User talk:Chzz/Archive 35

Thank you for help cleaning up my article!
Hey Chzz,

I was going to fix my MEMS Oscillators article references 54-57, as you told me to do last night. Thank you very much for beating me to the punch and helping me clean them up.

When I have the time and mental energy, I'll come back to work on this "labor of love".

Thank you!

Pnchou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnchou (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all; pass it along; there's plenty of stuff needs fixing :-)  Chzz  ► 03:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

AFC
Hi, I added the references to my AFC and need it to be reviewed. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RahulCohen (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iris Winnifred King
 * It's already waiting to be reviewed; there's a backlog (of about 400), so it could take a while; possibly a week. You can still edit it in the meantime. Once it is reviewed, you'll get a message on your own user talk page.
 * One tip: you cannot use Wikipedia as a reference, because it is not a reliable source. Instead, you can add wiki-links. Do not use the full address; instead, just put double square brackets around the word to link. For example, putting I live in England produces: I live in England.
 * You can also link when the text differs from the article title, like this: I am a dentist. produces: I am a dentist.
 * I've just edited it and linked a couple of them - please try to reformat the others. If you have problems, you can get help, here.
 * See also: WP:CHEATSHEET, WP:LINKING. Good luck,  Chzz  ► 18:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Chatting with Classmates
You indicated that this article was a copyright violation. But it looks like student writing, not something that could have actually been published, with statements such as "The chat facility in the Virtual learning environment also provided a very excellent medium to contribute my ideas, and even ask questions of my classmates and instructors. Chatting should always take place in areas organized by course names, to ensure that one doesn’t end up chatting about a topic he/she hasn’t interest in. Other students in the chat areas shared my interest in the course topic as well and I realized that I find interesting opinions that my classmates presented."

Are you sure that this page is copied from "Creating Virtual Learning Communities through Distance Learning Technologies: A Course Examined" by Ernestine Enomoto and Lynn Tabata? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think so. I couldn't seem to paste in the actual link, because when you find it in google, it only shows the actual google link, not the target URL - and google links are black-listed. But, you can find the PDF if you search for e.g. "self-directed student learning with a student’s interests" (in quotation marks).
 * It does indeed seem to be a scholars paper, but I note that, at the end, it says TCC 2000 Online Conference / © 2000 Kapi`olani Community College / University of Hawai`i Honolulu, HI.  Chzz  ► 18:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see what you are talking about now. The part I quoted above was not copied from the Enomoto & Tabata source, but two other paragraphs in the article were, so I agree with the db-copyvio tag now. I don't know what wrong when you tried to paste in the actual link, though -- http://tcc.kcc.hawaii.edu/previous/TCC%202000/paper/paper_enomotoe.html seems to work. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually found it elsewhere; I've managed to get the actual target URL, now:  Chzz  ►  19:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mario Monti
About Mario Monti. He is now the new PM of Italy. Source: La Stampa "19.49 - Napolitano conferisce l'incarico a Monti l termine di un incontro durato esattamente 45 minuti, Giorgio Napolitano ha conferito a Mario Monti l’incarico per formare il Governo. L’annuncio viene dato dal segretario generale della Presidenza della Repubblica, Donato Marra. Come di prassi Marra esce nel corridoio dalla Vetrata e legge il comunicato (sempre lo stesso, crisi dopo crisi, in cui cambiano solo i nomi) e spiega che il Presidente della Repubblica ha affidato l’incarico al Senatore a vita. Questi ha accettato con riserva. Fra poco rilascerà alcune dichiarazioni. Interverrà anche Napolitano, successivamente." http://www3.lastampa.it/politica/sezioni/articolo/lstp/429582/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyasid (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. It says, ha conferito a Mario Monti l’incarico per formare il Governo - he's been asked to form a government. He is not the current Prime Minister. He is PM-designate. See e.g. BBC.  Chzz  ► 19:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyasid (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem :-) (also responded on user talk page)  Chzz  ►  20:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

dmverardi
please repost Maria, Hapsbourg (1965- )  This is a bio about a private person who is a descendant of Louis and Marie Antoinette of France. Can you let me know at what to do about this. I would have liked to put a lock on it, because it is too personal for much public telling, but interesting to know they are alive Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmverardi (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2011‎
 * I'm not sure quite what you are asking - or why you are asking me.
 * The article was deleted as a result of this discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by a 'lock' - if you mean to avoid the page being re-created, then normally that is only done after repeated re-creation, which doesn't appear to be the case - but, regardless, the place to make such a request is WP:RPP. I can't lock anything; I'm not an admin.
 * I've asked the admin who deleted it to look at the request for emailing a copy.
 * Please remember to log in when you edit. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nate Bomb
Hello! Thanks for inspiring me to be a "computer nerd" I am not calling you one, but I appreticiate it very very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate Bomb (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 November 2011‎

Your reply
Saw your reply. Thanks for that. You've been one editor who helped me the most for all the issues that I might have had. Seeing your name around on IRC was quite comforting, because for any issue, you'd be always there to lend a supporting hand and provide clarifications. I see you doing the same day after day for uncountable number of editors on Wikipedia, both newbies and experienced. The day you change your mind about adminship and decide to put a brake to your 'break', it'll be my pleasure, honor and privilege to nominate you for the same. I'll prefer if the same is sooner than later. But I'll leave it up to you. Do give it a thought. Wifione  Message 10:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

RfA nomination?
If you accept, I'll probably spend a few days working on the nom... ;)  HurricaneFan 25  23:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have given it some thought, but, sorry - I don't want to do it, right now. Thanks very much for suggesting it though. Maybe one day, I might do it; but for now, I just don't want to go through that horrible process. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 05:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Category & Redirect formatting??
To WP:Chzz, RE: MY DRAFT found on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GregLChest&diff=0&oldid=460543988

Thanx for trying, but I didn't notice any changes except:for 7800 applications :-)

Just problems with Categories & Redirects, everything else seems fine.

I saw your note that RED means NON-EXISTING WP ARTICLES, but All my RED listed Categories DO exist! I placed each one in a Google Search and they came up as WP articles! Also, while RED, they weren't shown in a Category Box OR at the bottom of the page either?? Maybe it's my formatting, although I copied an example??

As for my RED #Redirects: (This is my attempt to redirect any misspelling of my article's name & any non-existing WP article names, similar to my article, so my article would come up when they are Searched.) Isn't this possible? A note popped up when I cross over them, stating that the "SpiderGraph article doesn't exist," but I know that, because this final article hasn't been corrected or uploaded, however, some previous PDF articles of my article do exist, but I wish they didn't!

FIRST ATTEMPT: I used one #REDIRCT SpiderGraph chart   (can a space be between the # REDIRECT?)

And right under that, I used all redirect names in a row like Categories, separated with a Pipe Character? They came up grouped in RED Template R format, one right after the other, w/o any punctuation between them. Also, does there have to be a blank line under the #REDIRECT command?

SECOND ATTEMPT: I used a #REDIRCT SpiderGraph chart over each name to be redirected, in a column at the leading edge and they still came up all RED!

It must be my formatting. Also, can Redirects be HIDDEN?

Thanx for your efforts, Gregory L. Chester 01:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)


 * Hi. I think you are confusing "categories" with "articles".
 * There is no category called "Charting application", hence, if I put Category:Charting application, it looks like this: Category:Charting application - it is a red link, because it does not exist.
 * There is an article called "Charting application", hence, if I put Charting application, it looks like this: Charting application - it is a blue link, because the article exists. (You can click it, to see the article).


 * As for the other question - your page is a draft; it is not a live article at the moment. It is not ready to become a live article. It is in your userspace - a bit like a 'folder' or 'subdirectory'. Hence, it will not show up in Google search or the Wikipedia search.
 * It is in User:GregLChest/SpiderGraph chart. The prefix of "User:GregLChest/" means it is not a live article page; it's in your own userspace.
 * If/when it is ready to be made live, it could be moved to a live article. However, because it is your first article, I suggest you submit it for review, and don't just make it live. You can submit it for review by following the instructions at the top of the page - in the box, it says "Finished? Submit the page!" with a link.
 * If/when it becomes live, it will be appropriate to make redirects. But not until it is live.
 * I hope that helps clarify things. Please feel free to ask any further questions. Best,  Chzz  ► 02:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Songcat

 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barbara_Hall_%28artist%29

Chzz... please I really need help. I can not get this article to conform to the prudish and wrinkly ethics of some Wikipedians, no matter what I do. Can you,or anyone, help me out!? Thanks,Songcat Songcat (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied over on User_talk:Songcat  Chzz  ► 05:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Peterbhealey
I am a newly registered (intended) contributor to Wikipedia and I am finding the interface a very steep learning curve not having worked on mark-up languages.

I received a message saying that I needed to insert references in the article I had submitted. In trying to respond to this I decided to use the citation tool. The steps I took were:

1. pressed edit 2. positioned cursor where I wanted first reference to appear 3. pressed cite 4. was about to insert information for a web reference when I noticed I had no section for references. Typed in the two lines of code designed to create these but nothing seemed to happen possibly because I need to create new section and don't know how to do that 5. repeated steps 1-3 but clicking on template now has no effect - ie there is now no drop-down window 6. of course happy to contribute effort and want my article up but wonder whether there is anything on Wikipedia equivalent to a CMS system for a website, where you type in word and the system translate into code for you?

Peterbhealey

Peterbhealey (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered on that user's talk page  Chzz  ► 12:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project
There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks!  Chzz  ► 18:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Meaningful subject line
Chzz, I've looked up MOS/misspelling & variants. Unfortunately, I can't find out how to format them to redirect to the correctly spelled article name. Gregory L. Chester 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Chzz, My category formatting looks okay, but it doesn't show up rihgt in the sandbox. Here's what i entered: Problem solving | Decision theory | Charts | Statistical charts and diagrams What's wrong?? Gregory L. Chester 21:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)


 * Categories have to be listed one-after-the-other, separately, ie,


 * ...etc. However categories shouldn't be added to non-live articles. So, whilst working on a draft, it's best if you prefix category-links with a colon character, and remove the colons later when it goes live. ie,

Category:Problem solving Category:Decision theory


 * The colon makes them show up as links to the categories (e.g. Category:Problem solving) without actually putting the page into the category. Only live articles should be in those categories.


 * Also, I suggest you work on User:GregLChest/SpiderGraph chart, instead of using the public sandbox. The public sandbox (WP:SAND) gets cleared, and changed by other users, all the time. Your own userspace draft will not. There is a link to it on your own talk page as well, under "Your draft".


 * Hope that helps!  Chzz  ► 05:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Caesar & Armstrong
Thanks for your comment on my Plutarch rumination. Yes, I reached the same conclusion as you did by following a similar path; Seutonius' version is similar. I think my impression of this was based on something I read by a 20th Century historian.Tom Cod (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail call
WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed tag in Pavlichenko article
Can't argue with that. You ARE disputing the issue. Or are you "edit-warring"? Timothy Perper (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I never edit-war; I believe in discussion/consensus. The primary reason I've added that tag is actually to try and help your plight; it's just possible that IP's seeing that might, instead of removing the 'offending' sentence, actually join the discussion and help resolve things.  Chzz  ► 15:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. I don't either. How about we get back to my questions on the Pavlichenko talk page? Timothy Perper (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, the IP's might not. They might disregard attempts to discuss, but we have to try. Believe me, if a consensus agrees that you are 'right' - that the sentence is OK - I will absolutely fully help to make sure it does not get removed against consensus. However, for now, we do not have a consensus.
 * Whilst discussion is ongoing, it's best if everyone stops actually changing the disputed text in any direction. That means that if, for example, an anon removes it again - I highly recommend you leave it. If it's "wrong" for a short time, that doesn't really matter; once we've established consensus, then the content can easily be changed to reflect that. It might seem unfair that someone else may just remove it, and you can't put it back...but, it prevents disruption to the Encyclopaedia. Far better for the article to be wrong for a short time; after all, it's likely to be around for many years. There is no deadline.  Chzz  ► 16:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I see vandalism, I'll revert it. That means if an anonymous user deletes the sentence without an explanation on the talk page, I will revert the deletion. Calling vandalism by another name does not make it something else. Sorry, but I can't go along with what seems to me to be your self-serving suggestion. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we get back to the questions on the Pavlichenko talk page now? Timothy Perper (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're lucky you don't have rollback because I would be revoking it right about now. Let me make this a little more clear. You will not revert something simply because "an anonymous user deletes the sentence without an explanation". Perhaps you've forgotten what Wikipedia is all about? Now I'm not saying ignore it, but it requires at least a little investigation. It is by no means automatically vandalism (and I strongly encourage you to read that page, because your definition of vandalism seems to conflict with Wikipedia's). Think before you act. Not everyone is out there to destroy Wikipedia. In fact the most recent tests showed that less than 25% of anonymous editors engaged in vandalism, and account for 80% of the edits. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious? The "little investigation" goes without saying, but I see I should have explained that! Oh well, sorry that I confused you. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Table
How is YouTube not a good source? That's where they (Lou Reed and Metallica) posted the song. It was even linked on their official website! What's wrong with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.18 (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The YouTube video is an inadequate reference, because all it shows is, that there's a video. It does not show that it is at all notable, or suitable for inclusion. I could also upload a viodeo of myself shouting 'Table' - or any of a million other things - but it would not be appropriate to add that in the Wikipedia articles.
 * The existence of a YouTube video with somebody screaming about tables does not, in any way, help with Encyclopaedic understanding of the topic. Please see "In popular culture" content, and WP:IRS. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 02:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Space Hacks page
Hi,

The latest comment on my draft page for Space Hacks has a comment that it may lack notability. I have stated that is a BBC sitcom which has so far run for two series, starred an internationally known actress in Prunella Scales, and was the first ever commission for the digital radio station BBC7.

