Jump to content

User talk:Chzz/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

XXRonaldo007XX

Hi. How do you get the pictures you uploaded onto my article?XXRonaldo007XX (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


RE

Ok my mistake, but the Motru Coal Mine shouldn't be linked to the Motru Coal Field in the article National Company of Lignite Oltenia because the coal field containes several mines not only the Motru Coal Mine. Mario1987 12:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Too Beautiful to Live

I just wanted to let you know that your post at User talk:Orangemike was deleted (perhaps inadvertently) by a subsequent editor posting about a different topic, and I am not aware that User:Orangemike has yet responded. I'm not sure if it's my place to put back the deleted post, so I thought I should tell you instead. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd already commented once on the AfD discussion, and have done so once more since; don't know what you mean by deafening silence. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
First, sorry if that sounded snappy; I was having a bad day.
Now, whhat I meant - I guess there was a misunderstanding. Aside from the AfD issue, my question on your talk was enquiring for a reasoning as to why you reverted my restoration of that fancruft on the article.
I stumbled on the 'issues' with the article by mistake, read through what had happened, and decided to see if I could tidy things up a bit. I thought it unfair to just scrap all of that material, as I thought something could be made of it, and I was prepared to put the effort in and try to clean it up. There was nothing terrible about it, so I put it back [[here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Too_Beautiful_to_Live&oldid=273003132], and said 'see talk'. I put an explanation of what I was trying to do in talk, but before I could even make a start on improvements, you reverted my edit.
I then asked on your talk why you'd reverted it, but didn't get a response.
Whilst the AfD was in progress, I wanted to make a concientious attempt to rectify the issues with the page; that was my intent as I explained in the talk.
I was unable to do that, as the material had gone. OK, I could get the older version, but many people were working on the article.
Sometimes AfD nominated articles are hacked to death, either before of shortly after nomination, which doesn't then give others (in collaboration) to work through the issues and try to improve.
Lets be clear here - I have absolutely no interest in the topic, I'd never heard of it before; I just felt that others were being somewhat harsh in their demands to zap it, and wanted to try and help make it a worthwhile contribution, if possible.
I hope that clarifies, and thus my question to you was, why did you revert that specific edit, regardless of AfD. I think I'd demonstrated, through my elucidation in the talk, that I was acting in good faith; when you did that revert, and then didn't explain yourself, I gave up on bothering about the article.
Thanks for your time,
--  Chzz  ►  05:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The vast bulk of that stuff was presskit/fansite trivia about the DJs' online personae and the like. It simply was not and is not encyclopedic content, but rather belongs on a fansite somewhere. I certainly never meant to accuse you of bad faith in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

JM Pryse

[Chzz wrote:] Your newly created article on James Morgan Pryse is just too short at the moment, so it doesn't establish notability. I did a quick web search, and it looks like it would be possible to make it a useful article. Are you able to expand it?

Yes. However, I only lately discovered him after finding out various works I referred to for 11 years were either influenced by him or mostly paraphrase him without saying so. What I found of his own books are too difficult for me to write more on tonight or until I have a long amount of free time (maybe even after the school term.) I wrote equally small articles in the past and no one said anything... of course, I expanded those. I will consider expanding this one--his works are just difficult: I could just do more biography (more exists on answers.com.)Dchmelik (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
[Chzz wrote:] OK, no worries. Thanks for the prompt response. Sometimes - quite often - tiny articles are created and never expanded; there's a lot of junk little stubs on wiki. However, my Google search told me there was some substance to this one.
Thanks. Actually I added some info based on answers.com (books which I have seen in Worldcat, and saying 'writer' before 'Gnostic.') I am unsure this is enough: I had not written biographical articles here until recently....Dchmelik (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Selçuk özdemir

An article that you have been involved in editing, Selçuk özdemir, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selçuk özdemir. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at DFS454's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DFS454 (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

FLAC

Hi there,

Thanks for the help in getting the page started. I am new to this. I dug up a book on FLAC which backs up the info I got from their website. Also, I noted their involvement in some landmark Irish law cases, would this be sufficient for "notability"?

One more thing, I am not quite sure how to upload photos to wikipedia. Both FLAC's website and the FLAC society in University College Cork's website have the logo.

Again, thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fintanmon (talk • contribs) 10:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The book won't help 'coz it was written by FLAC. You need independent stuff - like a mention in a newspaper, mainstream press. I don't know if you'll have anything, so it might be tricky.
The big cases would certainly help the article - but not in the header. The part about "recently obtained" - avoid saying recently, because it will change. Use facts, give dates. And say where you got the information from.
Re. uploading pictures, see Wikipedia:Uploading images but note that new users have to wait 4 days to have their account confirmed.
--  Chzz  ►  10:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, added references to two Newspaper articles about FLAC from the Irish Times, and linked to a court report on an ECHR case. My chief goal right now is to get enough solid content approved to avoid danger of deletion, then start adding more bit by bit. Fintanmon (talk • contribs) 12:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Prod Overseas Indonesian

I hope to respond within 48 hours (due to overcommitted real life) at some length regardless of what happens - cheers (btw not necessarily defending the article or the prod but alerting to a range of issues relative to the Indonesian project and articles like this) SatuSuro 10:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a number of Indonesian project issues to deal with at the moment with very limited time - It has become common where Indonesian editors will add material - and get it deleted and they simply will not use talk at all- to either defend or even respond either in english or Indonesian. Possibly a cultural issue for some - they will not use the english they have ( I had during my fieldwork in Java an assistant who refused to speak english with me even though he had to use it for his university work :( ) probably because of a shame/embarrassment issue which I noted can do some weird things in interaction when living there. I have tried with the editor of Overseas Indonesians to invite discussion - and got not a single word. I wouldnt expect any response if I were you. For the moment however I do hope this is intelligble for your understanding of why you might not get any response. SatuSuro 14:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Although some expansion continues (including linking) I am beginning to lose it with silent editors - I may well ask some admins to monitor a few with view to some checking on issues of being uncooperative in that we have no explanation what they are up to - I am not sure whether it is a perverse sense of invulnerability if they remain silent or not or what SatuSuro 04:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean about lack of feedback. I only flagged the article because I couldn't see a value to it; The term itself seems like WP:OR to me - it's a bit arbitrary. You could have a page about any ethnic group that lives overseas - even 'overseas' is objective - what about Malaysian Borneo, for a start?
Anyway - I explained my thoughts in the prod, we shall see what happens. I guess if people don't argue, we have to imply no objections and zap it. I don't get a kick from removing pages, but if it can't be made constructive, it should go.
Thanks for your inputs, --  Chzz  ►  06:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor merrily edits in Indonesia project articles and shows no sign of making any contact at talk with anyone about anything - brilliant evasiveness is classicaly meant to be a great attribute in the javanese cultural sphere - but it doesnt bode well for the ed in wikipedia :( - I hope he/she realise there might be a consequence for such silence SatuSuro 09:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your complaint on my editor review

