. I am also an obsessive-compulsive-learner-of-things, which I guess also helps, lol! I know you don;t go in for user boxes on your page, but as I have to consider you to be a joint-adopter, maybe you could make an exception and add the "I adopted a WikiWolfcub" to your page :o) {{User wikipedia/AdoptAWolfcub}} I feel that your heroic/angelic efforts in Cub-training deserve recognition - and I am truly thankful for all the help you've provided to me ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Please don't be offended, but I just don't "do" userboxes. Partly because of WP:NOTMYSPACE, and partly because of all the userbox wars (that link shows some; there have been lots more). Mostly though, it's because we have a vast number of new users who spend most/all their time fiddling with their user page, and never edit articles. I'm absolutely not talking about you; you're doing great stuff, and indeed many great users have nice user pages.
And sort-of-related, I've never gone in for the official-type adoption stuff. Anyone can ask me anything on my talk-page - and as you can see, many people do - but I don't see a need to formalise it.
Please see User talk:T.Allen221. An article does not have to "demonstrate" notability to pass CSD A7. It merely has to indicate or assert in some credible manner that there is some degree of importance or significance. IPlease see the text at WP:CSD I agree the article you are referring to should be speedily deleted, and I did delete it. The advice you gave for how to make a proper article was correct, but it is important to give precise information about our guidelines to new users. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of the A7 criteria. It was a slight simplification, to help make it clearer. Considering they'd had other messages, spouting lots of complex instructions, I think it was entirely appropriate. Note, the specific decline reason was stated directly above. It is perfectly true to say that, had their article had independent reliable sources, then it would not have been speedy deleted. Chzz ► 22:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone goes to a restaurant, and is told, "I'm sorry, you cannot enter because you are not wearing a tie". They go home, get a tie, return, and are then told, "Sorry, you need to wear a tie and a jacket"...maybe that person will not bother going back a third time. Chzz ► 22:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sage advice, as ever, Chzz, and a thoughtful example I'll be happy to steal :). Yet another reason why you should request admin tools. Pedro : Chat 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I hasten to emphasize; I am not criticizing DGG at all - who would have made it quite clear that both jacket and tie were required. It's just that many new users do not follow what we (more experienced users) might see as perfectly transparent guidance - in that specific case, they'd got the message, [It was deleted] because the article [..] does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable - so you'd imagine that would be enough; but apparently it is not. Chzz ► 22:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we want to encourage the new user to make the article so it will stay in Wikipedia , not to make one that will just barely pass speedy and get promptly deleted at AfD. I also agree that just using the templates is not much help to the inexperienced, who see them as the boilerplate they are and rarely read them carefully--not that I blame them, for they are designed to cover all possible situations, not the actual specific problem. The advice I normally give in such situations, is some personalized version of " The article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. You also need to write like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise [whatever], say what it does.. Don't talk about the overall importance of the subject--talk about what it has accomplished. Remember not to copy from a web site -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable." adding when necessary "Please do not reinsert the article until you have such sources." and also, if it seems necessary,"unless you do have sources, the article will be very likely to be deleted in a community discussion." My version is CC-0, you may use & adapt it without attributing. If you can improve it, I'd be grateful. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
... howling, pant-wetting, side-splitting little gems like the Notorious Prehistoric Zombie Elk? I was truly reluctant to go fix it! If it could reduce others to the fits of hysterical giggles it had me in, it shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity, I feel. After all, laughter is so good for us :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Zombie elks. Avoid.
Superb; nice one. Thanks for sharing it with me!
Not completely sure where you could save it; there might be something in Wikipedia:BJAODN#Other funny stuff, or you could just quote it on your user page, if you wanted. Or use it as the start of a nice user essay about the dangers of poor grammar!
I posted the pic here because...well, it's not entirely an appropriate subject for humour, I suppose, but still: after working for about 30+ hours straight on 2008 Sichuan earthquake, as it happened (it was edited a lot, like, 10 times a minute)...I started to feel like the "Elk was staring at me" Chzz ► 23:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am still getting the giggles every time I think about it - just can't get that picture out of my mind .... the poor dead remains of that animal, struggling out of its mirey grave, and shambling off across the countryside (moaning, as zombies do) to try and evade the latest batch of zombie-hunting hominids! ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
Describing Pi
Construction of a Square
Constuction of a Hexagon
Using a Calipher
Creating a Sierpinski Triangle
Doing... Chzz ► 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org - they'll be happy to advise.
