User talk:Chzz/Archive 4

Move
Hi, can you explain why you did this move please? I don't understand it. You also left a redirect into your user space behind and that is against the rules. Thanks :)  fr33k man   -s-  01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the article so that it does not have to be deleted for a move now. I still don't understand why you did the move but, c'est la vie  fr33k man   -s-  02:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Hope your connection stays stable :)  fr33k man   -s-  02:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chuzz
Thanks Chuzz! We are please to meet you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIFILM (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation question
Hi, Chzz, I was looking at the article on the Birds of Prey comic book series, and I saw that there were some missing citations under "Running Gags" that I could possibly provide. However, although I know how to cite a normal magazine article, I'm not sure how to cite an occurrence in a comic book (page, frame within a page, etc.). Add to that that what I have ready access to is comic scans (I have the physical comics, but they are buried in long comic boxes and I owe my chiropractor too much already, lol) and some of the scanners do not include the ads so even once I find exactly what frame backs up the assertion in the article, I don't know what the actual page number is. Can you offer some guidance? Bradp521 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as the comics are not too terribly obscure, you can simply cite them as you would a book. Scans are not necessary, and indeed would likely breach copyright. There is a specific template that can be used, Template:Cite_comic. Hope this answers,  Chzz  ►  02:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you take a look at what I did and make sure I did it right? Thanks again! Bradp521 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks great, nice one :-) The only thing is, some of the names are redlinks, so you could just remove the  . Or, even better, make new articles :-)


 * Chzz : Chat  02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mikroglottika
Hello, I've received your message. I'm searching for sources for completing it. --Auslli (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Unverified
You have nominated an article, which I have created: Improving Fight for it's non-existance? Please check the website containing screenshots of the game. I don't believe you are taking this nomination seriously. If you wish to speak with the leading designer Severin Hansen, you may send him a message on the Devolition Corporation website.

Improving Fight page

(Above unsigned 13:06, 31 March 2009 ) --  Chzz  ►  15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you
this welcome page is very lively, and sure useful too! thanks, KerenOr9 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I wanted to thank you for the warm welcome I'm kind of excited about being a member of Wikipedia

freedawn7 Charles Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedawn7 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:TLCbass
There was some useful information and links in the block template itself - but the user blanked out all prior warnings from their user talk page - including the block template. Primarily the user was disruptive at the article, inserting unsourced info without discussion, did not engage in any discussion on the article's talk page, appears to be an WP:SPA with a WP:COI, etc. etc. etc. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I READ THE LINKS I NEED HELP WHAT ISTHE PACIFIC PROMBLEM PLEASE
(Warning: very loud part) --Asha Black (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I have read the links that you keep showing me I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HE PROBLEM IS CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AND IS THER A EMAIL TO CORORSPOUND TO SOMEONE WHO CAN HELP ME PLEASE DO NOT DELETE AND SEND SAME MEESSAGE CAN YOU TELL ME PECIFICALLY WHAT IS THE ISSUE OR PROBLEM i HAVE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES THAT TOLD ME TO POST THIS HERE WHAT IS GOING ON PLEASE HELP THIS IS MY 3 RD TIME ASKING FOR HELP I HAVE READ ALL OF THE LINKS AND I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM COULD POSSIBLY BE

User:Greystone36
You seem to have had a conversation with User:Greystone36 similar to the one that I've been having. To reinforce the point you were researching, I'll quote from what I told Greystone,
 * Secondly, just because something is in some court records, does not mean that it can or should be in an article. I'll quote again from WP:BLP, just like I did at the bottom of this page, "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." I emphasized the important bits that relate to this discussion.

The emphasis added is mine. And I just thought I'd make you aware, in case you weren't, that we have both been trying to work with Greystone on the same subject. Dismas |(talk) 04:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper and the FDA
Can you advise on the next stage of the dispute? I have managed to get him/her to respond, but it is clear that we are not going to be able to resolve the dispute, as it is not a real dispute, as I do not believe s/he really thinks that the FDA is not legally a trade union etc....

I would be grateful for your help here, as I regard his/her actions as vandalism.

Thanks Guineveretoo (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusion about policies
Chzz, I am slightly confused about some of the policies you informed us of and how they are playing out. User:Xtian1313 has edited his COI-related articles, editing out information about Kyle Justin on that article and on the Crispin Glover (song) article, with no discussion on the talk page. The edits are here:
 * Kyle Justin edit
 * Crispin Glover (song) edit
 * Crispin Glover (song) edit

Are these rules applying to everybody or just us when it comes to NOT being allowed to edit pages? I am making sure to use my proper username and not sign on as Matthew Eilers' account Godblessyrblackheart. I do not have a conflict of interest as I'm not in the band Skeleteen, correct? I am confused about that as well.