Hi there. I responded to your complaints on my editor review located at Wikipedia:Editor review/SoWhy 2. Regards SoWhy 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Eastwood

Reading the FA criteria can give a conceptual understanding of what is required of wikipedia's best articles, but it's best to gain practical experience, GAN is a good forum for this, although the perennial back log means articles can go for weeks without review. At the moment the article fails the comprehensive (1b) criterion. For example, there is much more that can be said about a town's demography than just its population growth. There's an example of what can be done at Sale, Greater Manchester#Demography (admittedly the article is a GA rather than a FA); more information needs to be added, and statistics.gov is a good resourece for this (the spreadsheets used in the Sale article are very good). Also, I would expect an economy section. WP:UKCITIES will have some suggestions for what could go in it, and I'd integrate the recent developments section into it.

There are positive aspects of the article: I like the history section, and I suspect that for a town of 18,000 people it won't get much bigger; also . However there are some instances of what appears to be editorial comment. For example, "This industrialisation of the countryside was only restricted from the early 19th century, when, somewhat belatedly, the effect of the Enclosures began to be felt in Nottinghamshire", the "somewhat belatedly" sounds like the editor who wrote that part is making their own judgement. Why was it belated? Enclosure was introduced in the early 19th century, so why the proclamation that it was belated in Notts? It would be best to lay out the facts and allow the reader to arrive at their own conclusion. I've left these comments here rather than on the FAC page as I've made my concerns clear there and I don't want to pile on. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nev1 sums up what needs to be done pretty well. The article needs an Economy section and the lists, short one-sentence paragraphs, and short subsections need to be sorted out. I too would recommend taking this to WP:GAN before trying at FAC again. Blyth might be a good example for you take a look at. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to self re climate; see Campuses_of_the_University_of_Nottingham#Climate

Lydia Foy

Hi there,

Thanks for the help on the FLAC article. The personal attention is appreaciated. Had a quick look over the Foy article. It looks good, but watch out for a couple of things.

1. - In your introduction when you refer to the clash between Irish and European Law the link directs the reader to EU law. The ECHR is actually entirely seperate from EU law and its court is distinct from the ECJ. Its a common misconception that they the ECHR is an EU treaty.

2. - The government are currently considering whether to appeal the High Court decision to the Supreme Court.

I will hopefully find some time this week to tweek the FLAC article a little more. I am still getting to grips with the code, etc. for editing so I am still quite slow at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fintanmon (talk • contribs) 12:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that.

1 - can you suggest what it should read (or better yet, fix it yourself)?

2. I've got some more info to add about the more recent developments, which I will incorporate ASAP.

Re. FLAC, if you have any specific things you want to add, put 'em on the articles talk page. If you've any questions about how to do things, feel free to ask me here.

I will try to look over FLAC within the next few days.

Cheers,

--  Chzz  ►  12:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Red cunt hair

I have nominated Red cunt hair, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:41, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC) 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your discussion about the abbreviated form is insightful and the type of information that moves the article forward from a mere definition (as some have stated it is). Maybe it should be added to the article to give it significance and relevance.--Buster7 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If you ever are having trouble at AFD with an article of this editorial quality keep in mind the WP:ARS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Grindcore

Thanks for the tip. I know a fellow editor that could do just that. Cheers. Musicaindustrial (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: OnMobile

Re your message: Yes, I believe that the article can be cleaned up and there is some claim for notability as the links on the bottom of the article are valid. Who will clean up the article, I have no idea. I will not be listing the article for AfD, as I am under no obligation to do so. Admins who decline speedy deletions are not obligated to take the declined article to the appropriate deletion discussion or even edit the article. You are welcome to take the article to AfD or completely ignore it. It is entirely up to you what you wish to do. As for my track record on spam, if you look at my block and delete log, you will see that I am more than willing to block spam accounts and repeatedly delete spam articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit did much more than "remove unref'd". You gutted the entire article including referenced items, links to articles about the company which could be used as references, and the company's website, leaving barely a stub. If you have a problem with the article and want it deleted, take it to AfD, do not just more or less blank the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Re your messages: What I reverted was essentially your blanking of the article with a inaccurate edit summary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Re your message: I believe that everything that I have now restored has a proper reference. The article is far from complete, but it is much better than it was before. I will look into filling out more of the article at a later time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I hereby and with a smile award you this barnstar for your recognition HERE of "the transitory and every-changing bastian of opinion and subjectiveness" Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

About Food waste in the United Kingdom

Perhaps you should assume good faith and scroll up a bit to see why I put it under review but haven't created the page? I disagree with your findings, as you said you did a "quick look" at the article. I, quite unlike some GA editors, do detail reviews (which means it will take some time) even on GA. Looking at the pdf files, I am impressed with the depth and quality of the references. This made me wonder what is in your agenda when you said you want "to see a more balanced viewpoint". Does that mean you're trying to push your own POV by (ironically) citing NPOV? Also, I don't sit in front of computer 12 hours a day and spent all of those hours on Wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

EEK, sorry I spoke! Guess I misunderstood 'Comments welcome'! --  Chzz  ►  16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I just have a nasty temper when people start rushing me to complete goals/objectives. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I was in no way trying to rush you. I was flicking through GAN's, and took a quick look. I wanted to add my thoughts. I have no POV on the subject, no agenda to push. My comments were with the best of intentions to improve the article. I mentioned that the comments page had not been created because, as it's procedural, I thought it an omission or mistake - and it does make it difficult for others to add their thoughts regarding the GA nom.
Good luck with it, --  Chzz  ►  16:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If you leave the message and comments on the talk page of the article I'll be happy to address them. As it is I can't myself respond very effectively on someone else's talk page. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Review can be found at Talk:Food waste in the United Kingdom OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Nobre

I see someone has answered your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Nobre. He holds some posts, including President of the Portuguese Society of Clinical Sexology, and has received some awards. This lifts him out of being a speedy delete candidate. Please read WP:SPEEDY, particularly A7, which is "a lower standard than notability". You said "there are no refs". Per A7: "even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". Ty 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Masturbation