The sitcom is also referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_science_fiction

However I'm not sure as yet as to how to make it link in to this Wikipedia reference.

To my mind, that is sufficient notability. Is this enough in your mind? Many thanks in advance.

Splendid Belt (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Space Hacks
 * I agree with the reviewer - it doesn't show significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See WP:VRS, WP:IRS.
 * "Radio Listing Guide" isn't significant coverage; "BBC7 homepage" and "BBC page on Space Hacks" aren't independent; "British Comedy Guide to Space Hacks" and "Space Hacks fan site from Doug Bolden" looks like user-generated content thus probably not a reliable source.
 * It would really need examples of coverage in e.g. newspaper articles. However, even that fan site admits there is "very little press", so at this time, I do not think it can meet the notability guideline, unfortunately.  Chzz  ► 05:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Endorphin Power Company Article
Endorphin Power Company I am just getting started here. I merely meant to save the page so if my computor cut out I would not loose what I have already done. I guess I inadvertently hit some sort of submit button. It is ready for review... I have established daily newpaper references and article published to support the notability and neutrality. please advise Kangareu2001 (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I meant to say it is NOT ready for review. I will try to get back to that page and see if I can continue to work on it. if otherwise, please let me know. Kangareu2001 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, fine, no problem; I've removed the template that marked it for review, and added a different one. If you look at the page now, the box at the top will explain that you can work on it, and when "Finished? Submit the page!" - see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endorphin Power company.  Chzz  ► 14:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Songcat question
Hi Chzz... Question: Can I use some of the 3rd party, verifiable sources from Quarry Hill Creative CEnter and Irving Fiske for B. Hall? I kiss your ancient and withered feet. Songcat (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can use a non-independent reliable source, with caution;


 * It can be used as a reference for a neutral 'fact' -for example... ChzzCo is based in London.&lt;ref> http://www.chzzco.co.uk/about.html - that's OK
 * It canNOT be used for any kind of claim -for example... ChzzCo has over 9000 customers per year.&lt;ref> http://www.chzzco.co.uk/accounts.html - that is NOT OK
 * Primary sources do not help show notability - because all articles need to show "significant coverage in independent reliable sources"
 * For more info, see WP:PSTS  Chzz  ► 14:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Chzz, FYI: this is also being discussed at User talk:Shearonink. Shearonink (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Endorphin Power Company
Dear Chzz; I am trying to get the hang of this. The first sentence I wrote below needs a few changes. I have made them. I would like to add my first reference. This would be the Albuquerque Journal (a daily published newspaper). The article noting the founding is entitled “Hey Buddy, Can You Spare A Treadmill” by Isabel Sanchez, Journal Staff Writer; January 31, 2004. The Article documents Dr. Slishman’s forming the organization in 2002. I hit the [edit] box just after those first few initial sentences and all that comes up on the work page is:



Physical Fitness, Education, Fellowship and Community Service
The community center component is a 16,000 square foot former church that has been renovated to include a 2 community kitchens, performance space, library, gym, classroom space and clinic space.

I cannot seem to get back to the first sentences to make the edits or add the reference(s)…There are also other reference to add to legitimately support those first few sentences.

I appreciate your advice. (in addition, I realize that I do not have to write an overly expansive article but can rely on others persay to add to what I am doing once a framework is in place…) Thanks Reuben

Thus far:

 The Endorphin Power Company is a non-profit community center with additional dedicated living space dedicated to helping people with substance abuse and addiction integrate back into the community without their former additions. It was founded in 2002 by Sam Slishman, M.D. in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The mission of the organization is to foster healthy living, enriching interpersonal connections, and environmental consciousness both in the community at large and within the individual residents of it sober living quarters.

[edit] Physical Fitness, Education, Fellowship and Community Service The community center component is a 16,000 square foot former church that has been renovated to include a 2 community kitchens, performance space, library, gym, classroom space and clinic space. [edit] References

Kangareu2001 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endorphin Power company, replied on user talk, User_talk:Kangareu2001.  Chzz  ► 10:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Pintado
Hi Im a wikiwriter from Wikipedia in spanish. can you help me with this article, Carlos Pintado. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.18.10 (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/carlos pintado
 * It needs inline references to independent reliable sources, for all the information. Blogs / Youtube are not reliable sources. See WP:FIRST. Good luck,  Chzz  ► 10:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Broken template
There's something wrong with Template:Independent (politician)/meta/color. See. You seem to have been the last person to edit it, anyn ideas what's going on. Lozleader (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so, I just reverted to the last version. - ie, it's back to the way it was before I fiddled with it.
 * I don't fully understand the template; I was trying to resolve the problem mentioned on User_talk:TexasAndroid. I don't understand why it uses a colon to apparently point to a subpage within article space - but, of course, I don't want to break anything; so, I've reverted, and will leave it to others to sort out.
 * Apologies for any problem caused. Thanks for letting me know.  Chzz  ► 14:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologize
Hi, I would like to apologize for having comments directed too much against you at brfa page, however try to understand that I was answering pretty much affected by your comments and whole discussion we had day before on irc. You probably also didn't understand that I wasn't trying to tell you that you are responsible for that bot did something wrong (that's definitely my responsibility) - I tried to tell you that while bot did exactly what it was supposed to do - you considered it doing harmful edits (seen by you - maybe even others) and although you could stop it, you didn't and wait for it to do many edits, and then you complained at me that I "broke" something - even without giving clear explanation how it broke stuff (by making /Archive instead of /Archive N), also calling me idiot / or others on irc wasn't really of much help, so yes, I was upset and should probably get over that instead of posting what I posted, however that I can hardly take back, so I would like to apologize for being so offensive, I understand that most of mistakes or misconfiguration of the by bot was my mistake and I am responsible for that, however I think that some civilised discussion merely concentrated on solution of issue rather than arguing who is responsible or not would be more helpful. Petrb (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome message
Logged in now (and I prefer to not leave my username on my work IP, someone with some good deductive abilities might just be able to track my username back to my person), on your welcome template. My over-all verdict, really good, better than any I've seen (I think I've seen it before, and was impressed back then as well): The good: the prose on the template. You don't need to read anything: Yes, that's the spirit, and that's wikipedia. But we all know how we tend to treat our newcomers. Maybe a word of warning, that feedback, even if expressed in less elegant ways, might come around, and they shouldn't be to shaken by it, could be added. The same goes for When you're ready. Prepare the newbie that it's more likely than not that there might be deletion going on. For me, I would never advice a new editor to create an article, as it could just be the #1 cause of driving off newbies. It's just too hard, and in fact, I would advice *not* to create any new articles. By the time they are ready, they'll have long forgotten your welcome template (and by that time, you can be sure it did its work).

The lines "Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!" screams out template to me, and possibly undoes everything the line "Hi, Chzz. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person" tries to accomplish.

The links. Meh. It just makes it more of a wall of text. I'd leave it out all together. Maybe something for after 50 edits or something. The markup just shouts out template to me, and I'd leave that out too. Reading back what I wrote here, it seems I don't like your template. That's not true. It's simply far superior to any of the much used templates. I've taken all the stuff that I like from it (and that's a lot, it's basically the heart of the template), and dropped the stuff that in my view adds clutter, and put the result up at User:Martijn Hoekstra/sandbox. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And more or less unrelated: You probably know it, but you're doing it right. Don't stop doing that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good feedback; thanks. Yes, I agree it's all a bit too much. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is all rather too much, at first. But...yes, I will think about your ideas. I like the concept of "keeping track" of users I 'welcome' and formulating a further message for c. 50 edits or something, yeah. And yes, I agree about not creating a new article. I was extremely frustrated about WP:ACTRIAL being vetoed by WMF. Anyway...thanks again.  Chzz  ► 20:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I have been trying to do some general musings on new content, new editors, and the general state of affairs on en.wiki, but it doesn't make me much happier, and was rapidly deteriorating into rambling, so I'll just stick with you're welcome. Thank you for activating me into stealing your welcome template! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wouldn't mind returning the proverbial favour, could you give some comments on User:Martijn Hoekstra/promocsd? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered over there, User_talk:Martijn_Hoekstra.  Chzz  ► 07:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Rejected MW3 Edit
I saw you rejected my edit to the Modern Warfare 3 page to have Will Staples added as a writer along with Paul Haggis in the right hand column. In the actual credits of the game when you finish, it says "Written By Paul Haggis and Will Staples". I have been trying to get this reflected on Wikipedia by sending a video of the end of the game, a link to IMDB where Paul and Will are both listed, and recently a link to an interview with the military advisor for the game talking about working with Will (http://www.commandposts.com/2011/11/dalton-fury-on-call-of-duty-and-black-site/). If you aren't going to play the game and see for yourself, what other measures can I possibly take? I would greatly appreciate it if you could either trust this multitude of references, or just talk to someone you trust who owns the game and can pull up the credits. I don't know what else I can do to convince you. CoDFan13 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks! CoDFan13
 * Re. Talk:Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_3
 * I replied there .  Chzz  ► 08:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubstep
hello, chzz, i noticed the goings on over on the talk page for dubstep - it seems the editor wants his name added to the 'post-dubstep' section (why he felt the need to post the entire article on talk is beyond me) - and has created an article, Amdukias. seems to me a clear WP:COI, and i'd wager there are WP:N issues there too. Kaini (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:TV5MONDE
Hey, Chzz. I've commented at the article talk page and would appreciate any assistance that you have to offer. You can post there as I have the page watchlisted. See ya'round  Tide  rolls 
 * I'll try to get to it one day, but it might take a while; I have a list of lots of things-to-do. I understand the key point though. I'd think, probably, it just needs better coverage within the same article page, rather than a separate one. I've also added an tag. Anyway...I'll try and look.  Chzz  ►  07:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

about recent change in talk Operation Trident (1971)
hi i saw your comment on talk Operation Trident (1971) the other party is taking your comment as an excuse to remove the dispute tag from the article again and again here. I understand that you do not want to get involved in the discussion of the talk page. But the Tags are important so that relevant editors having expertise in the section review the edits being questioned on the talk page. SInce my tags are being reverted multiple times .i request you to clarify about this and restore tags on top of article Operation Trident (1971)-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  08:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is being repeatedly removed, then that means someone (you?) is putting it back. Instead, you should discuss it on the talk page, and work towards getting a consensus/agreement. If you cannot agree, see WP:DISPUTE.  Chzz  ► 08:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Huawei "Security concerns"
Hi Chzz, thank you for making the edit I proposed regarding Iran in the Huawei article, it is much appreciated. I have now also added a more specific request regarding the sentence on the Taliban in that same section. My apologies for not adding this in the first place, I had linked to the note on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard where I made the request, but neglected to add the detail to the Huawei talk page request. I would greatly appreciate if you could review the edit I propose and make this change if you think that it is acceptable. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I did take a look, but I'm not too sure; see .  Chzz  ► 18:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Added inline references
I have added inline references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanberney (talk • contribs) 17:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elevate
 * Thanks. However, articles need independent, reliable sources. "elevatethemovie.com" is not Independent, and IMDB is not reliable. It needs better references.  Chzz  ► 07:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

IRC - I can't type
I clicked on link you provided to IRC. (Thank you for that & rest of what you wrote.) People started responding. ping stopped before i could pong. flurry of responses. anytime i tried to type, nothing on screen. sometimes, it went to find-box, but that could be my fault. (or Linux's)KnowLimits (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Type in the white area at the bottom; click in the white area to make it 'active'.