Basically, I'm really confused and I'm asking why these edits are being made to pages related to User:Xtian1313's COI without discussion, as this violates the exact rule you pointed out for me. You stated for all this to not happen and it's happening. These rules apply to everyone, correct? Is User:Xtian1313 not supposed to follow them? You said these edits need to be discussed if any of us wanted them removed/reverted, but these edits were made with conflict of interest. From User:Xtian1313's word-of-mouth, they said they re-did Kyle's tracks on the recording, which is why they edited it saying "these edits were made by someone with a conflict of interest and are not WP:NPOV," which I don't have a conflict, and User:Xtian1313's edits are just as unsourced (the supposed re-recording of Kyle Justin's bass tracks).

I'm beginning to not have time to do a lot of this anymore as I did the past month, so I would like to come to a conclusion soon. Please clarify the rules so we can work this out. I will be checking in and responding when I'm able as I want this to be resolved. I'm looking to come to some sort of conclusion with User:Xtian1313, but everyone needs to follow the rules as well, correct? Looking forward to hearing from you soon. FriendofDorothy (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting question. Let's look at it in non-specific terms;


 * Person A edits an article and adds FACT-A. Later, Person A admits to COI. Person B joins, admits COI, removes FACT-A
 * On the one hand, FACTA could be removed by anyone (as it should never have been added, due to COI)
 * OTOH, Person B shouldn't edit the article, as they've admitted COI


 * My considered recommendation is, call it a no-score draw, and let's try to move forward. I note that there was no reference given with any of the 3 edits; if you think that they should now be added to the articles, proceed as per previous advice - suggest the edit on the respective article talk page, with a WP:RS, and everyone can discuss it.


 * This is, as always, IMHO.


 * Best,  Chzz  ►  00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

IRC
Hi. Are you on the IRC today? (I think I may have spotted an incarnation of you there, & left a Qn. for you). Trafford09 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the pope catholic?  Chzz  ►  21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

✅ Love that reply! Trafford09 (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rev here
Hi that is a beautiful site, I hope to read it more intimately soon. Was very impressed with your mention of teaching in Japan-- that puts you far and away miles ahead of me in Japanese. I'm not in the least fluent though I understand some spoken and very little Hiragana. Katakana, which I'm always mixing up with Hiragana, so forgive me if I just slipped-- I follow that only because of the Sutras. Even in Romajii I'm at a loss about 88% of the time. I'm going over to the "live place" to inform you of this as well. RevAntonio (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See me here Phra!
This might interest you,, it's me! You can learn a lot about me here and please read some of my boring-as-hell blog! By the way, can you tell me how to get a nifty colorful signature like your'un??RevAntonio (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Thanks
Words will fail to encompass the true value of your efforts Chzz. It is seldom that I'm able to find such a knowledgeable person in the technology field who is willing and able to impart their wisdom without an arrogance and condescension that often accompanies those who possess the technical knowledge that you do. Wikipedia may little note, but should long remember, the contributions that you have offered to our community. A small graphic in a formatted box may not seem of much value; but, I thank you for your valuable time. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  07:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here here, from just one of the many new Wikipedians you have tirelessly encouraged and helped to get started. Trafford09 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Face-blush.svg]]  Chzz  ►  19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned message re. Improving flight
Don't delete the article about Improving Fight.. THE LINK WERE WRONG... Theese link can verify it. And I am the leader of the project. www.devolitioncorp.webs.com/improvingfight.htm www.devolitioncorp.webs.com and www.devolition.tk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danskesever (talk • contribs) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied in users own talk  Chzz  ►  19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Link
The link you just left me linked to a very strange page... I managed to get to peer review though. Thanks! I had been looking for something like that but can never find what I want when I want it on wikipedia... AC (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chzz, Sorry, I didn't mean to break any rules, my manager originally created the article and my reference to "MY" article was not in anyway meaning that I owned it. When it was written, I was truly honored and have received many compliments on it, so naturally I was concerened when someone with a negative agenda attacked it and me. If it would be better, I will have a member of my staff do future editting. Thank you for your response,

Robert Hunnicutt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaghostsociety (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 Zoo Fari  22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

you sent me a message
heyy thanks for sending me a message that was very nice of you trying to help me out i am actually new to this website so i am really thankful and ummm pretty much thats it i just wanted to thank you one more time for your kindness and the help you gave me i am hoping i can talk to you later and i have edited a webpage that this person on wiki deleted it is called school tips if you have enough time i hope you can visit it and leave a message back