What? I never said that. This is the diff - the only edit summary I regularly use with 'inappropriate' is 'rm inappropriate fair use', according to my dropdown I have never used 'this image is completely inappropriate'. Care to link to evidence? — neuro(talk) 10:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what's happened here. I didn't add the second speedy tag, as shown here. You can see who added what in the page history. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 10:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any AfD, but meh. :) — neuro(talk) 12:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Faith in Place rewritten

Hi, this article has been rewritten, if you could please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in Place to see if your concerns have been addressed. If not I would be happy to address any outstanding issues. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 10:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Editorial work

I am still looking to work with you on Fountain of Time I was just moving the discussion to someplace where others might get involved. Feel free to continue with your guidance. I have started Wikipedia:Peer review/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive1‎. I will be continuing to work on the article. Hopefully, over the course of the month while this is at PR interested persons can get it cleaned up enough for FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please continue all thought relating to the FoT on the A-Class review. Let's continue any unresolved stuff from the talk page there. Don't worry about polluting the discussion. A good discussion includes lots of constructive criticism. As per WP:LEAD, there are two types of LEADs. Either fully cited or fully uncited is fine. Whichever way you choose lots of people will tell you to do the other. Just remind them that the key is that all facts be cited. Either in the LEAD or the main body of the text. If you choose to cite the lead you must cite all contestable facts stated therein. You can't just cite half the stuff in the lead. Either all or nothing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Please comment on the A-Class discussion page. In order to encourage you I am ignoring your discussion of the fountain on my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

mispelling in bot repair

Hi,

The bot you just used has incorrectly capitalized "milliarcsecond". kwami (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Replacing/adding new images

Hi Chzz,

Have a question about replacing/adding images. Can I replace an existing image with the one I have uploaded? I mean, if we feel that our image is more relevant or better? For example, I want to add this Neem Tree leaves close up shot, exhibiting Pinnate Venation. Also, another good resolution picture of the tree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neem_leaves_Neem_Leaves.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neem_Tree_Thendral.JPG

Is there any restriction to the number of images an article can have?

Thanks Thendral (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you upload image with the same name as an existing image, it replaces it. Be careful - check at the bottom of the image page to see which articles and pages are using the image. It's usually best to avoid using the same name unless it really is just another version of the same picture - perhaps a better resolution of the same image, for example.

In the case you mention, and most cases, you should upload it under a new name, and then edit the article(s) to change the name of the image to the new one - that way, the old image remains available in the library for others to use, and if someone objects they can easily change it back.

I should also mention that copyright is very important for images - if it's your own work, that's no problem - otherwise it must have a free to use licence. If it doesn't, it will be deleted quite quickly.

It's good to be WP:BOLD. However, if you're not confident about a change - and especially if the page is popular and frequently updated - consider discussing your idea first on the articles talk page.

There is no defined limit on images, like most things on wikipedia there are just guidelines, and there are no rules. Try to keep a balance between pictures and text - use pictures that will make the text easier to understand, not just because they're pretty. Captions can help with this too. Some articles have an image gallery; have a look at Fountain of Time, which I've been recently helping to get to a Good Article status. There's a gallery towards the end of the page. (Oh, and feel free to help improve the article if you can - we're trying to get an A rating now!)

I hope that answers your questions,

Cheers! --  Chzz  ►  06:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Cellebrum_Technologies_Limited which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Images reply - Thank you

Hello Chzz,

Thank you so much for your prompt reply! Well, sure I will have a look at Fountain of Time, and make my contribution to it wherever possible. Thank you once again Chzz. Cheers Thendral (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Imposter

Someone's trying to copy your signature :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't spot the link in the smiley above! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in Place

Just a note that an article whose AfD you commented in is now the topic of a Deletion for Review discussion. Deor (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

tables

Thanks! I'll give it a go and see if it will do what I want. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC) (As I'm trying to wrap a show/hide around an existing table, it may not achieve what I'm after ... )

Yeah, unfortunately you'd have to rewrite the whole table using HTML style instead of template.

It is a known problem; that link I gave shows that the table template can give problems when nested with other templates.

If you don't manage a solution, let me know and I'll have a look at the article.

--  Chzz  ►  13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll absorb the data you've presented me with, have a play, see what the implications are, and then get back to you.
Not requesting that you do anything yet, but just so you get the idea of what I'm trying to do, (and why), the military-history-wiki-purists-who-like-creating-A-class articles do not like displays of medal ribbons in articles and want them removed. (examples: Peter Cosgrove#Awards, Frederick Scherger#Honours and awards, Angus Houston#Honours and awards, etc. - there are many such pages.) One approach that has been suggested is that the contents of the mentioned sections be put in show/hide sections. (example: The show/hide in the infobox at User:Ian Rose/Drafts.) I'd like to try the option of putting the whole contents of the section in a show/hide box at the bottom of the page, but as you are aware, I'm suffering "technical hitches".
Well, it's past midnight here; I'm retiring for the evening. Thanks for your interest and help. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for waking me up. (Bed is a much better place to sleep than the keyboard!!)
Wow! Seems you've had some success! Thanks heaps. (I'm REALLY going to bed this time.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion of File:Medisafe.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:Medisafe.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Medisafe.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Chzz  ►  12:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:First Person Shooter

I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand your post on my talk page. Are you asking for a second opinion on the nomination or for me to help improve the article? I'd be happy to give a second opinion, but I'm not certain I can help improve the article much as I played very few first person shooters. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Don't get me wrong. I'd be happy to help with such an important video game article. I'm just not certain I can provide much more than a thorough copy edit. I offered more help on Shoot 'em up because I'm more familiar with the topic and actually had some sources I could use as references. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for uploading File:TigerCub.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Graphics Designer's Barnstar

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thanks for all your help with the {{slurp}} template! -download | sign! 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Trudyjh

Copying in previous discussions

{{helpme}} I was looking at the entry for Leslie Nielsen, and noticed that what is claimed to be a current photo from wiki commons of him is in fact a considerably touched up copy of the original photo. If you follow the claimed original photo link to the photographer's destination the difference is dramatic. What to do about this?

Here's the wiki commons link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeslieNielsenOct08.jpg

Here's the original that links to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerryangelicaphotography/2987813431/

Let's have a little respect for Mr. Nielsen here, and have an accurate photo.