MY RESPONSE: Though unsure if OK for me to add comment in middle, rather than end of item.For me, this is like email, responding inline. At the time, I tried that. nothing appeared. When I make next attemmpt, I will learn more. Per other discussion, next attempt planned for small group, to let me get hang of process. --KnowLimits (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There might be other people getting help / other discussions, but you can ignore those.

MY RESPONSE: Was not happening that time. So "help IRC" is like internet live-chat when customer service talking with several people at same time? --KnowLimits (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 Chzz  ► 00:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we ( me & 1-3 people) do a trial run (sometime - not today), so i can see how this works - before inviting the whole crowd? If so, please tell me who I should contact and how (link?) Would it help if I give few hours/day/days notice of when ready to do it?

Note, when I tried to save, an i (information ball) arrived, I did not understand third sentence - until read several times. (You auto-asked for edit-summary.) Suggest replace word "one" with actual meaning.KnowLimits (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied (briefly) over on user talk page.  Chzz  ► 07:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC) +again  Chzz  ►  11:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Chester Valley Trail
Haha, that's why I stopped doing that awhile ago, I wasn't very good at it. xP Glacialfox (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Debastein (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chzz
Thank you for your message re references in other Wikipedia articles. Happy thanksgiving. Songcat (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Received your Email note, No real problem but I thought I would chat, actually that error was quite some time back, and I don't ...
Dear Chzz, I got your Email message. It referred to an error I observed once when editing. Unfortunately it was some time back and I don't remember which article I was working on. But I do remember that it was the appearance of some Russian chemistry which didn't below where it intruded. Perhaps someone had been editing something in Russian and accidentally got it into my article. But it didn't seem to be a permanent intrusion.
 * To Chzz, got your message

In any case, it is not something to be concerned about now.

Chzz, it was good to hear from you. You were being too formal with my last name. I'm Howard to my friends.

I've written five Wikipedia articles on Organic Chemical things of interest (Important in my view). What I'm finding is that the really critical things are beyond what are in textbooks, and the opinion has been offered that articles should have only textbook stuff. But that would leave out the most important things. the textbook writers are not that knowledgeable in chemistry.

I've also found a number of items which have come from my research but have been written up by other editors. Generally they are well-written.

On a personal note, you may have noted that here in Madison, Wisconsin we have had some weird protests. They have stemmed from a conflict between the Governor and the Unions. He has balanced our budget without raising taxes and has given flexibility to the School Boards and Municipalities permitting them to avoid layoffs, that is, except where the Unions have rushed in to block him. But so many are persuaded that the Union Bargaining is a "right" when the Economics don't permit what they want. This pertains to the State.

We have National problems but not so easily solved.

Chzz, it was good to hear from you. You had been so very helpful in the past.

I'll end here.

Howard Hez (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great to hear from you! I'm thrilled that you've embraced the Wikipedia idea; we so need people like yourself, to help improve our "sum of all human knowledge"!


 * Re. the error - sometimes, strange things happen, and if the error goes away, it's best to just "blame aliens" and not worry or bother to investigate; life is too short. If it now works, it works, and that's all that matters.
 * "Beyond textbooks" is fine - of course; it's great; it's what Wikipedia is all about - as long as it's verifiable! As you know, 'original research' - whilst laudable - belongs elsewhere; an Encyclopaedia cannot publish novel information, it can only report the things documented elsewhere.
 * I'm sorry to hear of your local taxation disputes; no, I did not know about that; it hasn't hit our UK news so far. But the more general issue of the Western systems as a whole is certainly a "hot topic"; earlier today, I spent quite a long time looking at http://xkcd.com/980/ (if you click on it, you 'zoom in') - fascinating stuff.
 * Best wishes,  Chzz  ► 00:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback on User:Timeport101/Verax NMS
Hello Chzz, thanks for a great feedback you gave me on User:Timeport101/Verax NMS. I've implmented your suggestions and found additional references. I'd like to ask you about your opinion on this. I'm not sure if I cited refrences 100% correct (research papers and workshop materials).--Timeport101 (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've responded, as well; seriously, if I saw this at npp now I'd send it on through as patrolled. I've stuck one  tag on it.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Verax NMS.
 * The live page has been protected from creation (following Articles_for_deletion/Verax_NMS), but I think the new draft is OK, so I asked if the page could be unprotected -   Chzz  ►  00:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing: Next Steps

 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/USTA Eastern

Hi,

I submitted an article entitled "USTA Eastern," and got a message asking for citations. I inserted a number of citations and was just wondering what the next steps are to getting the article published.

Thanks so much, Geostory (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most/all of the references are not independent reliable sources; almost all are at usta.com. Please see WP:VRS and WP:PSTS.  Chzz  ► 10:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Dan Terry
Greetings! I was wondering what specific items for which I need to include in-line references for my article on Dan Terry. The Leonard Feather article about his early career -- referenced here http://danterrybigbigband.wordpress.com/press/1960-the-encyclopedia-of-jazz/ -- should cover issues about the musician until 1954. Can you recommend a better way I can include that information in the article? Perhaps there are items later in the article that need references. Please advise. Thank you! Kostraba (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Terry
 * I can see you've added some more references now, and that's good. We need to be able to verify all the information - anything that isn't referenced can be removed by any other editor. It's important that it's all verifiable because otherwise, people might change the 'facts' later, and we would have no way to tell which were correct. Please note that IMDB and allmusic (and other such sources) are not reliable sources. When you're ready, re-submit it. Best of luck,  Chzz  ► 22:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I have updated the entry again, removing items that I know to be true but which I cannot verify independently. I have also changed the allmusic.com reference to the Verve Music site, which I hope is a reliable source.Kostraba (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate all of the time you took to make the entry fit Wikipedia's guidelines. Take care and God bless, Greg 184.17.103.1 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ten Year War
Hello. This is in regard to your critique of my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ten Year War. I did read your notes and I still have some questions as to why you rejected it. I tried to chat with you a few minutes ago but couldn't figure out how to get it to work.

You mentioned that there were "large portions" of the piece that were unreferenced. Besides the background, what are they? I included 36 citations in the article, all from reliable third-party sources.

I'd also like to add that I'm a staunch Michigan fan and I hate Ohio State with a passion. :) So, it would be a tall order for me to say anything complimentary about Woody Hayes (referring to the "brilliant" passage you referred to).  But I went out of my way to make the piece fair and objective.  If you follow college football at all, you'd see that Hayes won three national titles at Ohio State, was there for 28 seasons and was treated like royalty.  If that's not brilliant, I don't know what is.  College coaches don't stay in one place for that long if there's no record of excellence.  I'm willing to drop the "brilliant" reference or find a source, but I think that's common knowledge.  You also mentioned that there were multiple statements of opinion besides that.  Where?

As to the statement that Hayes was fired, Hayes WAS fired. If you saw the clip that I included (from ABC Sports, a reliable source), you'd see why he was fired. There are other articles on Wikipedia, namely Woody Hayes that state that he was fired and there were no citations stating such.

A lot of work was put into this article and if you were in my shoes, you'd hate to see all that work shot down like that. Any guidance you can give on this to make the article "live" would be a huge help. Thanks! Mdb1370 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to shoot it down, not at all; just to help improve it a bit before accepting it.
 * Regarding "fired" - I'm always extra-careful about any possibly-negative BLP claims that appear to be unreferenced. If the ABC Sport had been a ref on the end of that fact, I would not have worried.
 * I'm sure the information comes from reliable sources, but because some things don't have a ref actually on the end of the claim, I couldn't tell, without hunting through all the other stuff. Apart from 'background', some of the seemingly-unref'd-things are - in == 1969: Michigan 24, Ohio State 12 ==;


 * Ohio State's 1969 team was dubbed by the media as the "greatest college football team of all time", with a handful of proven All-Big Ten players and All-Americans. - is that covered in the same ref [2] at the end of the next sentence? I do not have access to the book myself, so I cannot check.
 * The specific problem there is, as follows; imagine if I wrote  - and then later, someone edited it, putting   - I'm sure you can see the problem there; is the pet cat fact covered in the ref? We don't know. For that reason, it's best to add references on the end of each sentence. It's "acceptable" to have a ref just at the end of a paragraph, but it does lead to that problem.


 * Quarterback Don Moorhead would score two plays later on the keeper to extend Michigan’s lead to 21-12. Michigan would kick a field goal and go into the locker room with a stunning 24-12 lead. - that's the end of the paragraph, and there's no ref.
 * The next two-sentence paragraph, starting with In the third quarter... has no reference.
 * Ohio State finished at #4.
 * The same kind of thing is true of the other sections.
 * Regarding neutral language,


 * Probably the most significant aspect of this stretch of the rivalry was - avoid 'probably' - it either is a fact we can support with a reference, or it is just an opinion and shouldn't be in the article.
 * a stunning 24-12 lead - no need for the word "stunning" - just present the fact, and let the reader decide how significant it is
 * Hayes really going ballistic - not encyclopaedic language; try to keep it more formal such as, "Hayes became more angry"
 * a freshman phenom named Archie Griffin - do you mean "phenomenon"?
 * the record Ohio Stadium crowd screaming themselves hoarse - unnecessary exaggeration; just "screaming" would be quite enough
 * Lytle would be stuffed by two Ohio State defenders "stuffed" isn't very appropriate
 * only blemish was a heartbreaking loss to Oklahoma - opinion rather than fact (whose heart did it break?)
 * whacking the ABC-TV cameraman do you mean 'hitting'?
 * Tom Cousineau was considered the country’s best defensive player - according to who?
 * Avoid contractions - such as "he'd" instead of "he had", or "couldn't" instead of "could not" - there are quite a few, throughout.
 * Please note, these are just suggestions for improvement; I'm not really concerned about them, it's just ideas for making it better. The only thing that truly matters is, the referencing. Hope that helps,  Chzz  ► 10:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

MtC drive
So, thanks for joining the next MtC drive. I'm here since you forgot to add yourself to the logs page, and it would be boring to get nothing for transferring 3 thousand files. Ebe 123 → report on my contribs. 20:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can always do that a bit closer to the time :-) -I hope I'll get some kind of notification? Otherwise, I will probably forget...with it being a month away.  Chzz  ► 22:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I'm thinking about moving it to December. So you may join the reviewers, and I've never tried to block it off.  I am thinking about moving it to December 2011.  I will be getting a bot to send messages too.   Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 23:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sawbridgeworth
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Seymour_of_Sawbridgeworth

Okay Chzz, I'm starting to clue-in to the message. I still believe that factual and interesting information belongs in an encyclopedia, and will completely re-write it with a Joe Friday tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.99.172.140 (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK.  Chzz  ► 22:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

EcoMil Almond article
hello! I'm writing to you because I'm having some troubles with publishing an article... and as you have reviewed it twice, I was wondering if you could give some advice?

It's the first time I publish anything in Wikipedia. I'm a vegan, and when I moved to UK I found this product, EcoMil, and I thought it could be interesting to talk about it here, as other products like Alpro and Provamel are already in the wiki. I don't really want to make it soung as an advertisement, I've even used some medical studies to support it, but I still can't make it right...

Could you please give me a hand with that, and give some tips to make it work?

Thank you very much!!