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whwarriors09 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FDA dispute
I think I have got it right this time, and have posted in the right place - namely, the talk section of the page which is now known as "First Division Association", but it is clear that this dispute is not going to be sorted out without some intervention, and I am not sure what I have to do get that intervention, and what evidence you will need me to provide, since haldraper's argument is that the legal and factual position is irreleant, because, in his view... etc. etc. I can readily provide evidence of the FDA's name change, and of it being a registered trade union, but it is clear this will not be enough to satisfy haldraper. Anyway, I am grateful for your advice, and apologise for my hesitancy and for not understanding the wikipedia protocol, and I hope that this dispute can be resolved! Guineveretoo (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A short time only for now
Thanks, I loved all the stuff-- I'll have to go over that gargantuan list of questionables in the Buddhist subject.

I do not know how I can possibly give you Kasava in Sanskrita unless I "paint" it myself in a special program I use and email it to you.

I have noticed in years past that it is virtually impossible for me to acquire ANY foreign alef-bet scripts/characters over the computer. Aside from this, I am no Sanskrit scholar!

I'll throw something together-- let me know how I can email it to you. And yes, the Thai looks right for Phra. RevAntonio (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevAntonio (talk • contribs) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion of fun
Know what I'd rather have you see is the giant list of Hebrew and Sanskrita/Paliskrita words that are IDENTICAL in pronunciation, meaning and even context. It's a project I'm hoping to turn into a published paper and maybe for my next book. I'd have to email that to you also.

RevAntonio (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is how we remember
I want you to go here and do it yourself, but the offer still stands if you want me to email you a shitty, trembling version I can write out myself....

RevAntonio (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Teaching Friends Wiki
Thanks for the reply, we will make sure we all make a healthy contribution. NaturalKnowledge (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

intersection
So what is the term you believe is common in the UK? Is "intersection" incomprehensible to a BrEng speaker? Tony  (talk)  15:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me declare at he outset - all of the following is IMHO.


 * I wouldn't say that intersection was incomprehensible to Brits, by any means - just sufficiently far outside common vocabulary to require clarification. We Brits use the term rarely, and if we do, it would refer to a large road intersection ('freeway'?), and not, as I understand the American usage, the junction/crossroads of pedestrianized roads (or streets, whatever). One of the few uses of the term in the UK is in our highway code, when learning to drive, the language of which is considered to be a bit like 'legalese' - ie uncommon; thus, intersection is kin to terms such as traffic calming measures and reflective road studs, which in more common parlance would be speed bumps and cat's eye respectively.


 * I believe the root problem here is that the grid-pattern layout common in American cities leads to such phraseology as 3 blocks away, or 'on the corner of 5th and Bond' etc. - which are indeed confusing to the British tourist. We have no similar concept; our road layout has evolved over the millenia, and tend towards a rambling, twisting maze, as a glance at a London street map will demonstrate.


 * Coming back to the point: "intersection" - the closest parallel common term in the UK would be 'crossroads', or 'T-junction'. I would personally vote for keeping the wikilink, but would not fight for it.


 * As an aside, my observation of this FA review has been educational. When I read that you were averse to excess wikilinking, it made me reconsider my own view, and will certainly affect my future contributions. After due consideration of the issue, I agree with your opinion that most articles have excessive, obfuscating links. Thank you for furthering my knowledge in that area.