Hi,

Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I'll take a look at it now, and report back here shortly. --  Chzz  ►  13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Trudy sez: I am replacing the new image on his page with the old image. update: I am having some trouble doing this and will have to return later.

Hold on!

OK, I see what you mean. I would normally upload it again, but the problem is, it has that writing on the picture, which takes a bit of fiddling in photoshop to remove. I'll have a go and let you know.

--  Chzz  ►  13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK; I got the highest res version from flickr, and decided it would be best to crop it a bit, to remove most of the name, and then I blurred out the remainder with photoshop.

I tried to upload it to replace the image, but couldn't, as I didn't have a commons account - and when I made one, it wouldn't let me replace an image. So I uploaded it under a different name, and placed a request on the commons helpdesk.

Hopefully, that will work.

Any comments, please reply on my own talk page.

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one that uploaded the image on Commons after asking the author for permission. I would have preferred you contact me about the image, but no worries. The author e-mailed me the image that has been uploaded. My intention when uploading the image was not to show Nielsen as a "bimbo", but to provide a better, more recent image of Nielsen. I have asked numerous Flickr authors for images of the actor, and this was the only one that has responded. The image clearly exhibits the person the article is based on, and although it was Photoshopped, it helped to adjust the out-of-focus image. Clearing up wrinkles and adjusting the light were obviously done, but that doesn't differ from other images on Wikipedia/other sites that do the same thing. If the image had changed his eye color, added details, or made him green, then I could understand switching out the image. The older image has not been removed from the article but is instead featured in the section pertaining to his career in the 1980s (when the image was taken). The one in the infobox is more recent, which is preferable for biographies. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

12 March

Hi, hope I'm doing this right. I seem to be in a loop with the guy who inserted the heavily photoshopped image of Leslie NIelsen. I replaced his, he put the Photoshopped one back, I put the older one back. I'm retired, so I can keep on this forever :-) but there must be some wiki policy about bogus photos? (It isn't even a flattering photo, let alone not accurate, I haven't seen anyone with a face that white outside of the night of the living dead.) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudyjh (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy of message from Trudujh's talk page
Hi; OK, first and most important - stop. If you and the other user keep trying to change it back and forth, it could cause problems, and maybe violate the WP:3RR, causing an account to be blocked.
Right; now I've got that out of the way - yes, there are ways to proceed. I will look into the appropriate route to resolving this, and get back to you soon. --  Chzz  ►  11:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Investigating

I've asked the original uploader, User:Nehrams2020 to please not revert the image while we investigate, and I've put a note about this on the article talk page.

More very soon. --  Chzz  ►  11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Leslie Nielsen, regarding the infobox picture, shows;

Prior to 2 September 2006

File:LeslieNielsenHeadshot.jpg (since deleted)

2 September 2006

Changed to File:Leslie Nielsen.jpg 'chair photo' by User:Chowbok

20 February 2009

Changed to File:LeslieNielsenOct08.jpg 'pale photo' by User:Nehrams2020 "(added new Wikimedia Commons image to infobox)"

01:46, 12 March 2009

Changed to File:Leslie Nielsen.jpg 'chair photo' by User:Trudyjh "replaced photoshopped photo with older one. Let's not treat Mr. Neilsen like some bimbo."

04:14, 12 March 2009

Reverted by User:Nehrams2020 "more recent image"

11:02, 12 March 2009

Changed back to File:Leslie Nielsen.jpg 'chair photo' by User:Trudyjh "undid the reinsertion of the bogus image. It is heavily photoshopped, all wrinkles of this gentleman in his 80s have been removed, his skin made uniformly white, it is just insulting to him" "p.s. if anyone doubts this, see the original of the wiki commons photo, (which I have saved a copy of offline as well) at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerryangelicaphotography/2987813431/"

More soon --  Chzz  ►  12:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested solution

I have downloaded the highest resolution version of the photo from flickr, cropped it and used photoshop to remove the name. I have not made any other changes to the picture. We have a licence to edit this image from the original OTRS, if that ticket is attached to the new image. I will also edit the tags to reflect how the image was derived. Trudyjh and Nehrams2020, would you both be happy with the image as shown below? --  Chzz  ►  12:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chzz/Archive 2
Nielsen in 2008
I had no problem with altering the image. I was against the removal of a free Wikimedia Commons image, with the excuse of calling another editor's actions "treat[ing] Mr. Neilsen like some bimbo". I would recommend to Trudyjh to start assuming good faith in the edits of others. There were various options to addressing the image issue, and Trudyjh took the wrong path to do so. However, there are no worries on my part, I just would prefer to see a more respectful tone in the edit summaries. Anyway, good job with the crop, and if you need additional help with Wikimedia Commons images in the future, let me know and I'll be happy to help. I'll add this image to the infobox. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. A good result all-round, I think. I'm assuming good faith; I think Trudyjh's edit comment was light-hearted, not accusatory; I agree that, rather than re-insert the other image a second time it would have been preferable to discuss it, but I'm glad I was contacted before an edit war ensued. Thanks for your cooperation. --  Chzz  ►  22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit wars are not my thing, so it wouldn't have jumped into that. In my experience here, problems are solved a lot quicker and easier when editors contact related editors to the issue and use a respectful manner. I'm glad this wasn't that large an issue. Thank you for your contributions to assisting with the article. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I had figured I was the one you were waiting on for the consensus, so I added the image as my good faith in the new image. If there were others opposed to the image, then I would have surely waited. However, since it didn't seem to be an issue, I simply added the image. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chzz, I'm happy with this, thanks a lot. Nehrams, lighten up. Trudyjh (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hooray, spread the wikilove :-) A happy outcome all around.
Trudyjh, in future,
  • please be careful with your edit summaries - no matter how well intended, light-hearted 'banter' can so easily be misinterpreted as aggressive
  • If you make a change, and another user reverts it, STOP. Contact the user, discuss, reach consensus.
Both of you, thank you very much for your exemplary cooperation in resolving this dispute. We've improved the article, and that's what we're all here for.
--  Chzz  ►  23:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done

