User talk:Chexmix53

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption offer
Hi! I'm currently available to adopt users at the moment. Would you please explain the areas in which you would like assistance/clarification on? Also, what times of day are you online? That way we could possibly be online together as you edit. Please let me know if you have any questions.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

personal main page
Hi- I was just looking through the proposals for what the main page should look like, and saw your note that you'd like to be able to have a personalize main page. Since you say you're learning the ropes, I thought I'd tell you that there is a way to do this. Quick customization isn't quite as easy as with iGoogle or MSN or whatever, but there are several versions to choose from. If you don't like any of them, I might be able to help you fiddle with them.

Basically, you're going to edit your "monobook," which is a user-specific page that lets you change some aspects of how Wikipedia works.
 * Note 1: Never edit someone else's monobook.
 * Note 2: Make sure the person who tells you how to edit your monobook is trustworthy (in this case I'll direct you to WP-approved instructional pages, so you don't have to worry about whether or not I'm trustworthy)

In your monobook, you can tell WP to use any website you want for the main page.

Go to Main Page alternatives to preview some of the main page designs people have made. At the bottom of the page you'll find instructions for how to change the main page's default URL.

If you want to try tweaking one of the available designs, you can make a new page in your userspace - edit a new page "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chexmix53/my main page," or whatever you want to call it, and use that URL in the monobook script.


 * Happy customizing! — eitch 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

sdfsdf 74.4.134.198 (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning
I have replied to the warning you placed on my talk page.-Mr Adequate (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like a reply from you, to clear up the warning that you left on my talk page.-Mr Adequate (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk page deletion
Hi. It was sort of a combination of WP:DENY and to prevent abuse. The vandal in question likes to make fun for hmself using the unblock template. Hope that explains, Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page, it is much appreciated. Washburn mav (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm on it I talked on WP:IRC and reported it on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Someone will deal with it soon (if I was an admin, it would be done already.) Thanks for your help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blanking If he wants to blank his own talkpage, that's his call - it's annoying and frustrating, but irrelevant ultimately because if the vandalism continues, he will be blocked. If he's blanking other talkpages, then reporting him at AIV is right. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Warnings There is probably a rule about that; it seems familiar. You can ultimately delete them though, as time goes on and the warning is no longer relevant to a particular situation. In this case, this person will soon be blocked (I'm unpleasantly surprised at how long this is taking.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My vandalism

 * I was REVERTING vandalism on the Two Face page, half the page was deleted by an anon. I'm user User:Bly1993 just never logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.7.11 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Question
I think current policy is that removal of warnings from a user's own talkpage is OK, since it indicates that they have read the warning. I know it's a pain looking through history to check for other warnings - if you want to avoid this I suggest you use a tool such as Huggle - I believe these look at the recent history of a user's talk page. Sorry I took a while to respond. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Two-Face

 * ? It was blanked, and I unblanked it. Whatever, its been over for days anyway. Bly1993 (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Blvd Mall
The article does not follow the guidelines listed under WP:Verifiability. The article provides 3 reference but they are all from the company that operates the mall. There are no news sources referenced by which the information can be verified. The store list reads like a catalog WP:CATALOG, what WP is not. By what is presented in the Article and following guidelines I think there should be a call for deletion. The tags have been replaced, if removed again before proper references are provided I will simply call for deletion.PB666 yap 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Also the format of the references themselves is incomplete and do not disclose the company or the page the information is provided. One can place another name for the tag but the reference should contain the page name or page title, as well as the principle from which the page is derived, otherwise its nothing more than a weblink " Citations for world wide web articles (for reliable sources such as the Australian War Memorial) typically include: " WP:CITE These aspects of reference are important for notability and verifiability, neither of which are provided by the article or the references.
 * the name of the author or authors,
 * the title of the article in quotes,
 * the name of the website (linked to a Wikipedia article about the site if it exists, or to Website's "about page"),
 * date of publication,
 * page number(s) (if applicable),
 * the date you retrieved it (invisible to the reader if the article has a date of publication),[dubious – discuss]
 * optional comment or small quote.

" Reliable sources Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. " WP:RED The mall catalog has over 50 red links, many stores do not meat WP guidelines for notability. "when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." " " article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable; "


 * This is the thing that drives me crazy about Wikipedia. If instead of taking the time to write out all that information, you would have taken 2 minutes to properly source the references, then it would be over.