 * Cheers.  Chzz  ►  18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe "intersection" is readily understandable across the English-speaking world. "Crossroads" would be awkward in that position. "T-junction" is a particular type of intersection. The link should be removed as a nuisance link. In any case, I don't think the article will survive the FAC process. Tony   (talk)  01:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, have you spent time in the U.K. I have not, but am very certain the Queen's English has different slang than we have. If Brits don't know the term we can't run around calling them stupid.  It is little harm adding a link for them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have called on a third party.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to jump in here – as someone who grew up in the US and now lives in the UK, and who's written a fair few road articles (including sprawling monstrosities like A1 road) I think I'm reasonably qualified to answer; I'd say that while "intersection" might not be common usage in the UK ("Junction" would probably be the most frequently used term), anyone would understand what you meant by "intersection" – the A1 article, for example, uses the term three times. –  iride scent  15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it once in the text and in one caption, but I understand your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comment by Iridescent, but that wasn't my point; yes, most will understand the term, however it has a different connotation in the UK, as I explained in my original reply, with the picture. I note that the usage in the A1 article text is in relation to a major dual-carriageway junction.
 * In reply to Tony1, yes, T-Junction is a type of junction. So is a crossroads. Therefore, by using a more precise term, we would be giving more information.
 * I have no strong objection to the use of the word 'intersection' - this is, after all, an article about an American landmark. Hence use of the American spelling. I merely feel that the term could be usefully clarified to non-US readers through the use of a Wikilink, and I feel that this is a very acceptable usage of wikilinking.  Chzz  ►  18:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm maybe a little late coming in to this discussion, but the first thing I did was to look at the intersection article, where I see that in road terms an intersection is defined as a "junction". Intersection is an American article, so the word "junction" is obviously understood as well there as over here in Britain, and would need no link; why not use that word? Frankly I think too much time has been spent debating a trivial issue, and I'd rather spend my time helping improve the article. If the word intersection remains, it needn't be linked for the benefit of the tiny proportion of Brits who can't even work out its meaning from the context. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the link from the term. I am now unwatching this page.  I don't think further debate on this topic is warranted here.  Feel free to comment on the FAC discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with TonyTheTiger I think that the word "junction" is clearly understood throughout Britain and most would not be confused by you using that. I also feel that "intersection" need not be linked as I think most Brits would understand what you mean by it by simply reading the article.Jennie--x (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia
I am sorry, but I don't do a lot of editing on wikipedia, so I know I am not doing things according to protocol, or whatever, but I am genuinely bewildered as to why haldraper is changing the FDA page, and the page relating to Jonathan Baume, in this way. I have posted on my talk page thing again, and I am sorry if this is not the right way to resolve this, but I don't know what to do.

The fact is that the FDA is a trade union, and is known as the FDA. Yes, it does share initials with the Food and Drug Administration, but that is why the page was known as "FDA (trade union)" and why there was a disambiguation page. I don't know what haldraper is up to... Guineveretoo (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * replied on user talk  Chzz  ►  10:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Annual Register
My edition was published in 1778, so I'm afraid no ISBN! I've a few additional web citations which'll go on shortly, though - I had to put it on hold for a moment to chase something else. Shimgray | talk | 09:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! I hadn't realised the Oxford digitisation was open to the public - I'd thought it was a subscription site. Shimgray | talk | 10:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

✅

Alphonse Dotson
Hi. Regarding Alphonse Dotson, I'm concerned that the reference given does not cover all the facts stated; for example, I can't see where it says that "he was All-American in 1964", "Dotson was a First-team All-American in 1964" or "His son is Santana Dotson, himself a former All-American and 1993 Defensive Rookie of the Year.".

As this is a WP:BLP, we have to be particularly careful that all the facts are supported by verifiable, [[WP:RS|reliable sources.

Please let me know if it will be possible to correct these issues. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It will able to be corrected. . . I just created it a few minutes ago and was getting references, etc. So, just give it some time and the article will be improved.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Signatures
Hello Chzz,

Apologies, I keep thinking the signature is automatic.

Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennie--x (talk • contribs) 10:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC) ↑fail :-)       --   Chzz  ►  10:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha - that was just mean! See...I can do it now....!

Jennie--x (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay, great stuff :-)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Chzz...   Doh!

update 10
I added one to User:Chzz/10, and a question to that talk page - drop me a line when you have time. ;) — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

i'll give it a go....
कपासअवअ This is really tiny, but it will serve-- thanks for getting me up and running on copy/paste. Believe it or not, I'd never done that before from the net! RevAntonio (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

in case you're interested....
Maybe you'd care to add to that, since i'm so tired i don't want to edit it-- besides the name you should read for yourself and see it. i thought you'd like the word that is used to denote what buddhists commonly call one another, which is brahmana, 'servant of god': bरअमआणअ. the 'n' is pronounced 'ng' as in 'fang', so it's 'vra-MAHNG-ah'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevAntonio (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

sound vs silence
I am writing to find out why Sound Vs. Silence is possibly getting deleted. I thought it was a good start of an article, if anything it's a stub. But I think the record label is important especially because it is now repping Shawn Smith, legendary Seattle grunge musician.

What more do I need to do to get it at least a stub? Also, I changed the pages around so it would just be sound vs silence instead of having both company names.

Elizabeth James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabethjames (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch with me.

I nominated Sound Vs. Silence for a speedy deletion because, in my humble opinion, it fitted [|section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion].

Unfortunately, the article has now been deleted, so I am unable to reassess that judgement. That means that the deleting administrator agreed with my reasoning. You can, however, request that a copy of the article be put into your userspace - see WP:USERFY; if you do so, I would be more than happy to re-assess it, and to help you in any way I can. Best regards,  Chzz  ►  09:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings in haste
Kasava, Phra, So glad you liked it, it was something I'd never done before, but now I can say you taught me about Wikipedia AND how to copy-n-paste! I LOVE the way that looks. It's somehow so very "you".