(Cristina-nutriops (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC))
 * It seems to contain copy-violations. I will reply on your talk page.  Chzz  ► 22:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Huawei revision
Hi Chzz, I have considered your response and made a change to the proposed language on the Huawei discussion page. If you have time to review it and offer your thoughts on the new version, I would greatly appreciate it. --Bouteloua (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I'm trying to enlist help, from Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Grand Orient Arabe
The Grand Orient Arabe is an old Arabic Masonic Obedience founded in Lebanon in 1950. It no longer exists as such since its merger in 2010 with the Grand Orient Arabe Œcuménique a French Masonic Obedience of Study and Research to form the "Grand Orient Arabe Œcuménique". The Grand Orient Arabe Œcuménique advocates, outside structures, inter-religious dialogue and aims to bring the brotherhood beyond the religions. The Grand Orient Arabe Œcuménique working with a new rite told Ecumenical. The ritual is inspired by the World Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (REAA), the practices of the ancient builders Muslims, and initiation of the branches of Islam (Sufi, Druze and Ismailis). It consists of seven steps, preceded by a state of Aspirant /Mourid. Publications: Freemasonry,Muhammad Safwat al-Saqqa Amini & Sa'di Abu Habib,published in Arabic from Makkah al-Mukarramah,1980 and in English published from New York,1982,Printed by Igram Press, Cedar Rapids,Iowa;The Grand Arab Orient,page 68,69,70. Rituels et catéchismes au Rite Œcuménique, Orient et Occident,à la croisée des chemins maçonniques;Jean-Marc Aractingi et G.Le Pape;Editions L'Harmattan,Paris,2011 (ISBN: 978-2-296-54445-1). References: economicsnewspaper/freemasonry1 Article de la Voix du Nord, édition de Lens,17/10/20102 Grand Orient Arabe3 Grand Orient Arabe Œcuménique4 List of Masonic Grand Lodges,Wikipedia5 90.8.112.240 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm sorry, but I do not know what you are asking me about - the only edit you have made (from that IP address) is here, on my talk page. Is this regarding some existing article, or some draft/suggestion? What did you want me to do? Please let me know.
 * If you have a general question, I suggest you try the help desk. Thanks!  Chzz  ► 22:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ChzzBot
ChzzBot left a "no inline references" comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deborah Willis/User talk:Bgillcalgary, but the submission was a disambiguation page. Thought you'd want to know. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 19:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, soory - thanks for letting me know! I'll fix it. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 19:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed now, I hope; I'm avoiding DABs in a smarter way now. Thanks again,  Chzz  ► 13:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
M aen K. A. Talk  10:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

inline references.
Hello

i went onto chat as i am not exactly tech savvy(!) to try and make sure i included inline references. i have done one, however am not sure what else is needed, or indeed if i have done it correctly. apolagies for not getting this right, is there anything lse i should do please? I understand that i shouild not include references from the woodford website for example..?

many thanks

Supertrooooper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertrooooper (talk • contribs) 12:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference you've added it OK, yes... except that I don't think it verifies that it's the only such charity. It shows it's a charity though - so yes, it's a good start.
 * You can use their own website, but with care; it's a primary source, so it should only be used for simple, neutral facts - and not for any type of claim. For example, ChzzCo is based in London.&lt;ref> http://www.chzzco.co.uk/about.html &lt;/ref> -that's OK. But ChzzCo has over 9000 customers per year.&lt;ref> http://www.chzzco.co.uk/accounts.html &lt;/ref> -that is not OK.
 * Also, primary sources do not help show 'notability' - because all articles need to show "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". The article must mostly be based on independent references. For more info, see WP:PSTS.  Chzz  ► 12:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

About not acceptance of article Joe Gunther (singer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joe_Gunther_(singer) Joe Gunther (singer) Thank you for reviewing the article I submitted. You said in your reply none of the references mention the person. If you pay attention to the right side bar, you will see Joe Gunther is the stage name for "Joao Barao Neto" mentioned in both articles, including wikipedia page about James Durbin's debut album, currently one of the TOP20 selling albums in the world.

I would appreciate if you could take another look at the article and therefore accept it.

Joaoneto1982 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks!
 * Hi. I'm sorry I missed that connection, but in there's only a very brief mention of Neto, and I still can't see anything in . We need "significant" coverage about the subject of the article, to meet WP:GNG. The success of Durbin's album doesn't help.  Chzz  ►  19:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chzz. Neto was one the songwriters of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memories_of_a_Beautiful_Disaster. Therefore I would like to be able to link his name on that page to his own page. I don't see how different he is from other writers on the page that have their own writer's page on Wikipedia such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Trust or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Waronker The references I added to Neto's page prove him to be one of the writers of song Deeper, and the other reference link shows that song is James Durbin's favorite song in the album. Also his album being one of the current Top 20 selling albums in the world and that song being his favorite song in the album are enough notoriety to establish Neto as a songwriter worth of a page of his own. I kindly ask you to review your decision. Joaoneto1982 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Thank you.
 * I see that someone else has now reviewed it. I'm sorry, but I agree with them - it doesn't meet the guideline. "Notability" is all about references about the person; the fame of the record and James Durbin isn't relevent to determining the "notability" of that person.  Chzz  ► 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chzz. Thanks for reviewing it once again. It does meet the notability criteria: WP:MUS Wikipedia:Composers. "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.". We are talking about an album that currently is in the Top 5 Selling Rock Albums in the world. The referred song is the artist's favorite song as it's stated in references. Therefore it is a notable composition whose composer is worthy of being listed in an encyclopedia. Joaoneto1982 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks!
 * WP:MUS also says, Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person [..] that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject.  Chzz  ► 02:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that. So ultimately what you are saying is in order to establish Joe Gunther as an independent subject we need to gather more articles about the subject himself? Joaoneto1982 (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks!
 * Yes. "Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" - and to have 'significant' coverage, means there needs to be some substantial information about the subject of the article. Otherwise it is not possible to have a verifiable article about the person.  Chzz  ► 15:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Page Visibility
Hi,

I just had my first page approved for qualifying non-uk pension schemes but i can't seem to find it in the search results at all...Does this just take time or do I need to add something to the page so the search engine is able to find it related to various keywords?

MrHarrison123 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It just takes time - up to a day - before it's been indexed in the Wikipedia search. It'll work if you put in the exact title, Qualified Non-UK Pension Scheme. Google has already found it although for me, it is about the 8th entry (it varies, by region). The Wikipedia article will probably move up the Google ranking soon.  Chzz  ►  10:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Also, I've added a couple of redirects too)  Chzz  ► 22:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

David_Ross_McAndie
re: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Ross_McAndie

I have added a couple of ref's but most of the information is in our family history which is not published. What do you suggest?

Kenullman (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks!
 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia only permits information that has been published in reliable sources (such as books, newspapers, etc) - and does not permit original research. If the information is not verifiable, then Wikipedia isn't the right place for it. See WP:OR, WP:V, WP:IRS, WP:FIRST.  Chzz  ► 22:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Editor's poor performance
Re. "It would help greatly if, on Wikipedia:Help_desk#how does one report a wikipedia editor for poor performance?, you could tell us which article it is about. Thanks, Chzz  ►  18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)"


 * Chzz: What happened on this issue from your end?  I see on Talk:The_Analytic_Sciences_Corporation that the original editor who called for Speedy Deletion still does not understand the contents of the entry s/he wishes to have deleted -- and is reading my notes to her/him no more carefully than the original article.  Please help.  --Aboudaqn (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing happened from my end; I see that other people over on the help desk replied - and that's now archived here.
 * I don't think there's anything to worry about. "Anyone can edit", so that means anyone can mark a page for "speedy deletion". However, if it is invalid, it gets rejected - and that's what happened here.
 * The comment "take it to AfD" from the person who declined it is just a routine acknowledgement - saying that, if something is not eligible for speedy deletion, but someone still thinks it should be deleted, then the person could list it in Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, which is where we discuss whether or not something should be deleted.
 * Hence, nothing to worry about. I doubt they actually will list it in AfD, and if they do, you'd have plenty of opportunity to discuss/explain why it shouldn't be deleted. Best,  Chzz  ► 06:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Side note: c/f User_talk:Night_of_the_Big_Wind  Chzz  ► 06:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...:)
Chzz, Thanks for your messages. I figured out both that it hadn't been reverted and that I hadn't been stuck, it was a multi-user open forum, but it took me a couple of days. I'm just learning - I would do that edit, except that Dragonfly6-7 said that they were going to check with an expert.

But I have another question. Where should I ask it?

Thanks very much for all your help,

Entwhiz

Entwhiz (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Where to ask depends on the question. But as long as it is Wikipedia-related, then help desk, or a on your own user talk page, or the live help should work.  Chzz  ►  12:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

kent holtorf for deletion again

 * , Articles for deletion/Kent Holtorf - presumaby ; User_talk:Chzz/Archive_34  Chzz  ► 16:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, could use your help! Another editor (duffbeerforme) has nominated the kent holtorf page for deletion. Your input would be much appreciated since you helped me get it back live!!! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Holtorf 76.164.84.41 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd already commented there before reading this, actually. I think it'll be OK.  Chzz  ► 16:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Help Posting (Microsoft Dynamics Academic Alliance)Microsoft Dynamics Academic Alliance (MSDYNAA)
Hello, I am working really hard to get this posted and would love any help you could provide. I feel like there is a lot of Wikipedia that isn't necessarily helpful or true and feel that this is very difficult to post what I am trying to post about (Microsoft Dynamics Academic Alliance)Microsoft Dynamics Academic Alliance (MSDYNAA), which is real content that is important. It is important for people to know about the program. The program is very similar to the Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance MSDN Academic Alliance, which does have a page. I followed very closely to how that page was set up and still want not approved. Please provide guidance as to why this, being so similar to the other page of the sister academic alliance, is not allowable. I am just very frustrated :)

Thank you!

Lcreame (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Microsoft Dynamics Academic Alliance (MSDYNAA)
 * Hi. All articles need to show "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" - see WP:REFB. So, it requires inline references to reliable sources such as newspaper articles about the programme, or news-websites.
 * The existence of other articles such as MSDN Academic Alliance which do not have those, doesn't help; that article was made in 2005, and standards change. That article should be fixed, or if it cannot be fixed, it should be tagged for deletion. See also WP:ORG. Hope that helps,  Chzz  ► 09:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd message
Hello, you've left a message on this IP's user talk page. Just to let you know it's a dynamic IP address, so I have no idea what the message is meant to mean, as I didn't do the edit you're talking about. Please bear this in mind as it confuses people who use Wikipedia on dynamic IPs and can cause them to worry unnecessarily. 78.143.205.122 (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, I'm aware that IP addresses may change, but it is the only way we can attempt to contact anonymous users; also, please note that that message was written in April 2010. This problem illustrates one of the many advantages in creating a user account. Best,  Chzz  ► 09:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Chzz...thanks for your help in getting The Ten Year War live. I was able to find additional sources for the article so I wouldn't have to use the same source over and over again. Thanks again...Mdb1370 (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had written a long reply on this talkpage (now in User_talk:Chzz/Archive_35) but I didn't want you to feel I was "shooting it down", so instead I've put my comments on Talk:The Ten Year War. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 15:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Gideon Weitzman
Hi, I noticed you reviewed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gideon Weitzman. I added a few more V & N sources (all RS) that may be relevant to your review. It was not difficult to find G-hits both in Google News and in Google Scholar with the subjects name. I would try rewriting the article but I'd like your opinion on it's viability before blowing time on it. Joe407 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see it's been resubmitted, so it should be reviewed ASAP. From a brief look, I'd say it was borderline; my concern is that although he is mentioned in several RS articles, they aren't actually about him. The "Personal background" has no references - and I wonder if it is possible to source that kind of information? If not, then it's hard to write a biography. Anyway - it's up for another review, so best of luck.  Chzz  ► 17:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

David Bromberg album page submission
Hello, I'm not sure what to do to provide a more reliable source. I entered the information based on my copy of the 12" LP and it is consistent with the online source that I referenced. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Out_of_the_Blues:_The_Best_of_David_Bromberg&rcid=476482792

Broderij (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC) broderij
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the album is not an independent source. See WP:VRS.  Chzz  ► 17:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Harris Stratyner Ph.D.
This is our article that was rejected...

Harris Stratyner Ph.D.is a noted New York psychologist with offices in New York City and Westchester County, New York. Dr. Stratyner is the co-author of The PDR Guide to Pediatric & Adolescent Mental Health. [1] He is co-chair of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence’s Medical Scientific Committee and previously served as the Vice Chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. Dr. Stratyner is Clinical Associate Professor at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and serves as the New York Regional Clinical Vice President of the Caron Treatment Centers. Dr. Stratyner has also received an honorary doctorate from Mercy College in recognition of his clinical contribution to the field of addiction.

Dr. Stratyner developed the technique "Carefrontation," which is a treatment approach for addicted individuals and people with co-occurring disorders that advocates for treating every patient with respect and dignity–no shaming or blaming–but does hold people responsible for dealing with one’s own addiction or mental health condition.

