Jump to content

User talk:Chuckiesdad/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Maus

Look at page 13 of the first book. Most characters with as small parts as Lucia look just like everybody else. 64.81.59.139 (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback. Here's my train of thought: the edit was anonymous, there was no edit summary, no reference cited, and the topic was large breasts. My note on the editor's talk page was a request to cite sources. You are welcome to revise the article if I'm in error about the content. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Unpleasantries have now been changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by LautaroSosa (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Draft Dodger

I was the person that edited the "Draft Dodger" entry because the entire article is fraught with inaccuracies. I provided a valid citation for the fact that it is a myth that minorities were over represented in relation in either those that served in Vietnam or those killed. Even the Washington Post did an article on this subject when the Vietnam Memorial (The Wall) was dedicated. Very little in the article is true and nothing has a valid citation so why do you not just take down the entire entry? As a Vietnam era Draftee that attended OCS as a "US" and went to Vietnam as a very young 2LT and extended to come home a mature CPT, I have researched this subject. I take it as a personal affront that someone would misrepresented the facts and pass it off as true. -- Just take down the entire page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.199.18 (talk • contribs) 08:17, Nov 9, 2008 (UTC)

  • Good question. This is a contentious article, and there is extensive discussion on the Talk page on several aspects of it. That Talk page is the best forum for raising issues like yours, and by posting your comments there, you should be able to draw the attention of others who have an interest in the topic (pro or con). Unfortunately, working out these discussions in the main body of the article instead of the Talk page makes it confusing to the Wikipedia reader. You can also raise the lack of references there as well, or make the citations yourself if you like. I make no judgements about your content, just the forum for arriving at consensus (article vs: talk page). Regarding deletion, once an article is created, it takes community consensus and some solid reasons to remove it, see WP:DELETE. Best regards, and thanks for your contributions - Chuckiesdad (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't sound as if your research has included fleeing to Canada or being imprisoned by the US military, which some of the other contributors have experienced. I personally feel that some of your cites would be valuable additions to the article if you would incorporate them in a scholarly fashion, but simply deleting everything you don't agree with will not stick. It is too easy for others to simply revert your edits. As Chuckiesdad says, the discussion page is the place for working out conflicts, and it is possible for conflicting views to coexist in the article if they are presented in a dispassionate way. It would be a good idea to register a cognomen too, as "98.169.199.18" is not going to bring your contributions any recognition. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Best regards, Húsönd 10:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, I just happened to catch it during R/C patrol. Chuckiesdad (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Process question

I believe that blatant, obvious vandalism should be reverted whether it's on an article page or the article's talk page. What that user was doing was obviously vandalism and I would revert and warn the user. Hope this helps! --DA Skunk - (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Every case is unique. In this situation, I have no personal interest in the articles in question, and wasn't watching them at all. The user asked on my talk page to look into it, I checked out the IP that he told me about, it passed the WP:DUCK test, and so I blocked it. It was plainly clear this was the same user. While cleaning up, I noticed the a new IP in the same basic range (it was in the same /20 CIDR range) doing the same edits. A /20 only covers 4000 IP addresses (a VERY small range). Trust me, two people within that small of an IP range don't randomly start doing the exact same edits to the same articles. After years of doing this sort of work, you learn how to interpret a combination of behavioral and techincal information to understand what is going on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grouchstink. I started this as a way of slowing this guy down. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tables

No, I don't think you can copy spreadsheet info straight into a table. You have to format the table manually. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!

Thanks for doing such great work on Oh Boy Records. It was a much needed article, and you've given it a great start! Happy editing, Kingturtle (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheesytt

Your welcome. ALso keep an eye out for any username that starts with Cheesy. It seems that CheesyTT is a sockpuppet of User:Cheesetree, which I blocked yesterday. --wL<speak·check> 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Spreading resistance profiling.

I just wanted to say. "Thank you" for the moment. I will try to tweak my article soon.