I did not ever divulge that I've been seriously ill, recovering nearly 7 months now. I spend too much time in my wheelchair though I can walk a bit. It's tough to be at the computer too long.

The info you were good enough to send I'll keep filed for future use, and see what these Wiktionarians are all about. Meanwhile I've noted that what I'm using for that is perfectly fine. As I say, I avoid complications because of the illness that keeps me from the computer.

Really I was checking back to see how you liked your Sanskrita. I've been working on a way to practically copy-n-paste Hebrew and the Sanskrit for my word-comparison list. I guess that reminds me, this is a top-sercret project. I'm hoping to publish jointly with a big name in this field and I don't want my thunder to be stolen, as as happened in the past. But I'll let you see the list if you want-- you'd love this stuff. Imagine, Hindu and Jewish terms, identical or nearly identical, identical or near-identical meanings!

Write soon RevAntonio (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your quick guide to refs
I moved User:Chzz.ref to User:Chzz/ref. Just letting you know :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks Chzz. I sure will read the policies, before I proceed. Thanks again!

(Above unsigned message was 18:22, 8 March 2009 Alicia Weeder (talk)

Re: Help Requested
I checked Google Translate and it didn't have anything for Volapük. :( -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • March 16, 2009 @ 06:58
 * 8...wow. My main concern though is the email came to my personal email account and it uses my username.  If it happened because I use the global log-in function, then I have nothing to worry about, but it kinda freaks me out. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • March 16, 2009 @ 07:13
 * I'll be damned...you are right. Got an account on the Japanese wiki too...and I have never been there.  OK, crisis everted :)  Thanks for your help :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • March 16, 2009 @ 07:25
 * Must have done a mass send out of emails. Good to know that I am not the only one who got one.  Thanks for the update. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • March 16, 2009 @ 09:28

Talkback
tn

Re talkback template


Cssiitcic has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hi, sorry about that talkback template problem, thanks for telling me though and not yelling at me like some editors might. I'll correct that mistake from no on, thank you for helping me.

tb JohnCD
ref Sheree Silver Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)

Innit
Chzz - cheers for your info re pics etc. Sorry for my balls ups! Dribblingscribe (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

tables in show/hide boxes
Thanks to you, I think I've managed to achieve what I wanted to. (Finished product, original, diff)

Many thanks for your excellent help! --Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A request
Phra Kasava, my friend, I want you to read my latest blog at MySpace. I know and appreciate that you are not a member-- it is almost the same with me, as I didn't even want to chat here except for your kindnesses. There is something there at my blog I wish you to see. Also, please understand that page and blog is for community stuff, for me to 'outreach' as it were. Few of those folk contact me-- even the family members who are at MySpace too! O Mi To Fu RevAntonio (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD !vote discussions on talk pages
There was so much intensity going into the Silver AfD debate that, as I clicked "Save page," I was fairly certain that within five minutes my "You have new messages" bar would light up with a request to reconsider - the only surprise was that it wasn't from the main defender.

Now that it's over, a gentle heads-up (you said "if I'm 'doing it wrong' I am always grateful for elucidation"): I think it's generally considered not a good idea, while an AfD debate is in progress, to pursue the discussion onto the talk pages of users who have !voted. I was once gently rebuked for doing it, and on other occasions I have seen a message copied back into the AfD debate prefaced by "User X posted this on my talk page but I am replying here for all to see." The idea is that the whole discussion should be in public; any disagreement with a !voter's reasoning and pleas to him to reconsider should be placed below his !vote.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks.  Chzz  ►  12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A query
Kasava! Hope you are not dead! Haven't heard a peep lately. I just wanted to ask whether you know how I can copy and paste characters into my email signature. Something tells me it cannot be done unless I somehow upload it... I'm not technically versatile!

By the 'bye, how would I add characters to my username here? I know you mentioned the complexity, but is there a way around super high tech code-writing?

RevAntonio (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You go to your preferences, put the right code in the signature box, and choose 'Use raw signatures' - however, it's easy to mess it up and it not to work.


 * Which is why I'd suggest you tell me what you want in your sig, and I'll give you the right line of code to copy into that box.


 * All the info is in WP:SIG


 * P.S. I have been here :-) I just didn't reply as I didn't see any q's :-) I did look at the myspace tho.