WP:UAA

Replied (I'd say 24 hours, as that's the amount of time Huggle uses to count before using a new set of warnings. However, if you want, I can move it to 48 hours to let it be a bit more lenient.) Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 23:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Based upon the users admittedly scant login patterns [1], and the fact that they haven't done anything terribly wrong, I'd personally prefer 48 hours. They've mostly been active on Friday and Saturday evenings, and that would cover both. Then we could check contribs, and see if they've been around and still not responded. I'd also suggest moving your message up to the top of their talk; it's a bit of a strange situation, and because of their good faith edits I was loathe to request a block, but if they won't respond I can't see an alternative, to 'force the issue'. --  Chzz  ►  23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; good thinking! Oh, and something completely random. Did you know that [[File:326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png]], an image you uploaded, is a duplicate of a normal Wiki-tan? If you want, you can easily create the same effect with any words/phrases with {{User:ImperatorExercitus/Sign|Letters of phrase here}}. Of course, I'm not going to nominate it for deletion or anything, though. :P Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Very handy, thanks for that. I did it the boring way, with photoshop. --  Chzz  ►  23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason why people can post at the WP:UAA, WP:AIV, and others; administrators generally have an extremely long backlog, thus depending on the individual's judgement. Unless that judgement is faulty in some way, administrators generally follow the advice. Because that's what the comments at UAA and AIV are: advice for how to respond. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 12:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! At least Wikipedia decided not to use a Pikachu (a few airplanes did)... And yes, I concur :P Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 13:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually would have gone to an administrator first to talk to the user, then went to UAA; however, what you did is perfectly fine :) Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 13:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's the exact order I would have commenced with: Give warning about possibility of ban => if no response, ask administrator to talk to user (generally, users seem to listen to them more) => still no response, give block warning => Take case to UAA => Give time limit before block takes place. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 16:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, roux isn't an administrator; while I'm not saying he's wrong, ANI is generally used for matters that need a discussion, similar to ArbCom. In this case, either one would have been fine, as his username was violating the policy :) Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PIPETRICK

Hi Chzz,

How are you? Thanks for leaving me a message on WP:PIPETRICK. Well I just added Freestyle swimming to Barry_Murphy_(swimmer). Will what you said work here?

Thanks Thendral (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All pages work the same way, so yes. When you save, it changes the code.
Happy editing. --  Chzz  ►  14:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First-person shooter

{{Infobox VG}} is the only VG infobox I have seen. Find out its categories and see what else is in them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Go to the template and hit "What links here" on the left.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Washington Park (Chicago park)

Hi, as someone who previously weighed in on this topic nomination, can you possibly give your opinion on the nomination page as to whether you think the topic should be merged into the existing Washington Park, Chicago good topic, or should stand alone as its own separate topic? Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

?

What was this [2] about? I seem to recall deleting something like it - has it reappeared? Acroterion (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah - found and salted, user warned. Thanks, Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

CCAgr

Thank you very much for your kind help.

I am a new hand and may need your help in the future. 

CCAgr.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccagr (talk • contribs) 01:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I notice that you tagged the page Coláiste an Phiarsaigh for speedy deletion with the reason "patent nonsense". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because it is not patent nonsense, it is just in a different language (in this case, Irish). If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:AFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Coláiste an Phiarsaigh

Re. Coláiste an Phiarsaigh - please reconsider. I know that it's in another language - Irish I think. An article in another language on the English wikipedia does fit the criteria of patent nonesense. Otherwise, everyone checking pages would have to speak every language. Also, consider WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:SNOW, this page needs to be removed. I've already put a message on the users talk page to discuss it with them. Please reconsider.

One more thing, I find it very awkward to leave this message because of all the protection on your talk pages and your 'wizard' system; the problem is, if everyone starts creating their own system, it's going to be very hard to put notices onto each others' pages. I'm not sure of any protocol on this, but please do think about it. --  Chzz  ►  12:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion specifically state that material not in English is not patent nonsense. Content that might be a reasonable article should be preserved if possible. In future please consider tagging the article as {{notenglish}} and listing it at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation.
In this case, however, the matter is now moot. Luckily (for the page at least), I am one of a few sysops who speaks Irish, and have transwikied the old content to the Irish Wikipedia and translated the article there into English.
My message wizard is not designed to get people to place different messages onto different pages; rather, it is designed so that users who have an issue which any admin (or any user) could answer are routed to an admin noticeboard or the village pump, so that users who have an issue which I am not willing to deal with get advised straight away, and so that users who have an issue that I can deal with are prompted to leave all the necessary information. I've found that it works very well for me and I don't think I'll change it at this time. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

FPS GA

I addressed some more of the points. There's a few I'm still to research/mull over but you might want to have a look in the meantime. Also the formatting is getting kind of jumbled and I forgot to sign my posts, sorry about that. bridies (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the history section a fair bit. There's a brief summary at the end of the review. I'll get to the design section in a bit, sorry this is taking so long. bridies (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've fleshed out the design section, particularly the multiplayer section which I think was a bit lacking before. There may need to be some prose tweaks here and there, and probably more could be added, but it should be "broad" and cover the "main points" now. bridies (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I agree the topic has enough scope to fill a featured article and I plan on developing it further at some point. I do get a bit bored of editing a particular article however, so I'll wait a bit before continuing work on it. Of course feel free to add anything you can. bridies (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chezz,

Have 2 questions for you:

1. Can we remove the red links in the Reference section?
2. Can we convert red links in the main article to plain text?

Thanks Thendral (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In which article?
1. Better to try and 'fix' them by googling for the source etc - if you remove the refs, it might cause problems with the article lacking references. So, fix it if you can.
2. It depends what the words are. If they might give someone the inspiration to start an article, then they should stay; if they're pointless I'd remove them - but it's really up to you.

--  Chzz  ►  09:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chezz,

Thank you for your quick reply. Well I think, I should restore the (red) links I removed from here Pan Bozaar, GuwahatiThey were about 2 colleges in that area (never did like colleges much :P). But, well, What do you think? :)

Thendral (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The redlink removal was fine.
  • The article needs references to reliable sources. Books, perhaps an encyclopedia, etc to verify the facts
  • Avoid lists (ie restaurants) - try to write it as a sentence or paragraph. Example, "Footon has a wide range or restaurants, with Indian, German and English food. Nando Bar on Cross street serve Italian Pizza and Ice cream." - etc.

If you're looking for further ideas on how to develop it, it's a good idea to look at articles about similar topics that are Good articles or Featured articles.

Hope this helps. Good luck. Hello Chzz, Thank You for Your help! Dorimedont (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

More suggestions;

  • Put an infobox at the top, and fill in as much information as you can - please look at Template:Infobox Indian Jurisdiction/Examples/neighbourhood
  • Photo's really help with articles like this; I looked on the free photo sites but couldn't find anything; perhaps you could get some photos that could be used? Not too many; depending on the length of the article - so, at the moment, maybe 2.