Best regards, Rogerprocessengineer (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

spreading resistance profiling

I want to add a sub-section at the end of the article (just above references actually). Do I need submit everything again? Thanks, Rogerprocessengineer (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Renaissancee (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to delete all the references or was that an mistake on the Aquila constellation?

Edit:Alright, have fun, and thanks for contributing! Renaissancee (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Gold Prospecting-Recreational

RE: Your disruptive editing. Within minutes of my posting about a subject you have no expertise in you deleted all my hours of research and editing without even discussing this with me first. If you had a gun we would say you are light on the trigger. This seems very rude and dictatorial. What if I did that to you on your area of expertise (music)? If you want to be the "chief editor" why can't we discuss your hasty deletions first? Your reason for deleting my work so quickly is that I listed no sources. Please explain. I am the source along with the references I listed that you also deleted. If there is a more appropriate way to list sources let me know how instead of just deleting my work.

You did not follow the rules about major deletions like you did and reach concensus with me first.

I believe my work was helpful, impartial, and informative. I request you immediately undo your edits on my work and discuss this with me first. (...redaction of contact info left by this user...Chuckiesdad (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)) Eighthcreek (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eighthcreek (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

-Chuckiesdad, thanks for your reply. I think you made a valid point about making a new section that deals with the hobby aspect of prospecting but shouldn't that be in the Individual section already present? You said my edits lacked sources. Can't I be the source? I noticed the entire article lists no references/sources. Why did you only delete my edits for having no source? When you did your revert what keeps this from being an edit war if I go back an do a revert? I don't plan on doing a whole revert, I am just curious. I wish you would have made specific edits instead of an entire revert. Why did not not try to reach concensus first? You are very good and powerful at this editing and I want to learn. Eighthcreek (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello again, Eighthcreek! I thought it would be easier to follow if we keep the conversation on one talk page. You raise some good questions, let me see if I can address them all.
  1. The premise of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, and I strongly encourage you to keep it up. The corollary is that anyone can modify, update or even reverse previous edits. It's all about continually improving the Wikipedia at a rate of literally thousands of edits by thousands of editors each minute. It's not personal, and you can't take it personally. We've all had work that we thought was really good reverted or significantly altered by the next editor. If there is a disagreement, consensus (not majority) rules.
  2. If you don't think my edits are in the best interest of the Wiki, then please modify or revert them. Other editors may agree or disagree with you, or make further modifications. Good-faith changes are not edit wars. Escalation is prevented by talking (and thanks for continuing this conversation, by the way), by not taking things personally, by the involvement of other editors, and finally by the three-revert rule. Again, consensus rules.
  3. The edit summaries (visible on the history page) are meant to show an editor's reasons for an edit. A good edit without a summary may be reverted if other editors don't understand why it was done. A good explanation here can help. Also, you can use under construction templates that ask other editors to overlook minor problems for a time. You can also make edits to a sandbox until you are ready to paste them to an article.
  4. References are a pain, but necessary. I may be the world's leading expert in a topic, but if I haven't published it somewhere that you can find it, it doesn't count for a Wiki article. And as the Wikipedia:Introduction page says, edits without references are routinely removed.
So I really wasn't picking on you, but I'm sure it felt that way. I hope this helps, and best regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are external links and references being removed from gemstone and alexandrite? Khazargems, though a commercial site, it also has valid information regarding gems. We request you to stop deleting the links. We know of the standards of wikipedia and so we never give links into any commercial page but only to pages having valid information.
Earnestbirdy (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Please see WP:SPAMMER for guidelines on practices to avoid, including adding the same link to many articles. Addition of text to articles, with appropriate linked references, is welcome. Addition of just links, especially the same link repeatedly, will raise a flag. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this information. I am new to wikipedia editing. Anyway I want to know what if I give links to same site but to different pages just where the pages are relevant to wikipedia? I believe this wont be spamming or is it? Earnestbirdy (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this spamming?