 * And if we deleted all the information that was gathered and posted on article from official websites of the subject, then half of Wikipedia would go away. I don't care what excerpt from the reliable source article says, it is COMMON SENSE that if you have an article about a mall, the best place to get the standard information about the mall is from the mall's official website, or the website of the company that owns it.


 * There are no facts in that article that are up for debate. There are X many stores, with X many square feet.  The mall opened in this year.  This things are not refutable.  If you want third party information for a mall, you tell me where to get reliable information from.  Or you can go start tagging every mall article in Wikipedia for deletion.


 * The Blvd Mall, is a mall that has been open for 40 years and an important part of this community. Your deletion tag wouldn't survive discussion and it would merely be an immature act of laziness.  You would rather tag an article for deletion than fix it the way you think it should be fixed.


 * You tell me where to get this reliable 3rd party information from (like how many stores and such) and I will do it. Because the only reliable ways of doing it is getting the information straight from GGP and you think that's a no-no.  The other way would be original research and you can't do that either.  You tell me where to get this information, and why you think it's against wiki-guidlines and so important to get a third party resource on how many stores the mall has.  Also please point out which information in the article is important to get third party information for.


 * Also, I would appreciate it if while you were running around placing inappropriate tags on articles if you would take 1 second to sign your posts. Thanks! Chexmix53 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One man's Gem is another man's clump of clay. The references are not written appropriately. I am frankly tired of improperly referenced articles. I am not going waste my time with intentional screw-ups in articles, I fix enough inadvertent screw-ups. People who write articles with references with the intent to conceal the 'first party' nature of the sources deserve to have their articles deleted. That's the way it should be, so If I were you I would fix the references. At minimum it should be immediately clear to the viewer who is the source.PB666 yap 21:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an article on a movie star or something. It is an article on a mall.  It should be fairly obvious that the information is coming from a site affiliated with the mall, and it is SOURCED as such.  You tagged the article for third party references and now you are saying it should be written to allow the reader the knowledge that the information was obtained but he official site.  You don't even know what you are talking about.  I am removing the tags and you can have it 3rrd if you want, but any discussion on the topic will result in siding with my point of view.  There is no need for 3rd party references because the only information provided on the site is not refutable and not arguable.  I don't know how to fix the references how you think they should be fixed so someone else can come along and fix them, but I am removing the 3rd party tag.  It is not a promotional site about a specific store with lots of unflattering information trimmed down, it is VERY basic information about the center and you don't need a 3rd party reference for it.  Chexmix53 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the general consensus around Wikipedia is that, if no one outside a company cares enough to write about it, there's no real reason for Wikipedia to write about it, either. The notability guidelines are pretty much the expansion upon that idea.


 * I am not with the company, the page has been edited by other users beside me (which shows I am not the only person to view it) and if you READ the article or new anything about the mall you would know it is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. You are now just grasping at straws.  Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (Chexmix53 (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)) when trying to argue about wikipedia guidelines.  Thanks! Chexmix53 (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So sorry; I guess we all forget to sign our notes from time to time. You're right that I haven't followed this conversation from its beginning; looking at the article, I'm not 100% certain what makes this mall notable. The closest thing to an assertion of notability appears to be that it used to be the largest mall in southern Nevada, but I'm not sure that's a notable claim, especially if no one outside the mall wrote about it.  I might buy 'oldest mall in Las Vegas,' if there's third party sources confirming that.  Maybe you know things that aren't in the article about what makes this mall special; reading the article, it doesn't sound much different than five or six I could almost hit with a rock from where I'm sitting right now.  Of course, if I'm wrong and it is notable, those third party sources are out there- after all, that's what defines notability by Wikipedia's standards, right?  No third-party sources = not notable according to WP:N. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin
I am being a bastard over at the Aaron Sorkin article because it is a horrible, terrible, error-ridden, disastrous piece of information. It has to be corrected. It is an outrage and it says something terrible about Wikipedia that they consider this their "best work".Homely Features (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was refering to the STUDIO 60 article, not the aaron sorkin article (see heading). I just think that you need to tame your comments down to an appropriate level. Chexmix53 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption Update
Hey! How are things? We haven't spoken in quite some time. I've been reviewing some of your contribs since we last talked. Are you interested in exploring more about Wiki? Please send me a message on my talk page! :)  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  08:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —  04:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)