Dr. Stratyner was the first Ph.D. appointed Division Director of Chemical Dependency at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Westchester, and was also an Assistant Professor of Psychology in Psychiatry there, where he founded The Retreat at Westchester, a world-renowned addiction program.

Dr. Stratyner received his Master’s Degree in Psychology from Long Island University, where he served as the teaching/research assistant to Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, Distinguished Professor of Social Psychology. After receiving his M.A., Dr. Stratyner received the Gold Medal for Excellence in his major field of study. He obtained a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology at Seton Hall University with distinction. He is a licensed New York State Doctor of Psychology and practices in New York City.

For the past 20 years Dr. Stratyner hosts his own radio show, "Here's to Your Good Health" airing on WFAS AM Radio 1230. He appears frequently on national television including CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, and CBS. He was listed in the Castle Connelly almanac as one of the field’s leading specialists. Dr. Stratyner posts his blog on the "Renew Everyday" website.

14:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. After some searching, I found Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Harris Stratyner and Articles for deletion/Harris Stratyner.
 * The draft article does not meet the requirements, as I said - it's explained in WP:VRS and WP:BIO, and there is a good guide at WP:FIRST. Hope that helps,  Chzz  ► 17:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Westport
i was born in westport indiana 6 miles west of westport lived they for 23 years we live in a old log house and now i live in k.y but i will help support you and the township

THANKS

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.12.45 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 November 2011‎
 * I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you are on the wrong page?  Chzz  ► 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Amvona
thank you

Thanks for moving the amvona article to WPtalk - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Amvona   can you help us get it published, we don't know where we're going wrong if at all? the articles on the site and it's author are notable...

thanks in advance for your help

Thesilentplanet (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Who is "we"? A Wikipedia account must be for one person, not a group. WP:GROUPNAME.
 * Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amvona - I only moved it, because it was accidentally made in the wrong place. It's been 'declined' for now, because it isn't neutral enough. In particular, it makes non-neutral claims based on primary sources. Instead of just quoting things, you should try to present straight-forward, factual information supported by appropriate independent reliable sources. See also WP:BFAQ. Listing blogs doesn't help at all, see WP:IRS. See also WP:SELFPROMOTE. Best,  Chzz  ► 17:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Stiefel Laboratories Article
Stiefel Laboratories Page

Hi Chzz,

You helped me earlier on the Stiefel Laboratories article. Another editor when in and added some notes. Would you mind reviewing their notes and letting me know your thoughts? Here is a link to the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stiefel_Laboratories.

There are warnings on the page now, which makes it look worse then before I tried to update the content. Any help you can provide would be great!

Thanks

152.51.56.1 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my "to do" list, which is sadly very long right now (as you can see here on this page, I'm pretty busy!) - but I'll try to get to it, one day. Other than that, I suggest just discussion it - and making further things - on the talk page. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

John Hulley article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Hulley&action=edit

Thank you very much for reviewing the above article. I am working through the changes you have asked for.

I have removed some of the unreferenced claims and given more specific references for others, including the report title from the newspaper where possible. You said:

b) Avoid naming people who are not public-figures WP:BLPNAME WP:NPF ie "survived by his wife Georgiana and daughter Georgiana Theodosis"

Both these named persons are deceased and died over 115 years ago, so the BLP policy does not apply. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPF#Deceased. According to this it should be okay for me to include them.

You said:

d) if possible, please add more details to the references - the title of the article, and the author

In most cases the author isn't named because it wasn't shown in the newspaper report.

Re quotations. I have deleted some and reduced others. All quotes from newspapers are over 70 years old; does copyright still apply to them?

Finally, regarding the two photographs of the medal. At present they are on the left and right hand sides of the page. I would like to place them so that the left hand photo, the text box containing the inscription between the photos and the right hand photo are all centred across the page. Please advise how this can be achieved.

Thanks, Eriboll

Eriboll (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * All facts should be verifiable - that covers the part I 'collapsed', I think. Your own personal knowledge is not a verifiable source; we do not permit original research on Wikipedia.
 * For the newspaper - OK, the author may not be known - that's fine; I only said "if possible".
 * Quotations - better, certainly. They're probably public-domain; the applicable term is actually "life of the author plus 70 years" - but, if we're quoting them and not over-using them, that doesn't matter. Excess quotes could still be a problem even if the text were not copyright; we want to present facts, not just quote from newspapers.
 * Trying to juggle pictures left/right is frought with difficulty, because Wikipedia is viewed on so many different devices, so we try to keep the formatting as simple as possible. However, you could possibly try using Template:Multiple image, as shown here;

Mostly, it looks OK; I see it's awaiting a new review; that might take several days, due to the backlogs. Best of luck,  Chzz  ► 15:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Tool apprenticeship
Yeah, I get that. It's more how it will be judged a success or failure that I'm concerned about. Thryduulf (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered over there.  Chzz  ► 16:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheongye Kwan

 * · · Articles for deletion/Cheongye Kwan (2nd nomination)

Ckduk (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, chzz we went through my page with me many times and then weeks later we has made it live, I was asked to put links to my article on other pages to link back to mine which I did, but now it is up for deletion after doing so, that doesn’t seem fair, can anyone please help me correct the reasons listed? i dont want to lose it again, its been 2 years since the last time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheongye_Kwan

can you add a comment in my defence? yes it needs more work, but is acceptable to be on right now as it will updated and edited by other people as time goes on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Answered in live help; I will try to look at it more ASAP.  Chzz  ► 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Tools by trial and not by fire
Hi Chzz, I've just been reading your piece about even wearing silly hats and writing backwards would be welcome change. Well, actually, you're not wrong, and I'm sure were basically thinking  on  the same lines. One of the features of WP2011 that the project's detractors miss is that  those who  are involved are clearly  unanimous that  a small  change, if it succeeds, would open  the door to  further changes. Unfortunately however, I  think that  the current proposal is too  big for such  a first  change. The basic concept is not  new, and  I  think  it comes too  soon  while at  the moment  some real  progress is being  made with  possible reforms of NPP, which if they  get  implemented, would already  relieve some of the workload of admins. I see Dcoetzee's project as ultimately creating  more work  and causing  greater concerns that  it  would solve. There is a chance that it  may  obtain consensus, but  it  will  need a heavily  subscribed debate  for a quorum  to  be accepted, and unfortunately  it  might get  that  consensus for all  the wrong  reasons, especially  if the 1,400 admin  hopefuls with  their little 'I wanna be a sysop' UBX (on  400 edits and two  weeks membership) turn out  to  vote. The work we've been doing  on  NPP  research  for the past  12 months or so is shortly  to  be released, I  hope within the next  week or so, and its impact on  the community  is going  to  be very  interesting. Because so much  of the work of admins is inseparably  combined with  that  of the patrollers, I  think  perhaps Dcoetzee might  have waited to  see what  we're up  to  at  RFA2011 and NPP. Nevertheless, I'm not  a spoilsport, and while I oppose his proposal, if it  gets accepted, I  will  do  all  I  can to  help  it work. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I've tried to persuade Dcoetzee to make it simpler, most recently in User_talk:Dcoetzee. However, per "hats on a Thursday", I really would like to see it succeed. Your concerns over thousands of admin-hopefuls turning up are unfounded, because the trial as proposed is rightly limited to just ten users.  Chzz  ► 18:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant turning up to vote on the current  proposal. It's clearly obvious that  hey will, and that  they will see it a s a possible short cut to power. (Power? OMG, if only they  knew...) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart
SUBJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart

Chzz: I need your help! On 14 Nov. you moved my proposed Article "SpiderGraph chart" from the User:Sandbox to one of my own and then later to the AFC section. I'm not sure where I go to look at any viewer's comments and its been since the 23 Nov.??

Should there be a space in this submit notice? Could that have stopped any viewing? I just now added one with the space removed.

Also, I made a few corrections today and when I saved it, my chart image "File:Hpqscan0002" didn't develop, just its file name. Does that mean the file has been deleted? If so, how do I connect my image to the file?

Gregory L. Chester 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) 01:19, 30 November 2011‎
 * Hi. Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart. The headings etc. had somehow been messed up, so I've put the most recent 'decline' message back - and that also explains how it could be resubmitted at any time. Hope that's OK. You could edit that page, and resubmit it if/when you've added appropriate reliable sources.
 * The image file 1 was deleted, as "no permission", shown here. I can see you wrote here, but "my Company (GLCNPC) owns the Copyright" is not good enough; we have no evidence that the picture can be used by anyone; you'd need to give explicit permission, please see WP:DCM for help on that. Best,  Chzz  ►  18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart
SUBJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart

Dear Chzz: (I was previously #22 on your list)

1) I believe my Article was "Messed up" before and you or someone has rearranged it, but now the first paragraph is above the ToC and has "no Edit tab" and therefore it is not accessable to me. Also, the first paragraph, being above the ToC, has caused the "Article's Title" to be omitted from the ToC.

2) My question about my Image (File:Hpqscan0002) not being developed, missing or deleted when I Saved that section, never got answered. Can you help me find it or will it have to be uploaded again? Also, It may have been uploaded "uncategorized?" because I wasn't sure how to link it to my Article?? Can you help me with that?

3) Verifible Third-party Sources: Can I verify my sources by scanning the original 1985 magazine & 1986 book articles and faxing or emailing them to you for verification? I also have a question about Wikipedia being a Source. Aren't Wikipedia Articles considered a "time tested" source because of the "Edit Tabs, which I believe are used to obtain the most correct article/definition possible?"

Here's my problem: In 1986, 25 yrs ago, my SpiderGraph Selection Method was mentioned in The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation. I'm sure it has been seen by hundreds, if not thousands in those 25 years! I trademarked the word "SpiderGraph" in 2003 for eCommerce purposes and now I plan to develop an iPad Decision-making App from it.

Unfortunately, as of late, several companies (~15-20) have confused it with your Radar chart Article, that also calls it by 8 other names, one of which is "Spider chart" because it looks like a spiderweb. My word "SpiderGraph" also looks like a spiderweb, but fortunately my word is not listed in your Radar chart Article!

Since Wikipedia is now being used as a Standard Reference and the Radar chart article mentions "Spider chart," people have confused it with my word, but the charts' functions are radically different, as I brought out in my article! Since I alone developed the SpiderGraph Method, I thought I would write an Article clearing up the confusion, by referring to your Radar chart article as a Source, because I believe it has caused the confusion. In doing so, my article can also be "time-tested" like the Radar chart article, allowing anyone to comment or propose changes to my article. Am I going about this the right way? Gregory L. Chester 20:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)


 * 1) Use the "edit" button at the top of the screen, near the search-bar, where it says "Read · Edit · View history" to edit the entire page. Or you can go to Preferences, gadgets and under 'Appearance', there is an option to "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page".
 * 2) I did answer that; look up two sections.
 * 3) No, do not scan them in; to do so would be a copyright violation, and besides, it is not "us" that need to check them; the idea of a reference is so that the reader could check the information if they wanted. So, instead, just put full-details in the article directly after a fact; e.g.
 * Chzz lives in England.
 * The source does not have to be available online. If you give enough details, then a reader could - if they wished - track it down (e.g. via a library) to check the facts.
 * You need to give verifiable, third-party, reliable sources for the information. It must have "significant coverage", to meet the notability requirements. We cannot publish anything based on personal knowledge; it has to be verifiable. Also, please be very careful about the conflict of interest. Best,  Chzz  ► 20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback re encouraging me to write/edit
--KnowLimits (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Oddbodz (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart
SUBJ: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart

previous #1: I found the "top" edit button and made my changes. Thanx! Should the Title of the article show up in the ToC?

previous #2: Your answer was not helpful. You directed me to 2 locations for more reading of definitions?? BUT NOT WHAT TO DO OR WHERE TO FIND THE FORM! I'VE SPENT DAYS ON END READING AND REREADING DEFINITIONS! I now understand that my image was "Deleted", but do I reupload or petition for Undeletion? I've uploaded the image 3 or 4 times and each time, I have agreed to a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, doesn't that mean "Share Alike"? If I haven't signed the right forms, where are they? Also, does the image have to be linked in some way to my article? If so, How do I do that?