Good luck with it, --  Chzz  ►  13:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much Chzz. You are amazing. :) Well, I have a list of questions for you with what I m currently editing (will write to you in detail on this soon) Thanks Chzz. Thendral (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Move function

Hi Chzz, I'm trying to understand when we why should I move function?

My point is to ask if this page will always be considered a user page or will become an article?

When will people be able to find us in a wiki search by typing WSAIGO or world Sports Allaince?

To I have to use the Move function?


Thank you very much for your help.

I will answer th other questions also.

Wsaigo (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

changes

A person came to our page and took our categories out. Why people do that without reading the articles ot the content of the page?

Thanks

Wsaigo (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Found my page in the search by user but not by tittle of article

Hi Chzz, I'm starting to understand wiki a little better.

My next question is that if I do a search in wikipedia, I can oly find my article if I choose the option USER. If I type the user on google my search result is the first one on their list, but If I type world sports alliance, I can't find it on google or wikipedia.

Should I creat another user name and redirect to this one or can I add tags somewhere in the code to help finding my article within the wiki search?

Sorry for my ignorance and thank you for your great support.

Wsaigo (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User space is for working on pages. It's a bit like folders; so anything 'under' USER: and USER TALK: are not 'seen' by the outside world.

So, at the moment your page is in User:Wsaigo.

Mainspace articles do not have that prefix.

So, to 'make your article live', you go to The World Sports Alliance (WSA) and create a new page. Then you copy all the stuff from your user page into there. Remove the big heading, you don't need that because the title of the article is automatically at the top of every page. Save it, and it's 'live'.

Hope that answers? --  Chzz  ►  19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

UAA

Hi. Please don't move reports back to the main UAA page once they've been moved to the holding pen. If an administrator has moved a report to the holding pen, they've done so for a good reason. Thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I've done anything wrong; I was acting under advisement. As action was to be taken after 24-48 hours, and now 4 days have elapsed, and the user has logged on and is causing the emergence of an edit-war, I felt that it was necessary for action to proceed. There has been no way to make any form of contact with the user, so I cannot see any other possible action than blocking them, per WP:REALNAME. If you have any other suggestions I would of course welcome them. --  Chzz  ►  00:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure why an arbitrary time limit was set in the first place, but alright. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

users blocked for promotional usernames

Hey -- just a friendly note that you shouldn't be encouraging users who are blocked for promotional usernames to log out and create new accounts. In many cases, these users are not unblocked unless they agree to abide by Wikipedia conflict of interest policies. And in many cases, it's not possible for these users to log out and create new accounts, because the default block settings for such blocks don't allow it. I just wanted to let you know because I've seen two instances today of you giving this advice when it wasn't correct. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 01:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

why I think the subject matter is notable and a thank you letter

Hello, Thank you so much for helping me. Obviously I am new to Wikipedia and don't quite know what I'm doing yet. I truly appreciate your honesty and the time and effort you have put in to helping me create this article. The Zozo name is very famous in South Africa, it has been one of the most advertised companies and was widely known in the past. It was the most advertised in the yellow pages (S.A) and on billboards throughout South Africa and is a brand that is very recognizable, sort of like the McDonalds of South Africa. If you ask most people who are South African what zozo huts are, they could tell you. Zozo sold mostly wendy houses which are kind of like tree houses, for children and also construction huts. But many people ended up living in the huts instead of living on the streets and that is why the name became important. Because people converted what were supposed to be playhouses for children to their actual homes. (Which was not the owner's intention at all, but what happened, because they were unbelievably cheap)- a few hundred dollars to own or a small rental fee for 30 dollars a month or so, I believe. When the owner realized what was happening he tried to make portable units for people to live in and that also became a big thing, but everyone started to label all huts/ construction units/ portable /mobile homes period 'zozo huts', so if you google those words you will see thousands of listings and see what they're doing with them to this day. Mr. Joubert was rated by Who's Who South Africa as one of the top most succesful South African business men in the late 1980's early 1990's. There were many articles written in financial papers about him, yet I cannot retrieve them unless I personally contact his family which I may do if it is deleted. It's a pity that it is so hard to retrieve articles from the 1980's because nothing was really on line yet. But Zozo huts is very much a part of South African culture and it would be a pity if the article is deleted because perhaps people could contribute to it. Mr. Joubert immigrated to Canada because he did not want his sons to fight in a war he did not believe in since he was anti-apartheid. So he had to sell the company, but as far as I know people could not manage it the way he did after he left and it slowly died out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annadoctor (talk • contribs) 04:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

as an added note re notability Michael Joubert

As an added note actually there seems to be a Zozo company still running and many people started similar companies using that name that was created by Mr. Joubert in regards to their housing units. There is also now a city called Zozo and many people named their children after the company..probably because a large percentage of the population still live in zozo huts...This can be seen under the thousands of google listings...

Thanks again for your time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annadoctor (talk • contribs) 06:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

error

sorry, the city is a fictional one in a book, so that's probably not important, however you can see the listings of the huts throughout the South african countryside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annadoctor (talk • contribs) 07:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Admin coach

Sorry, not really interested in taking another coachee at the moment. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

casa entry

Hi Chzz, thank you very much for getting back to me. I did try to report a false positive (I tried it twice yesterday before asking for help) and have tried again today and am getting the same error message. I go to this page as per instructions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot/FalsePositives Then I get my told I need to get ClueBot's revert ID so I follow these instructions and the number is 631693 Then I'm told to click on the 'report here' button and the browser tries to take me to http://24.40.131.153/cluebot.php and I keep getting the following error message: Connection Interrupted The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading. The network link was interrupted while negotiating a connection. Please try again.

So according to the instructions I need to do the reverse thing first before I can re-post my entry so hence me feeling rather stuck. As I am keen to be involved in editing pages to do with s@x u al assault and r ape I am wondering if I am going to strike this kind of problem a lot. It's not an uncommon challenge when you work in this area. Oh yeah, I did try to sign up for a mentor but the person I asked never got back to me and I have since found out they haven't logged in for nearly a year. I would appreciate any help you can give me and again, thank you for your time. Peto Australis (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


I tried and had the same problem; the controlling user wasn't available via WP and couldn't be hailed by other means, so - after a discussion with another admin - I have re-done the edit myself; we think cluebot prob won't revert it again, so we'll see. --  Chzz  ►  22:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Chzz, thanks so much for that - I was beginning to think it was me. Although I'm not sure of most of the words you're using it sounds promising. Do I now go and resubmit my entry? I am also working on my first paragraph to include on an existing page on statistics for Australia. Thanks again Peto Australis (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Well, since I wrote my last message, another user has reverted my change - because the article linked from the change doesn't exist yet. That's a fair comment. So, if you 're going to create the article, I'd suggest the following procedure;

then

  • edit the CASA disambiguation page, and add the link to your new article.