 * Even better, come back to IRC and I can talk you through, etc.  Chzz  ►  21:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jack 24.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Jack 24.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Howdy again
Hi User:Chzz. I was hoping you could take a look at the article Jessicka. It's been edited like crazy. The reason I'm concerned is the person that edited it also edited other "ralated" articles. A lot of the material that was taken out was sourced. I believe it's another case of COI. I don't want to make changes as I do have an obvious COI, please reverts the edits as you see fit?

Thanks again, Xtian1313 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * Looking from an 'outsider' point of view, a brief check of those edits makes me think that makes a reasoned argument in their edit summaries, ie that the sources of the facts are not WP:RS.
 * Firstly, I'd suggest trying to discuss your objection to the edits; as always, with succinct, reasoned policy arguments on the discussion page of the article.
 * If things cannot be resolved through that, then by all means give me a shout.
 * Cheers!  Chzz  ►  18:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Always a pleasure dealing with you! Xtian1313 (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cast The First Stone Helpme
My helpme was moved to your profile... Can you assist:-DThanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grim Fandango92 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be here now. Also, I put a note on Grim's talk page. I will look there for further correspondence. Thanks. – B.hotep •talk• 12:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your page blanking and removal of content.
Hi there, just a quick word about the edits you made recently to Cock Marsh, Brentwood School (England) and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film). In all three cases you removed content (and in the case of Cock Marsh blanked the whole article from the lead to the categories) citing a lack of sources. Unless the information was controversial or defamatory and/or in a BLP the appropriate way to approach this would have been to use a   or an    tag. I have reverted your deletions. Kind regards, Nancy  talk  06:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Perhaps a warning tag would have been a more appropriate first step; however, in these specific cases, I felt that action was needed to address the lack of Verifiability, as I did explain in my edit summary. Please note that by restoring the edit you have added unreferenced/unsourced info to Wikipedia, and the burden of evidence falls upon you - if you are not able to provide suitable sources, please remove the information.

*Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved on 2009-04-08.


 * With regard to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), I was not aware that plots do not need references; I'd be grateful if you could direct me to the policy that explains that one.


 * With regards to Cock Marsh, I see that you have added a reference, but that the reference does not verify all the facts in the article, and indeed contradicts some, for example the article states "It covers 130 acres (53 ha)" but the reference says "Area: 18.55 ha 45.84 ac". Most of the article is not verified by that source. In addition, some of the language that you have added back is not appropriate, for example "excellent views".


 * Thanks,  Chzz  ►  11:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Plots may be referenced to the primary source (e.g. the book, or in this case the film) which amounts to the same thing. I must take issue with your statement that the burden of evidence falls on me. This is a collaborative project, the burden of evidence falls on all of us & perhaps if you had chosen to spend the time looking for a reference (it took me all of 10 seconds to find the SSSI certification) instead of blanking the page then the project would have benefited more. I have no vested interest in the Cock Marsh page and I agree that a few of the adjectives are not terribly encyclopaedic but blanking the entire article was not the way the to deal with it - if it was that worthless you should have nominated it for either WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Kind regards, Nancy  talk  12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info re. plot referencing; I will certainly bear that in mind in the future.
 * My statement about the burden of evidence being on you, personally, was based upon the WP:V statement that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." In restoring that information, you have added information that is not supported by reliable sources; for example, the fact that it "covers 130 acres". Whilst I fully appreciate that, where possible, it would be better to source references, in this case it would take considerably more than 10 seconds to find such sources. Of course, if I have the time, I will try to source the information and add it back. WP:CITE states that "data and statistics...should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text." - if the facts cannot be established, they should be removed.
 * I did not nominate it for deletion, as I do feel that there should be an article on this topic. I merely removed unreferenced claims. I was hoping that I would be able to improve the article by adding well cited information.
 * Best regards,  Chzz  ►  14:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil Costa
Hi. Thanks for your efforts to remove unsourced negative material from articles. However, where material is uncontroversial and easily sourced please consider either fact-tagging it or finding the references yourself rather than simply blanking it and moving on.

For example, you deleted a paragraph from the Phil Costa article mentioning that he is a Government Minister with two children. Finding sources for these uncontroversial matters took less than five minutes. In this instance, a fact-tag would arguably have been more useful to other editors than leaving a gap in the page. Also, if you are going to delete material from articles, please check if that material is replicated in the infobox as in this case - deleting unsourced material from the body of the article achieves nothing if the same material still appears elsewhere on the page.

This is not meant to sound snippy - there's a million badly sourced negative articles out there so congratulations on most of the other work you do. Euryalus (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that; it's constructive feedback, and I appreciate it. I'm pleased to see that that fact now has a reliable source, and I agree that I should have made more effort to find it myself. As regards infoboxes, I will certainly bear that in mind in the future.