Previous #3 Verifible Third-party Sources: My whole article is ALL based upon facts, if I put "full details" after the facts, I'd be reinventing the wheel! I alone developed the SpiderGraph (there is no 3rd-party) and my article's References can all be verified by the listed magazine publisher & the book can be found in the Library of Congress! Isn't that notible enough? My section "Not to be confused with a Radar chart" ALL "refers to", but not copied verbatium, your WP Radar chart article, that started all the confusion in the first place! Do I need permission to refer to that too? PLEASE FORGIVE ME if I sound ticked, I've been bounced around for 2 months, day & night, while also skipping meals, trying to do the right thing. Someone lied when they said this would be easy! I'm 71 and I guess I don't have the patience for this! Gregory L. Chester 00:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
 * I've answered these questions on User_talk:GregLChest.  Chzz  ► 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart
Chzz - Last night, I was going to cc: you when I used your Boilerplate Premission form to email, but I didn't know how. Up to this point, all actions have been internal, I didn't even know emailing was possible! THANX! Now, do I have to ask that my image gets reinstated or will that be automatic? I haven't had time to work on your other suggestions yet. THANX again! Gregory L. Chester 01:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
 * I've done what I can; and I think the OTRS folks are dealing with this via email. Best,  Chzz  ► 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Glamourina
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ultrahigh energy gamma-ray
Thanks from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mount Holyoke College
Can you explain how you interpret the removal of the word "prestigious" constitutes a non-neutral point of view? That's actually included in the list of example words that characterize Peacock terms/Wikipuffery here. Perhaps you're not familiar with that policy? Or is this another case of reflexive reverting any edit made by an IP editor? 128.114.59.200 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that you are mistaken.
 * I removed the word "prestigious. You added it, with this edit. I then removed it, with this edit.  Chzz  ► 00:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's totally backwards. I removed it twice, indicating it was a peacock term both times. You and another editor reverted my edits without comment. This is pretty typical behavior in my experience. Please read IPs are human too. 128.114.59.200 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And now you're reflexively reverting other clearly constructive edits I've made. IP editing is perfectly valid and if you continue this behavior you'll wind up on ANI. 128.114.59.200 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. You are misreading the history of the page. I will try to explain;


 * On 28 November - before either of us edited the page - it contained the word "prestigious". You can see that here
 * On 30 November at 00:21, removed the word "prestigious" with this edit. Afterwards, it looked like this - without that word.
 * On 30 November at 21:18, you undid that edit, thus adding back the word. Your edit was this one. Your 'undo' put the word "prestigious" back into the article, and it looked like this.
 * At 22:00, reverted your change - thus, removing the word "prestigious" - with this edit. It then looked like this
 * At 00:02, you undid the edit by ElKevbo, putting the word "prestigious" back, with this edit. So, it looked like this. Please note, after your edit of 00:02, it contained the word "prestigious".
 * I reverted it, with this edit - again, removing the word "prestigious". Hence, the current version - as of right-now - does not contain that word. It is this version (and, at the time of writing, that is the current version of Mount Holyoke College).

I hope that explains it. Best,  Chzz  ► 00:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the database is out of sync. inserted it originally, as they also did on Boston University here. I removed it twice, both times checking carefully that I was doing it correctly. When/if they problems with the database are resolved, please remove it again. 128.114.59.200 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The database is not out of synch. Also, I am pointing to specific, old versions - so that would not matter. The word was actually inserted back on the 7th of May this year, by another IP editor,, with this edit. Please look at any of the older versions in the page history to confirm that for example, this one, back in July.  Chzz  ► 00:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it will be clearer if you look at the page sizes in the history. Note that your edits increased the size of the page from 34,218 bytes to 34,230 bytes. You added 12 characters, ie prestigious and a space.  Chzz  ► 00:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I removed it twice, and confirmed it both times. That's a fact that there is no point in debating. After my last edit it wasn't there. Sorry I didn't bother taking screenshots, but that's what happened. So I'm not sure what your issue is. It's not there now, which you seem to agree is good, and I'll check it later to make sure your last revision didn't actually put it back in. Database problems are common. I've been getting server lag warnings all day. You were looking at User:ElKevbo's version when you did the revert. Don't be afraid to admit you're wrong, there's no shame in it. 128.114.59.200 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, immediately after you're revert, I went back and stepped through the history, confirming I was removing it each time, and the other editors were putting it back in. It was correct them. It's wrong now. 128.114.59.200 (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I removed it twice, and confirmed it both times. That's a fact that there is no point in debating. After my last edit it wasn't there. Sorry I didn't bother taking screenshots, but that's what happened. So I'm not sure what your issue is. It's not there now, which you seem to agree is good, and I'll check it later to make sure your last revision didn't actually put it back in. Database problems are common. I've been getting server lag warnings all day. You were looking at User:ElKevbo's version when you did the revert. Don't be afraid to admit you're wrong, there's no shame in it. 128.114.59.200 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would admit that I was wrong, if I was. I am not. In this case, I am right, you are wrong. I have tried to show evidence of that. You have made a simple mistake - it's not a problem. You thought you were removing the word, but infact you were undoing the edit of another person who had removed the word - which means, you added it back. I hope, eventually, you will realise that and apologize. If it helps at all, I will ask a couple of other people to confirm what I am saying, below. We don't want to end up in WP:LAMEST. Best wishes,  Chzz  ► 00:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're being ridiculous. I explained to you what happened. Having other people look at the messed up history isn't confirming anything. Please leave me alone! 128.114.59.200 (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK.  Chzz  ► 06:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your email
I agree that the adminship process needs fixing. My personal feeling is that the process has been hijacked by RFA regulars; people who spend all day acting like Kingmakers, deciding who is, or is not, worthy. We need to reform the process such that more people from the community are involved in it. The way it is right now, however, I have no desire to get involved, I've voted in like 2 RFAs in the past 3 years, or something like that, and my last two votes each resulted in one of those regulars heaping shitloads of abuse on my user talk page because they disagreed with my vote. Nosiree, if that's the sort of thing that happens when someone invades their little club, fuck that. RFA absolutely needs to be fixed, but we need to do that in a way that doesn't fundementally alter what it means to be an admin. The deal with the admin tools is, we really need to assign them based on the trustworthiness of the recipient, not on how much they "need" the tools, but on how likely they are to misuse or abuse them. The new proposal is unworkable because of its complexity; anything to fix the admin system would need to at least be as simple as the current process, or its going to be a complete clusterfuck. The question should be: is the person trustworthy enough not to break the Wiki with their access to these tools. If yes, they should get the whole suite. If not, then they shouldn't get any of them. Seriously, if I believe someone can't be trusted to know when to block or not to block a person, I wouldn't feel much safer about letting them use the deletion tool... -- Jayron  32  05:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayron, as regards what we want - "admin = no big deal; all or nothing; no hassle; remove it if they screw up" - we're in total agreement. However, after literally years of arguments, we're no closer to that happening. Therefore, let's take a baby-step. Let's give e.g. 10 established/non-problematic/experienced/clueful users access to 'delete' for a month, and show that the wiki doesn't explode. Or 20 of them, for two months. Or edit-protected. Or, whatever. At the end of their time, their rights are removed (they can RfA if they want). As I've said elsewhere, I would strongly support "Admins must wear silly hats on a Thursday" - it's not quite what I want, but it'd show that change was possible. I can't see the baby-step doing any harm, but I can see potential benefit - nothing immediate, but just evidence that alternatives to the entrenched system that is so resistant to change, are plausible. That's all. No big deal whatsoever.  Chzz  ► 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read through the project  page and the debate now about  ten times and I've spammed the debate a few times too. However, while there is support for this trial, apart from providing  'just evidence that alternatives to the entrenched system that is so resistant to change are plausible', nowhere have I  seen a proposal statement or a comment elsewhere with a compelling rationale what it's actually supposed to achieve and why it's needed; while the opposers, although  currently  fewer (and this is only  a baby RfC after all) have far stronger and plausible arguments why  it  isn't  required and why it wouldn't be a net benefit to the project. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's to cover (among others) people who are never going to put themselves through RfA, don't want or need the full toolset, but could make good (trustworthy) use of just a couple of buttons in one area. Bit like rollback. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And WADR, why would we want them? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is shown by the graph I've added here. Point is, we'll never all agree about a way forward; but if we could agree to some baby-step-forward, then at least we'd be heading in the right direction - instead of just talking about it.  Chzz  ► 06:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a baby-step-forward, it's a massive change in policy. A baby step would be to topic ban the trolls. from  RfA. It's time to whack the wolves on their heads and send them packing with their tails between their legs. Protonk once said I  was being  childish  by  not  publishing  a list of them. Duh...Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"a massive change in policy. A baby step would be to topic ban the troll" - ok. so what WOULD work? Seriously, instead of sating what won't work.. What COULD get consensus?  Chzz  ► 03:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Ckduk/Cheongye Kwan


A tag has been placed on User talk:Ckduk/Cheongye Kwan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

User requested the accompanying user page be deleted (U1)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird notification; I think I created the page as a copy of the ex-live-article, at the request of the user.  Chzz  ► 00:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about this, twinkle must have automatically notified you when I nominated the article. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

c/e
I always thought that "c/e" meant copy edit, as in a minor change probably related to formatting. Not a major change of meaning. What did you use it to mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That diff wasn't me. Did you post the wrong link?  Chzz  ► 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops yes. I meant William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right - I shouldn't have put 'c/e' at the start; I think I meant to put 'rm' for 'removing', as I quoted what I'd removed afterwards. I guess I'd been typing the same on other things; what I meant to do was, explain the edit more fully in the edit-summary, but unfortunately, it got truncated. Regardless, the edit was undone, and discussions about that are indeed ongoing. Again - apologies for putting "c/e" - it wasn't what I meant. Usually I do indeed use "c/e" for minor copyedit changes.  Chzz  ► 18:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sectional Dedication Award
You have been nominated by User:Alpha Quadrant for this award for your constant contribution to Articles for creation. Thank you for your constant dedication to the project. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mail
Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing page virtual worlds and language learning
hi tell me why you rverted the page deleting my entries. Any new item can. Ot be placed? Ehat is this? Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixward (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess you mean this. I removed that because it seemed to be promotional; adding information about a commercial enterprise without an independent reliable source. Now I've looked at the article (Virtual world language learning), I see that it has a lot of problems with neutrality and inappropriate advertising.  Chzz  ► 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review of my first article
Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama: any suggestions for improvement? Popularis (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It could use more references. Facts such as founded in 1996 by Edith Hall and Oliver Taplin really should have a reference directly after them. You can use the same reference multiple times; it helps if you 'name' it;

Chzz was born in 1837.

Chzz lives in Footown.


 * Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). Please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see that example.


 * You shouldn't have a link to an external website (viz. Onassis) within the body-text itself; external websites should only be either a) footnote-references or b) in a special section at the end, == External links ==
 * References should come after punctuation, not before it. So, it's ...fact.&lt;ref>...&lt;/ref> (WP:REFPUNCT)


 * Mostly, it's pretty good! A picture or two might be nice - perhaps of the group - as long as it was free of copyright concerns. See Finding images tutorial. We could actually add the logo of the organization (if one is available) under fair use terms; I could help with that. Best,  Chzz  ► 18:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the suggestions, they were greatly appreciated - as was the manner in which they were offered, thank you! References added, I hope (and should references really come after punctuation? I've always preferred it the other way around, anyhow...). Infobox added (with image, and I think I got the fair-use tag right), and the external link removed from main text. Can I take the stub off? Popularis (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course; except, I already removed it . Be bold.  Chzz  ► 02:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Popularis (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Article for submission - Mark H. Shapiro.
Inline references have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezertoo (talk • contribs) 00:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, great; I'm sure it will be reviewed in due course. Best,  Chzz  ► 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Help
To whom it may concern,

I'm trying to write an article and is finding it really hard!

I used the Wizard and I put in 4 websites under "references" and still it says I have no references!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontDor Creative Agency (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it says you have no inline references; I'll add more on your talk page .  Chzz  ► 02:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Sorry, cannot, because you're blocked due to the account name. Sorry,  Chzz  ► 02:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome for mssellisg
Thank you for welcoming me. I made a few minor changes to the ALUMNI Wikipedia page. I know you said that anything mentioned that had to be verified needed a reference. So, the way I had some things worded, I changed. I am hoping this omits the references being needed. If, I am understanding. I hope I am signing this correctly.