Hope that makes sense? --  Chzz  ►  01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chzz, I have created the page in my own area (followed your link) and think I've done it right. Could you please have a quick look at it to make sure? Again thank you so much for your help. Peto Australis (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advise, now leafing through WP:infobox entries. Great suggestions, will let you know when draft 2 is ready. Also I have no intention of adding any more new pages right away. I wanted to get involved in editing existing pages as they are asking for 'overseas' content for my areas of expertise. I thought a casa page would be the most simple way to 'dip my toes in' so to speak. Sheesh! If only I'd known lol. Another quick question, the spelling is sometimes different for the same word so makes linking a bit tricky - any suggestions? Most notable centre - on here they spell it center. Thank you again and will be in touch. Peto Australis (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I would first invite you to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bali_ultimate; furthermore, the AfD discussion and related edit history comments for article The Motley Moose, and the talk page there as well. Thank you for your prompt response. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir, thank you for you prompt response. I am not sure if user "Bali Ultimate" has stopped his behavior, but I hope so. Though still went through and re-did changes I made to article The Motley Moose after I specifically took suggestions made by people in the AfD/other editors into account. I still feel like this is harassment, as there's no way I can change this article for the better if it's not able to be changed. Again, it's unsettling for people to follow you through your edits and go back behind you changing them, etc. I've never encountered such behavior before. But again, thank you for your prompt response, it does a lot to qualm my concerns. Cheers. Ks64q2 (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to thank you for your time, when answering my redlink 'helpme' question. Cheers Trafford09 (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your kindness

)

Much appreciated!--Annadoctor (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


thank you for your comment

Dear Chzz, thank you for your time and comment to my article: User talk:Sergeyl1984/Levi9, actually I'm not directly associated with that company, and I appreciate your feedback. Can I finish that article by correcting all mistakes you mention?

(Sergeyl1984 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

2 logins

I forgot the password to the first one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalthis2 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page; thank you, sir. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Phorm

I have no objection to the first section being summarized and added to the comments already in the article by Tim Berniers Lee. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this Chzz - what's the next step?

--  Silver123456789  ►  21:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added this and I would value your opinion on how to proceed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phorm#10_Downing_Street_Petition

--  Silver123456789  ►  22:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Club Mahindra Holidays

Hi!

I didn't create this article, and I agree it either is, or tends to quickly become, spammy, but I'm not convinced I agree that the subject is non-notable. From what I can gather (and my involvement is admittedly just through weeding out spam) the organisation is India's first time-share company (which seems notable enough) and has also attracted a great deal of criticism (which would also seem notable). Most of the refs seem decent enough, too.

Since I didn't create the article I haven't added a {{hangon}} tag, and I'm unsure how to contest the speedy except by contacting you - apologies if that isn't the right way to go about it. I'm open to discussion and can certainly be persuaded that the article needs to be binned - I'm just not sure I'm of that view yet.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear! You didn't tag my talk page; I saw the speedy tag on the article itself and decided to contact you. You've not done anything wrong! (when I said that I hadn't created the article I didn't mean to imply that you thought I had - I merely meant that since I wasn't the creator I didn't feel comforatble adding a {{hangon}} tag). I am, however, still concerned about the speedy - I do think the subject has notability outside mere spam. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, it's kind of moot anyway: a third-party has declined the speedy. Regardless, I'll keep an eye on it and try and keep it spam-free. Sorry for bogging you down in this confusion! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds more than reasonable - I'll try and have a fix-up over the weekend or early next week. I'm not totally attached to the article, and think that an AfD may be a positive step for it - if for no other reason than it'll draw some attention to it and may draw out more detail and better refs. Thanks for putting up with me during this! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Image permission problem with Image:Electrocatalyst.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Electrocatalyst.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 07:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: f*ink

Hi. In this edit, it appears though an article talk page has been mistaken for a user talk page. The user requesting help is Cargill208, although they mistakenly put a help request within the article. Taroaldo (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I'm looking for guidance and good luck, Can you please look at f*INK and tell me what you think? I don't want to burden the page with too much info, yet other editors are urging me to justify its existance with references. Many thanks! :Cargill208 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

battery is dead

hi im off to bed phones died —Preceding unsigned comment added by LooseheadNo1 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility

Might be worthwhile looking up google for the term before submitting to CSD. This takes you to the following Federal Reserve page on the ABCPMMMF. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Lee wardlaw

A tag has been placed on Lee wardlaw requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: 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. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mhking (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice...

This popped up on NewPages. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

God as the Devil

Hi Chzz,

Thanks for your feedback. I've posted follow-up.