Thank you for the information. I am new to wikipedia editing. Anyway I want to know what if I give links to same site but to different pages just where the pages are relevant to wikipedia? I believe this wont be spamming or is it? Also some information sites have ads etc. Will it be spamming if they are used as external link or references? Please reply and dont just keep deleting. Earnestbirdy (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Good questions! It's not just the site, it's what you add to the article and how you add it. Here is some good advice quoted from WP:SPAMMER, especially the first one:

2. Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia—not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?...
5. Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar. There are certain stylistic behaviors that will say "spam!" loud and clear to anyone who's watching, [like:] Adding the same link to many articles or many wikis. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button.

I hope this helps, and happy editing! Chuckiesdad (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Omar Amanat

thank you for intervening. This Omar Amanat article has had a long discussion section and I was trying to reach out to wiki admins RadioKirk or Nick Boalch but they are on Wikiadmin leave. "Omartruth" is violating NPOV and making wikipedia a soapbox, posting poorly sourced, potentially libelous information. Happy that you are now involved. ClaimResolve (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC) ClaimsResolve


Please intervene on Omar Amanat article on troll "Omartruth" and I reccomend blocking his further engaging in edit wars in violation of the 3 edit rule. This Omar Amanat article has had a long history of discussion and these issues have been dealt with in the past.J araneo (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC) J araneo 

to enage in discussion.

Hi, re Robert Hutchinson, I noticed you did a cut and paste move from that location to Robert J. Hutchinson. While I can see what you were trying to do, the problem is that it messes with the history and the page may no longer meet its own obligations under GFDL. Normally moving to the correct location would be the best solution, but in a complicated case such as this where there was two divergent histories, the best way is to ask an admin, who can split them (rather crudely) as I have done so that the histories are somewhat preserved. I think I stuffed one diff up but it is linked anyway.

The other thing was just regarding delinking on the list of Western Australian politicians. A better solution would have been disambiguation. The lists were created quite a long time ago and, at the time they were created, there was no article at all by that name on Wikipedia. Delinking things on lists creates headaches for list maintainers and should only ever be done if the item is clearly *not* notable — for example, a primary school or a person who would fail WP:BIO if created. When more than one person exists on Wikipedia by a given name it's generally preferable to disambiguate all of them if there is no clear primary use - in this case both the Australian and Canadian ones were minor politicians and the author would be unknown outside the realm of apologetics.

Hope this finds you well and that you're having a happy New Year. :) Orderinchaos 05:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • My sincere apologies for not getting this right. Thanks for the clear feedback, and thanks for cleaning up my mess. I see you've already taken care of everything including the (un)delinks and the new article for Robert Hutchinson (Australian politician). I was not aware of WP:Requested moves process and didn't think a move would work, but I will remember to ask for advice in future. Hope I didn't cause a lot of extra work. Happy New Year, and best regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi, thanks for your help on my editing today. I created a new page called Jones Lectureship, describing an esteemed teaching position at Stanford: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Lectureship

I wanted to create a redirect to the Jones Lectureship page by creating a page called Jones Lecturer, as the position at stanford is normally called, but I'm new and I don't think i made the redirect right. It would be a useful redirect as many authors cite this honor in their biographies as "Jones Lecturer" rather than "Jones Lectureship." Can you help me? thanks, --Roms69 (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi I noticed my link to rstatx.com is being deleted from the r-programming article? I don't understand my link seems to have relevant content like the links above?Rstatx (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing, but please see the guidelines at Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer and WP:EL#ADV. Regards, Chuckiesdad 05:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
More importantly potential self promotion --Zven (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)





New

I'm new to the whole editing on Wiki, could you explain whats spam, and whats not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickoftheDead (talk • contribs) 04:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi NickoftheDead, I'll post a longer welcome on your talk page with some helpful links on this. Regarding the Gasherbrum I article edits, the combination of your section heading of 'Turds' and the bogus website in the 'References' section added up an edit that didn't improve the article. For info on avoiding spam, please see wp:spam. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you undo my speedy deletion? My page is completely logical for a curious mind.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthematt2013 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 February 2009

My Account

Thank you for your concern, but this is my first Wikipedia account. I do not own nor have ever had access to the account you referenced to; Adamstanton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam J Stanton (talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I have noticed some people reverting for vandalism, which is incorrect. :)

Reverting for cause (with clear explanation) is another matter. In any case, I have already made a note in my list of special attention items. (I.E., it is not just a matter of differences of opinion.)