Mssellisg (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Thank you, mssellisg!-->
 * Hi, welcome. Please read WP:VRS and WP:FIRST. Cheers!  Chzz  ► 02:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles _for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart
Hi Chzz - I tried to add several new references per everyones request, but 3 ehow.com articles that I need to prove the confusion between Radar & SpiderGraph charts names SET OF THE SPAM FILTER ALARM and blocked Saving my revision???? Then told me to ask permission to White list my 3 eHow references so they could be used. Nothing got saved, so I guess you can't even see what I was trying to do, so you could make suggestions. I'M STUMPED?? Gregory L. Chester 01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
 * I will reply on your own user talk, in an attempt to avoid confusion :-)  Chzz  ► 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on citations
Hi

Thanks very much for responding so quickly to my request for help in doing citations. I was able to follow your examples and will try tomorrow to model my own citations on yours.

One thing that still puzzles me is that the article I want to contribute to, called Ethan Allen, already has a lot footnotes/citations. And, they look different to me than the Harvard model you laid out so clearly. Is it OK for me to use the Harvard style even if other already existing footnotes are not Harvard style?

--Delancy (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered over on that user's talk page.  Chzz  ► 05:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI Revert
As the uninvolved administrator who reviewed and closed the case I request you do not remove my decisions from the page. I'm also a bit disappointed you chose to take this action without even notifying me. Removing admin decisions on ANI just because a user doesn't agree with it would lead to quite a bit of disruption. --WGFinley (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What happened to the principle of WP:BRD?  Chzz  ► 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is to be used with caution outside the article namespace. Changing an administrator's decision, labeling it a "copyedit" and not notifying him of your change on a page that gets edited many times a day may be bold is pretty far removed from the intention of the "be bold" guideline. . --WGFinley (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; it wasn't a great edit. I was very frustrated and, at the time, quite angry. And unfortunately hit the 'save' button when I'd only written half an edit-summary, too. I didn't intend any kind of deception though, whatsoever; I know full-well that a great many people would notice the edit.  Chzz  ► 06:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

CU on Pesky
Jehochman, you apparently refuse to address the question of why you asked for a CU  hours after Pesky had been personally vouched for by a Wikimedia staff-member.

I can quite understand why you would want this quietly brushed under the carpet , but that will not happen. Please could you either explain, or simply apologize for the error. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 01:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Chzz. I would like to share information with you:
 * Anybody can ask for Checkuser at any time. This is an efficient and rational way to proceed when somebody makes an accusation of sock puppetry.  Ask for help.  The CU can refuse the request, or they can investigate.  Asking for help is not a crime.
 * Wikimedia policy gives broad latitude for Checkuser to be used to help prevent disruption. Checkusers are obligated to protect user privacy.  A check does not "damage" the user in any way, unless that user has been found to be violating Wikipedia policies.  In that case it is the user who is responsible, not those requesting or performing the check.
 * There was a nasty dispute at ANI with a lot of conflicting views. I did not pre-judge who was right or wrong.  In that situation it is rational to gather as much information as possible.  In looking at the history of the dispute, I saw evidence that Pesky had been provoking a vulnerable user and that Pesky had a very long gap in the contribution history, which is occasionally indicative of a sleeper sock account. Moreover, if one chooses a username like "pesky", "bothersome", or "troll", one should expect a bit more scrutiny. On balance it seems like the accusation of sock puppetry might be worth investigating.
 * Pesky's response to the accusation of sock puppetry was not located beneath the accusation. The conversation was voluminous, spreading over multiple pages, much of it useless argumentation.  Had a concise response been placed beneath the accusation, that would have helped me and others become more knowledgeable of the facts.
 * As for your involvement here, I think it is a mistake to prolong a dispute beyond it's useful end. If you want to politely request information about how Wikipedia works, I will be happy to inform you as best I can.  If you want to try to pressure me to apologize, know that I never will.  It is wrong to request an apology, because apologies must be freely given or not made at all. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing, it is wrong for you to assume bad faith and even to make any assumption about my motives when you say "you would want this quietly brushed under the carpet." No, I just don't want to waste my time with an endless debate about something very, very unimportant.  The reason I came here to give you a long answer is that I am hopeful that the information might be of use to you as an editor when dealing with future situations.  I'm happy to help people who ask questions in good faith, much less so when people are insulting or accusatory. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have one question Jehochman. Checkuser needed suggests that "This template is used to request a quick checkuser of a duck, usually at AN or ANI." - from what I've read, CheckUser is used much less often since the creation of sock puppet investigations. More than this, WP:CheckUser policy specifically points out the situations it can be used. Vandalism, Sock puppetry, Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project, and Legitimate concerns about bad faith editing. Any one of these imply an assumption of bad faith on an editor who has been editing productively for a year. Given these factors, do you still believe that requesting Checkuser using that template was appropriate?   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you running for ArbCom? That's a great gotcha question, but you would do better to start from a neutral position, rather than trying to trap the person you are asking.  Hostility begets more hostility, ya know, and asking loaded questions is hostile.  When you apply for a job  to resolve disputes, you should put your best foot forward... I'm the one who created the  template, but I had forgotten what the exact instruction on it said, and now that you bring it up, there is clearly a problem with the way that instruction is worded because it may be casting aspersions on the accused.  I personally dislike WP:SPI's format which is bureaucratic and user unfriendly, which is why I prefer the template.  The hefty beauracracy at SPI is probably why it gets used less and less.   If you look above you'll see the basis for my suspicions about Pesky, specifically, needling a vulnderable user, the username, and the unusual gap in the editing history. I felt that it was unlikely that Pesky was a sock, but the threshhold to conduct an investigation is not 50%.  Even if the chance of socking is only 20%, why not ask for a check and get it resolved?  Resolution is better for the accused, than leaving the question in limbo.  We have even found arbitrators and administrators operating sock accounts.  Let's not play favorites. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The template documentation was added after the fact; I had never seen it before. Jehochman Talk 14:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, it was a gotcha question, designed to make you think about what happened - whilst we haven't interacted previously, I have read more than a few discussions where you have been involved and thought it might get your attention. I did start from a neutral position, a couple of months ago, but since then I have looked extensively into the backgrounds of both Pesky and Badger Drink. I specifically disagree with the concept that Pesky was needling a vulnerable user - firstly, that she was needling, when she had hardly interacted with him (2 mandatory notifications were the extent her prior interactions - especially since he had specifically declined to participate in the RfC) and secondly that Badger Drink was a vulnerable user. I'm not sure how much time you spent reading the RfC you closed, but there was a large portion of the community who were agreeing that Badger Drink's past behaviour had been reprehensible.
 * I thank you for changing the documentation, for the CU template, that's much better in the situation, especially when considering the meta policy. I'm not keen on asking for a checkuser in the heat of a high pressure area, on such minor evidence (username and editing history). Considering a similar thought regarding usernames was brought up regarding me at my RfA, I would have taken it very badly if someone had used the template there. I do still believe the request was in bad faith, as she had answered the question and so had Ironholds, admin and WMF staff member, but I'm a lot less bothered by it given your explaination and changes to the template documentation.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't want to pick at a scab, but if we can make improvements to process, then a discussion is useful. I did not see any of the replies to the sock accusation.  Most likely it would be good to section off any tangent like "is this user a sock" from the surrounding discussion so that replies and comments about that topic are visible to all.  This would have avoided me filing the request, which I would not have done had I seen the comments that had been spread through the walls of text.  If we can streamline SPI, that would help.  And no, I did not read the RFC very much.  The point was that the user had been blocked and that it was proper to suspend the discussion.  Even if a user is being indeffed, it is important to treat them with respect, fairness, and kindness.  Trolls aren't born, they are made.  If you look through some of the ancient arbitration cases you will see how some of our current long term abusers were treated harshly, and this has resulted in endless headaches. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say I am too familiar with the whole SPI process, the only encounter I've had with it is where a user tried to impersonate me (User:Worm that turded indeed...), however sectioning off tangential discussions sounds sensible - I'll try to do that in future. I'm glad to hear you wouldn't have requested the checkuser had you had seen the other comments. I did also realise that there was no point keeping the RfC open, indeed it was unfair on the subject. I think perhaps it was done a little quickly, as it had only been a matter of hours after he was indef blocked and a day may have been better, but that's not the end of the world.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman, I can quite understand that you overlooked the other postings confirming a CU wasn't needed; however, I'm sure you can appreciate that unfounded accusations are upsetting to all of us. Your post indicated that she might be a "sleeper troll account" and exhibited "what appears to be baiting behavior" - there was absolutely nothing of the kind, and that's what has caused distress. I'm absolutely sure you didn't intend that, but that was the consequence. There was absolutely no "evidence that Pesky had been provoking a vulnerable user"; just wild, unfounded claims; for more on that, see.

Also, I totally understand "mistake to prolong a dispute beyond it's useful end", and wish this could be settled soonest. However, there is a useful end - if we can restore the faith of Pesky, who has stopped editing after becoming disillusioned. Pesky has added a great deal to the project, including History of the horse in Britain, a huge amount of work on NPP, dealt with numerous copyvio's, and is capable of e.g. changing this into this within a very short time (when helping another user who wasn't so bothered about referencing/verifiability). That is why I'm doing all I can, to sort this mess out; it's not because I have some masochistic desire to spin out a dispute; it's because having Pesky around is definitely within the best interests of Wikipedia. Thanks for your time,  Chzz  ► 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be useful to tell Pesky that the matter has been resolved and she should not worry about it further. Otherwise, a little time will probably help everyone overcome the dispute. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And it may be useful, if you could perhaps tell Pesky that you missed the later postings. But, as I said - I understand you simply missed it.  Chzz  ► 09:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left an understanding-and-forgiveness message for Jehochman on his talk here. :o) Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 18:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Gregory L. Chester
Hi Chzz - Thanx for trying! But, I don't think you understand! As far as "other people" are concerned - Wikipedia "is" a REALIBLE SOURCE! I'm sorry if you don't believe in your product! And BTW, PEOPLE READ eHOW too! Two of the ehow articles were written using 2 different names: Radar & SpiderGraph, PROVING THE CONFUSION ABOUT NAMES and therefore backing up what I said in my article about people & "companies" mixing up the names! How can I put in an independent sources to correct the problem if Wikipedia Black Lists them??? The Alarm said I could ask for aproval, and they may aprove it, but they wouldn't write to me telling me that they had, I would have to check back in 2 days?? Gregory L. Chester 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Hello again - I just hit Save and remembered that I haven't heard from anyone about my permission email for my SpiderGraph Real Estate chart image yet?? Gregory L. Chester 00:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry; it is not my own opinion - it's Wikipedia policy. A site that can be edited by anyone is not considered reliable. You can also see General disclaimer - which is actually linked at the bottom of every page. As far as writing articles are concerned, we have policies and guidelines, and Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. The specific policy is WP:CIRCULAR.
 * And eHow, similarly, is not acceptable as a reliable source.It is blacklisted because it has led to large amounts of "Spam" content. But even if it were not blacklisted, it would not satisfy the requirements of reliable sources.
 * Outside talking about editing articles, we could of course discuss the reliability of Wikipedia. But it still will not be acceptable as a reference in an article.
 * With regards to the image - I've asked again (on User talk:DeltaQuad), and I will try to find out what is happening with it.  Chzz  ► 01:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies Greg for the delay in that, I will be in further contact with you tomorrow on that matter, but I can not comment publicly on it, but I just haven't had available daytime hours to look into this. First thing tomorrow I will though. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  04:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, I have left an email with the respondent explaining the situation. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

help
There are these scary anti-vandalism users who are stalking me. How do i get them off my back?Kfcdesuland (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple answer: stop making unconstructive edits. Dawnseeker2000   20:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ^this.  Chzz  ► 09:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethan Allen editing citation forms
Hi Chzz Thankyou so much for providing me with the examples of how to do citations. You went into incredible detail and it is all so helpful. And, thankyou for examining the Ethan Allen article, seeing its different citation format, and figuring out for me models I can follow to add a few footnotes

I thought adding footnotes to an existing article would be a simple way to start being an editor. I didn't realize it could be complicated.