WagePeace (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Chzz, I've posted a response to your comment about "sequel" on my talk page. -- WagePeace (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Chzz, you said on the article's talk page, "please discuss suggestions for change here, and reach a consensus before changing the article." Now Tiavo has come back and again removed the entire section of Biblical citations on his own, without discussion of the matter by others. I think I should put it back in again and let others comment about it. He has pointed out my inexperience, and he is right about that. I don't want to get into a cat fight with him. Does he have the authority to decimating the central content of the article on his own say so? -- WagePeace (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you copy it, and place it in your own user area. Everyone will be able to see it there, and to discuss it. I know it's a natural reaction to put it straight back, but try to resist; discuss, reach consensus, and then act. It doesn't matter if it takes a little while.
To create a sub-area, just go to, for example, User:WagePeace/bible (or whatever).
Hope this helps --  Chzz  ►  23:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought it would make more sense to leave the material in the article while people discuss whether it should be removed or not. Does the person making a deletion get priority in a disagreement like this so that the material remains removed while discussion takes place?
If I follow your suggestion, I would at least like to put something in the article that advises readers that there is content that has been removed from the article and is under dispute regarding its reinstatement and provides a link to see that content, such as at a subpage as you suggest. Can I do that? -- WagePeace (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I know it may seem unfair, but, if you reinstate the edits, it may start an edit war. Please read that link carefully. I would strongly suggest that you don't change the article until a consensus has been agreed. It's not appropriate to write anything in the article, as you suggest; think of it like a book encyclopaedia. They wouldn't write, "there should be another chapter in here, but we're still discussing it". The consensus process really does work, extremely well. Be a little patient, avoid arguments, be extremely polite (even in the face of provocation), discuss things. If others take action that contravenes policy, do not retaliate. I hope this makes sense? --  Chzz  ►  23:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I hear you, and I want to handle this in the appropriate fashion. Thanks for the Edit war link, which I did read carefully. Let me reiterate a question asked above: Does the person making a deletion get priority in a disagreement like this so that the material remains removed while discussion takes place? -- WagePeace (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm sincerely grateful that you're being so patient in this matter. I have great sympathy for the way you feel, from experience; perhaps a brief recap will illustrate. An article had been in Wikipedia for years, with no problems. Suddenly, attention was called to one thing in the article; it was removed, replaced, etc etc. An edit war ensued involving several editors; the article was then protected - meaning that no-one was able to change it, until a consensus was formed. Of course, it was protected in the "wrong version". I was extremely annoyed by this; I made repeated demands that this miscarriage of justice should not continue for a moment longer. People would be looking at the page and seeing content which was not what the consensus approved of. I appealed in all ways possible, but to no avail. After a few days, it was clear that the vast majority agreed the original should be reinstated; the protection was removed and this was done. In hindsight, I realise the futility of my battle; it's necessary to see the bigger picture. The article on "God as the devil" has not existed for the past 8 years of Wikipedia's existence; I'm confident that it will exist, in one form or another, for many years to come. Therefore, it really doesn't matter if part of it is removed for a few days - as unjust as it may seem. This was a hard lesson for me to learn, and I urge you not to follow in my footsteps; I lost considerable credibility within the community over that issue.
Now - I have attempted to rustle up the opinions of a few other contributors, to widen the discussion. I hope we can get some input from others, and come to a decision. This may take a few days; perhaps a week. If there is no clear consensus after that, then we can follow dispute resolution policy.
I hope that you will be understanding in this matter. Best wishes, --  Chzz  ►  01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuckoo!

Hey, if you ever see other people's page's why do they have stars? Are they awards or they just put them on their pages. Also, how can i get involved on wikipedia projects. Lol

Darkspartan4121 Unsigned; 18:27, 22 March 2009 Darkspartan4121 (talk)

don't worry i have the hostage!
Here is some information about awards. The best thing would be, just get involved in editing; before long someone will give you an award.
To get involved in projects and things, the best place to start might be the community portal.

--  Chzz  ►  23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


please check again

Dear Chzz, sorry for my persistence, I need your help again :) When you'll have some time please look at the modified page of User:Sergeyl1984/Levi9, I appreciate your help very much. (Sergeyl1984 (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

User:Sergeyl1984/Levi9

Hi Chzz, thank you for the reply. I appreciate your feedback as to how I can manage this situation. The matter is that the Levi9 company is one of the few representatives of Nearshore movement in Europe, we work on several blogs about Nearshore Outsourcing with them, and its worth to pay attention. At the moment we have only Latin American companies represented in this particular topic, I think this is not right. I clearly understand your position and very appreciate your advices, but at the moment I don't know anyone who can contribute in this shperes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeyl1984 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hot-tempered writer learns humility

Hi-- I saw and appreciated your note in my Talk area, and am responding exactly for that purpose.

But please understand, it seemed that my contributions and proper edits were being attacked. I myself was accused for removing some inappropriate quotes from a page dealing with subjects I happen to know better than almost anyone. Things were being wiped away, and it also seems that anyone can attack me in a sort of personal way. Yet I can write nothing in my defense.

So, I admit that I can be passionate, a hot-head, I do not think a writer who is otherwise is being honest with himself. But I ask you respectfully, let me know what exactly it is that seems like a "personal attack". I am here to attack NO ONE.

Somehow my work here was being "shadowed" by someone and I know this because I used to revisit pages I had edited... some of them were pages I had created. Being ill, I sometimes lose my way in adding reference notes, citations, etc. Well, I try.

Also, please know that the site has changed a great deal, with this shadow of fascist censoring and stuffed-shirt niggling about references and citations. Of course I credit everything where necessary and add links. You should look carefully at my Talk page and see what has been written to me. Aside from the first message, which I understand completely, but they did not want to understand me... well, I'm too sensitive I suppose.

I read what the Wikihounds did to my colleague, Peter Kurth. I will not contribute again, but from a friendly offer like yours, I would like to learn what I've been "doing wrongly".

Sincerely Most Rev. Antonio Hernandez User RevAntonio Unsigned - 10:49, 23 March 2009 RevAntonio (talk) --  Chzz  ►  12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,
I don't think you've done anything terribly wrong; we all make mistakes, and the only reason for my sessage was to try to help diffuse the situation.
I don't want to spend time picking over the bones, unless you think it would be constructive. From a quick look, I'd say that comments such as, "Have you seen this clown, F*******w" (name removed) would be construed as a 'personal attack'. It's not the worst I've seen by a very long way, and I only use it for illustration. In the medium of on-line communication, it's all too hard to be clear our intents, and we must all be extra-careful. I don't want to direct you to a long list of policy, etc, but I ask you to read the simplified ruleset, to further clarify what 'we' are all about.
Note the use of the 'we' in all of the above; I think, with all due respect, you're forgetting that Wikipedia is entirely made up of you, me, and millions of other volunteers. OK, there's good and bad, but there are very well-thought-out procedures for dealing with transgressions. What's more, those 'procedures' have been written by us, and can be changed by us at any time. If you feel the 'system' is wrong, you can change it. This might sound facetious, but it's not; it really does happen, all the time. We're not all a "stinking swamp of snobs", honestly :-)
It's difficult to apply spiritual ideals to everyday life; but we must all strive to use right thought, right action, right speech etc. Opinion is changable. Don't take attack personally, there is no self - these people may be holding onto an opinion, so feel compassion for them, because you know, as a Buddhist, that opinions grow and change, and nothing remains constant.
I'm genuinely disappointed that you indicate you don't want to participate further. I urge you to reconsider. I'm prepared to go to any lengths, to keep you on-board. I sincerely hope that you will continue to contribute, and I'd be more than happy to advise you on best practices, etc - including the tricky issue of dealing with complaints and criticisms.
Therefore, I hope to hear from you again. Good luck, in whatever you decide, --  Chzz  ►  15:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz/Archive_2&oldid=1136200108"