But thanks. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Al Gore

(First, the Triana satellite is not the only information being reverted, but anyway:)

Regarding the Triana satellite, I have added a list-comment on the talk page to clarify why just sticking that uncontextualized negative noise at the bottom of the section is not appropriate. There is a sentence that could be added higher up in the article. The editor in question should guided towards addressing those concerns rather than continuing to reinsert information inappropriately.

I have also left a note on their talk page, suggesting they read the talk page discussion regarding the issue etc.

BOTTOM LINE: Yes, the 3RR issue is trickier than most. And yes, you are right, they will probably have to be stopped by reporting them for 3RR. (Thinking) As long as other patrollers will revert it one more time, I've handled two of them. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! (Sure does slow down patrolling, doesn't it? lol) Beers! Proofreader77 (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thank you

You are so welcome, and I'm sure you'd do the same for me :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sam Houston State University

Id say being the school and confernece record holder along with an appearance at the ncaa div 1 championships as a sophomore warrents notable. put chris "plowfish" cralle back up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jes031 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of relevant info

In regards to your removal of my postings to the Meredith Willson page. You mentioned that the North Iowa Band Festival had no relevance to Willson. Please read the history of the festival on this page and reconsider leaving my additions. http://nibandfest.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=31

Thanks.

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttingd (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Willson is certainly relevant to the band festival, and if you are writing an article about the festival, it would be appropriate to mention him. On the other hand, if you feel the festival is relevant to the article about Willson's life, I would recommend incorporating that information into the body of the article and using the festival website as a reference rather than a bald external link. Please see WP:ELNO # 13 for more guidelines. Best regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

+ Thanks for the comment about photo uploading permission. I wasn't permission in that sense, since I took the photo, but rather that wikipedia doesn't give me permission to upload, I apparently need more User rights first. Polaroidforever (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)polaroidforever

Reversion of article on Sangharakshita

Hi,

Thanks for your message about my edit on Sangharakshita, which I am planning as the first of many. You state the reason for removal as "lack of proper sources" / source only a blog, but in fact the additions I made are directly suported by articles in (and were referenced by me to) a paper publication called Shabda. So as far as I can see the additions I made are perfectly legal.

In fact if you look at the rest of the article there are no atributions/references at all! By the criteria you state ie "lack of proper sources" -my text is about the only text on the page that meets Wikipedias standards.

Would you please reinstate my edits?


Thanks


TBP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebuddhaspiece (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Greetings, Thebuddhaspiece. Please see the standards for biographical articles at WP:LIVE, which state in part: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material... Your only source for your edits was an article on a blog, with the front page containing the following disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the contributors and are not necessarily shared by the site sponsor. The sponsor makes no warranty as to the accuracy or correctness of any information contained here. This does not pass the test for a reliable source, let alone the higher hurdle of a source for a biography. WP:GRAPEVINE calls for immediate removal of this type of contribution. You will need a better source. Regards,

Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 19:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi Again,

Did you bother to read what I wrote above? The source is Shabda, a publication which is circulated in paper form. The source is NOT a blog and I have provided a reference to the printed edition of that publication. I am finding it difficult to understand how you are able to misinterpret what I have written so completely. I continue to assume this is not willful and that you are acting in good faith.

Could you please reinstate my edits?

Thanks

TBP Thebuddhaspiece (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Yes, thanks, I did read carefully your comments above, and I trust you have read the guidelines as well. If you are still interested in restoring your edits, you can find instructions here, and we'll let other editors weigh in. Best regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks too for the instructions as how to revert. I would welcome other editors getting involved as, at the moment, the article is almost completely unreferenced and seems to present a very incomplete and one sided view of Sangharakshita. I hope we can work together to produce a fair and balanced (and completely referenced) article.

TBP

Thebuddhaspiece (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chuckiesdad/Archive_1&oldid=1142932171"