 * Best,  Chzz  ►  14:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RevAntonio
(moved several threads to L3 headings under this) {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" ! Conversations with RevAntonio (collapsed to tidy this page)

A rapid thank-you
Replying inline  Chzz  ►  23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasava! So many thanks for the offer to assist. Since I've been spending most of my time bent-over in discomfort, I'll leave the signature thingie as it is. My condition is not too bad, just not improving.


 * No problems with the sig business, glad to hear you're OK  Chzz  ►  23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by something that is above this message from me: why is there an argument about the plotline of "Snow White"? Why is threre an insistence that it be referenced somehow? Or am I misreading that?


 * Yesterday, I removed several sections from that article, because they were unsourced; one of my edits was to remove the 'plot' section. Following the above discussion, I am currently unclear as to whether a film's plot can be sourced upon the film itself. I worry that it is impossible to watch a film and precis it without opinion creeping in. This is an issue which I still have to clarify in my own mind; in the meantime, the plot remains. And thickens too, I expect :-)  Chzz  ►  23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You see, many verifiable sources, which is what one really needs, are often in error with regard to plotlines of films and even books. I.e., Roger Ebert, a great authority, often makes gross errors in his explanations of film plotlines. What if someone used him as an inaccurate source?


 * We have a policy on WP:BALANCE  Chzz  ►  23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you people-- I say this with respect-- ought to hold a refresher conference on what a source really is, what it means, and what a proper citation means. You do great work by ennobling Wikipedia and keeping flotsam and jetsam out of it; but I think some editors are going stark raving mad with deletions etc.


 * There is, actually, a whole heap of policy discussions on the topic. It is, indeed, one of the most hotly discussed topics on Wikipedia. Before 'reinventing the wheel', please read one of the 'perennial discussions', PERENNIAL. Also, read carefully WP:V, WP:RS, and the links.  Chzz  ►  23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This advice is offered with kindness; but I think some minor re-editing should be done to some of the attitudes about sources and citations on Wikipedia. Call in a professor who handles these issues with doctorate students if you must! Wikipedia is turning into a battle zone of "What is a source, what is verifiable, what is a citation/reference/note?"


 * Indeed. And discussed, it certainly is. For discussion of reliable sources, see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and the many, many archives.  Chzz  ►  23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If, after due consideration of the previous debates, you wish to discuss things further, then the best arena might be the village pump.  Chzz  ►  23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It drives some of us to distraction.... All my best wishes for the present RevAntonio (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you; I'm sorry I missed you on IRC - I replied within a minute, but you'd gone :-(
 * I will reply to the above later, I'm on the phone right now.
 * Later!  Chzz  ►  23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Struck as now done, inline  Chzz  ►  23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Some questions, I suppose...

 * answering inline  Chzz  ►  00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Brother Kasava! This is some fact-finding mission my fevered brain has led me, stumbling, into conducting.

This consists of queries for you because I'm too lazy and you're not...

1. Is there a general talk page regarding Wikipedia itself? 2. Do you think the guidelines about editing and citations/quotations is sufficient? 3. Why am I asking these questions?


 * 1. Prob WP:PUMP.
 * 2. Well, there's several Gb of it; see above
 * 3. "The cypress tree in front of the hall".  Chzz  ►  00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading a bit about the "Snow White" debacle, and after my initial thoughts expressed herein, it got me thinking.

You know, Wikipedia has got to split its entries into encyclopedic areas and then perhaps arts-entertainment-literature areas. What I mean is, separate the scholastic from the "fan" stuff.


 * Disagree. Who can choose what fits the "real" stuff and the "fan" stuff? Opinions, opinions.  Chzz  ►  00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What's going on now is exactly what damaged Buddhism. You can find this in the MahaParinirvanaSutra, "Cullavagga" chapter.

Before the Buddha died, he instructed his lifelong companion and cousin, Ananda, to order all the lesser precepts to be eliminated, keeping only the 10 major ones. He also directed that the community break up, for fear of establishing an institutionalized Buddhism.

The alleged successor of the Buddha's, Kashyapa, was too late in arriving and arrived after the Buddha's funeral. He immediately seized authority as de jure head of the order.

The first thing he did was pick a fight with Ananda, questioning him and his motives, then accusing him in the most ridiculous fashion. Here Ananda was forced to do what I have recently done: a public confession of transgressions.

Only... Ananda committed no transgressions. This was a disgusting power-play by Kashyapa, lest he lose his authority to Ananda, who seemed to many priests the rightful successor as head of the order.