Best Wishes, Delancy --Delancy (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

'Ere! Chzz! What you doin'?!
I said, "Audrey, luv,..." Anyway, enough about selling pins! How the devil are you? Still settled with your wall-to-wall lobsters? Do you remember a year or so ago you suggested using -style refs for Reculver, and kindly shoved in some examples? It all looked a bit like hard work to me at the time, having spent ages trying to cobble a decent article together - apologies for thinking "cba" and letting things slide, but I was a bit weary of all things WP by then too (yourself not included). I'm still wary of all things WP, but I was prompted to have another go at Reculver by an accidental, drive-by attempt at buffing up Walkington Wold burials, which I rather enjoyed. Thinking of getting Reculver up to GA, and thinking I might never think that again, I ran the idea past Malleus Fatuorum, and he and Parrot of Doom sorta picked up where I'd left you off (eh?) and said the same things about the refs. Finally I started thinking about "Why?!", and I think I've got it (though no-one's actually explained to me "Why?!" - which is why I did so badly at Maths when I was at St Custard's, as any fule kno). Sooo... If you have a mo, and feel like it, maybe you'd cast an eye over Reculver to see if you spot anything obvious? I know web citations are a bit inconsistent at the time of writing, and there's only one ISBN in the Bibliography, but anything else...? Any thoughts gratefully received, though I've already asked MF; anyway it's a good excuse to say hello and enquire after your lobsters. Nortonius (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Short reply for now; Nice to hear etc., me fine; Wiki SNAFU-to-poor, falling quickly (see ; ongoing, despite appearances there). Reculver, sure, will take a look one day and comment. GA is some work (many hours), but can be satisfying. Will thus respond when I have more t  Chzz  ►  00:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep no worries, understood about "Wiki SNAFU-to-poor, falling quickly" - wind Gale 8, sea state high becoming rough. I don't see why "sorry" is so hard to say, when it would help. Good that you're fine though. I've put as many hours as my eyes and brain can bear into Reculver in the last few days, and I'm sure there are more to come! But it would be nice to see it at GA if I can hang on in there long enough. Holidaying there when I was very little is the closest thing I have to a crystal lake. Anyway no deadline ect.[sic], and I wouldn't blame you if you just left it! Good to talk, I think of you as a pal. Nortonius (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wind is extreme.  Chzz  ►  14:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha that's fantastic! My old ears aren't what they used to be, but I got most of it, no doubt I'll be passing it on! Nortonius (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am confident that your abilities to pass wind are unsurpassed.  Chzz  ► 14:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "He farted twice, he clouded up the windscreen..." Nortonius (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "He farted twice, he clouded up the windscreen..." Nortonius (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart
Hi Chzz, I hope I'm not becoming a pain in your side! Yesterday, I commented to you 3 times, then thought I'd paste the page that I added that caused the Spam Alarm to Block everything, so you could see what I did to cause the Alarm, not realizing that it would also be blocked from your page, SORRY!

But, my image is still missing today and I don't know what I did wrong with the new References that I added, the numerical order #_ is missing?? If you can tell me what I did wrong, I can correct them, change a few ref. #s in the article and I should be close to being finished! Gregory L. Chester 03:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
 * Firstly: no, no pain; happy to help anyone who wants to add to the "sum of all human knowledge" here.
 * Regarding picture - please see just a few sections up, in - ie, "DeltaQuad" is apparently on the case about the image.
 * Regarding references - some of the ones you've added are not reliable sources; you need to stick to facts from books, magazines, newspapers, and so forth. Things like "uk.answers.yahoo.com" are simply not acceptable. I know you might disagree about 'reliable sources', but... they just won't be accepted, due to policies.
 * Also, you need to put them as inline references. Just listing them at the end isn't enough; we can't see "which fact comes from where". It's unfair on the reviewer, to expect them to check through a huge list of links to try and check the facts.

 Somebody is a pop singer/whatever from someplace. They had a hit single with "something" in 2010. Somebody appeared at Some Festival in 2010.
 * Hope that helps. And I hope the pic gets sorted soon. Best,  Chzz  ► 03:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Response
Sorry Chzz, I didn't see your on my talk page until today. As for the AfC decline; I found that the article at the time (it is much improved in its current form) did not give any reason as to why the movie was notable. 90% of the article was just plot-detail. Anjwalker  Talk 05:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time it was this; A1 is Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article..
 * Please be careful, especially when labelling a new user's effort as "Submission does not explain enough about the subject matter". Thanks,  Chzz  ► 08:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sir Robert Morton Award

 * Thanks. I'm considering &lt;span id="RealTitle" style="display:none">THIS IS SPARTA!&lt;/span> - needs moar cowbell, perhaps? Your humble servant,  Chzz  ► 09:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Many Thanks ! I finally did the footnotes on Ethan Allen
Footnotes

Thank you again. I did the footnotes following the model you had created for me on my Talk Page on the Ethan Allen article. It worked out just fine. You did so much work to help me! Much appreciated!! Now I can understand it.

Best Wishes Delancy --Delancy (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart
CHZZ - Questions: Are Blogs quotable? Also is www.answers.com/topic/radar-chart-1 a good source if it references Wikipedia? If you search the word SpiderGraph, Wikipedia's Radar chart is the first listing. It seems to be the time-tested authority! Is there a way to receive dispensation? Gregory L. Chester 08:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

CHZZ - Please excuse the previous dumb questions! I just saw your reply and I'm beginning to understand. It's getting late and I'll try harder tomorrow! THANX! Gregory L. Chester 08:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)


 * OK then :-) See WP:IRS  Chzz  ► 08:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ohio Senate
Will you do the following on the Ohio Senate page: John Eklund now represents the 18th District http://www.cleveland.com/west-geauga/index.ssf/2011/11/john_eklund_of_chardon_will_fi.html

Joe Schiavoni is the new assistant minority whip http://www.wkbn.com/content/news/communitynews/canfield/story/Schiavoni-Tapped-as-Assistant-Minority-Whip/hUpTE888zU2RYCHhQm6x2g.cspx

Lou Gentile represents the 30th District http://www.progressohio.org/blog/2011/11/lou-gentile-picked-to-fill-vacancy-in-30th-senate-district.html

Jason Wilson has resigned. http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/nov/19/state-sen-wilson-resigns-to-lead-appalac/

Will you also fix the template

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.234.45.207 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 December 2011‎


 * See Sockpuppet_investigations/OSUHEY

Help with References
Hi Chzz,

You've helped me a great deal with the Lenovo articles I'm working on, and I'd like your help with something else. I'm looking at editing the pages on Glen Cook's books (like the Black Company books). Right now, the page is flagged as needing sources. Most of the online ones I've found for fantasy books seem to be blogs and the like.

What sort of sources are acceptable for linking? Also, do things like plot summary need sources as well, or just facts (like publishers, publishing dates, volumes/editions, and so on)? I've looked at some Wikipedia guidelines, but I'm not sure where to find the information I'm looking for. Can you point me in the right direction?

Trevor coelho (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For anything, it's the need for "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". For a book, that'd typically be several reviews in newspapers or magazines; proper, independent reviews. Blogs are almost never acceptable. Actual physically-published things are nice, but not essential; "dependable" websites like New York Times (arts review) and suchlike are fine, of course. If in doubt about any specific source, ask on WP:RSN. If you can't find enough coverage for the books, consider redirecting them to the article about the author.
 * Plot summaries are one of the rare exceptions - you don't need reliable sources; you can write your own plot-summary based on the book itself. Of course, it should not be too "flowery", or too long. Guidance available at WP:PLOTSUM.
 * But, you still need to show that "significant coverage" - so no, publishers/publication dates/listings don't help. It really needs evidence of other people (with no vested interest) writing about the book. See also Notability (books).  Chzz  ► 16:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Chzz,
 * Thanks for that. Those guidelines were exactly what I was looking for.
 * Trevor coelho (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please help my article not get deleted!!!
Yoy might not remember but the other day you looked at my article, 50th Redlands International Caded Australian Cahmpionship, and reconmended that I add in text refrences. I have done so. Since then my article was put up for speedy deletion but was quickly removed. The same person who put it up for speedy deletion has now put it on the articles for deletion page. I worked so hard on my very hard article and I do not want it deleted. I worked very hard writing how the event is notable and many other sailors in the event have taken up wikipeida accounts just to write that they are outraged this useful page might be deleated and that it is notable. The two users trying to delete my page just keep critisisng how these new users have no real substance but never say why the artice is bad. Finnaly one of them, the one who aplied for speedy deletion has put up some substance to has argument. As I am new to wikipedia I don't understand the fancy language he uses and I would realy like someone who is experinaced to reply back to him. Seeing you said my article is clearly notabe I wondered if you would do this. The article for deletion site is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/50th_Redlands_International_Cadet_Australian_Championship

Please help, . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris.obrien (talk • contribs) 11:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that it met the guidelines; I'm not quite sure where/how I did, but anyway; I've added a "notice" on the discussion, which may help. I've removed the empty tables from the article; they're really not appropriate. It's just a question of adding evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't know if that is possible; if it is, fine, it could be kept; if not, it should be deleted. Sorry.  Chzz  ► 12:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with References
Hi Chzz,

You've helped me a great deal with the Lenovo articles I'm working on, and I'd like your help with something else. I'm looking at editing the pages on Glen Cook's books (like the Black Company books). Right now, the page is flagged as needing sources. Most of the online ones I've found for fantasy books seem to be blogs and the like.

What sort of sources are acceptable for linking? Also, do things like plot summary need sources as well, or just facts (like publishers, publishing dates, volumes/editions, and so on)? I've looked at some Wikipedia guidelines, but I'm not sure where to find the information I'm looking for. Can you point me in the right direction?

Trevor coelho (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For anything, it's the need for "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". For a book, that'd typically be several reviews in newspapers or magazines; proper, independent reviews. Blogs are almost never acceptable. Actual physically-published things are nice, but not essential; "dependable" websites like New York Times (arts review) and suchlike are fine, of course. If in doubt about any specific source, ask on WP:RSN. If you can't find enough coverage for the books, consider redirecting them to the article about the author.
 * Plot summaries are one of the rare exceptions - you don't need reliable sources; you can write your own plot-summary based on the book itself. Of course, it should not be too "flowery", or too long. Guidance available at WP:PLOTSUM.
 * But, you still need to show that "significant coverage" - so no, publishers/publication dates/listings don't help. It really needs evidence of other people (with no vested interest) writing about the book. See also Notability (books).  Chzz  ► 16:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Chzz,
 * Thanks for that. Those guidelines were exactly what I was looking for.
 * Trevor coelho (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

How to set up disambiguation for "Bonnee Buttered Beef Steaks"
Hi Chzz,

Could you direct me to an explanation for how to set up disambiguation? I would like to set up a disambiguation for Bonnee Buttered Beef Steaks v. Bonnie Buttered Beef Steaks v. Bonny Buttered Beef Steaks.

My article is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnee_Buttered_Beef_Steaks

Tom Shawcross Tshawcross (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made Bonnie Buttered Beef Steaks as an example; that is a one-line page, containing just  - you can see it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_Buttered_Beef_Steaks&redirect=no
 * You can make others by just putting the word/s into the 'search' box, then it'll say "You may create the page "Whatever"... then making the same 1-line page.
 * If you have any trouble, give me a shout. (See also WP:REDIR)  Chzz  ► 15:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to work  Chzz  ►  04:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your question on dewiki
The page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Petrarkisches Sonnet can get deleted. The IP created the page in dewiki at the same time you asked on our Village pump, see de:Petrarkisches Sonett. Thank you for notifying.

Best regards --Steef 389 19:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  Chzz  ► 01:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to User talk:Dcharris1
This is a troubling case. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusion over a redirect
Hi Chzz,

I have a bit of a problem. I've completed two more pages for Lenovo series I'm doing (offline) and uploaded the ThinkStation page as a draft. When I was creating the draft, though, I typed ThinkServer instead of ThinkStation. Following that, I redirected the page to ThinkStation so that the name was correct. Now, though, I can't create a ThinkServer draft because the page has the redirect.

I think it's ok to remove the redirect (since ThinkServer shouldn't be redirecting to ThinkStation anyway) but wanted to check and make sure that my ThinkStation page won't get messed up. Can you confirm if I can delete the redirect and just put in the ThinkServer content on the draft page?

Trevor coelho (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked for the redirect to be deleted as "routine maintenance", and it should be deleted very soon...  Chzz  ► 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Chzz. :) I'll create the actual ThinkServer page once the redirect is deleted.
 * Trevor coelho (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now deleted.  Chzz  ► 13:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)