In the end, Ananda pledged a sort of allegiance to Kashyapa in exchange for being left alone, but not before Ananda confessed publicly. And not before he was punished in other ways. Kashyapa's argument that Buddhism not split up and go in all directions was this: Let the order remain united under authority, and in order, lest disorder prevail.

Sound familiar?


 * Interesting; I will try to learn more of this tale.  Chzz  ►  00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am at your service as always, RevAntonio (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevAntonio (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

O Kasyapa
Brother Kasava! Thanks for the notes: I almost missed them all.

To clarify about the Sacred Scriptures of the Buddha's death and subsequent events: you see, Ananda was forced to publicly confess to things he did not do. He was forced to explain his authority or reasons for doing the things of which he was falsely accused. Of treading on the Buddha's robe; of dragging it through the mud; of refusing the Buddha water to drink; of not getting clear enough instructions about the Buddha's final orders.

You see, in my clumsy, labyrinthine metaphor, Ananda is the Wikipedia editor-in-good-faith, not perfect and not always infallible. Kashyapa as his interlocutor and accuser is like the seemingly headless body of Wikipedia Big-wigs....

2nd point: look no further than any common film review and critique for plots and so forth. In a critique it is expected that opinion will creep in like a draft. In a review, the same, but it is accepted that opinion is opinion. A synopsis, however, which a plotline is in grand form, cannot be changed or opined upon... it is. Like the cypress tree-- you do kung-an very well, Kasava!

Anyway, my humble offering here is that, having reviewed (very expertly) some dozen films online (vid. hackwriters.com, I'll send you URLs if you like)... YES, plot in synopsis form is in and of itself quite acceptable under any terms! This is what I mean: cannot anyone here tell synopsis from opinion?

That has been my essential suggestion from the start. Now, as to the disagreement of separation, I was unclear. What I meant was Wikipedia might benefit if its entries had sections for, say, "common viewpoints" etc. If you have a page about one of my favorite music groups, QNTAL, you can say they're German, into remodelling Renaissance music and love to utilize bagpipes. Ah, but the fans! Honestly, everybody: do the fans have no say on the page for QNTAL? It is only a mere example, but do you see what I mean?

Cheers for the well-wishes, sorry we missed chatting, I got suddenly ill. RevAntonio (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A, ma Sheree
Oh, I see the thing about which you casually noted.... Sad. Why don't we all pick up an encyclopedia, any encyclopedia, and decide whether Wikipedia will be "this" or whether it will be "that", or "the other".

Personally, and humbly, I'm fed up with the cross-eyes cross-references, notes, sources, blah blah blah. As a friendly and hopefully helpful editor at Wikipedia, which I'm still totally unsure about being at all, it is too much.

This is the reason so many of us fled university! You folk make a Wikipedia contribution tougher than English literature term papers! "Where the hell are my 1,000 index cards, I want to add a sentence to a Wikipedia entry!!"

Sad, so sad.

RevAntonio (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A freebie, on me
Say, in the 3rd and final installment of his autobiography, I Asmimov, Dr. Asimov relates a tale about a pal, who phoned him with a question about the exact wavelengths of a bat's echolocational screeches.

Asimov took out his old trusty encyclopedia and found the information-- he usually carries all his information in his head, but not on this ocassion. Thinking the article concise and well written, his eyes dropped to the end to find the author's identity.

It was an entry he had written!

Does this make sense in the rosary of ideas I'm creating here?

RevAntonio (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * }

Moment magnitude scale
Hi, you tagged this article with refimprove. What specifically do you think needs additional verification? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya thanks for responding so promptly. I was browsing from, and wikilinked through to Moment magnitude scale - and I wanted to verify some of the assertions.

The lack of inline refs makes it hard for me, as a reader, to check up on the facts. For example, it says, "magnitude 5.0 earthquake will be about a 5.0 on both scales". In theory, it should be possible to click on the ref for that, and get the books/look at the URL, to make up my own mind about the facts.

I hope this clarifies my tag?

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that one is a mathematical fact, derived from the equations (which have references). Mathematical manipulation is one of the exceptions to WP:OR and doesn't need an inline citation. Are there any other specific facts which are contested and would thus require additional citations? The article as a whole has plenty of references. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but as a non-mathematician, I don't know how I could understand that. I'm not trying to be awkward here, honest :-) Perhaps sometimes an 'outsider' with a fresh pair of eyes can see things that are missed by experts. I don't see why mathematical proofs should be an exception to OR - I fully accept their inherent logic, but that doesn't exempt them from citations to verify the assertions.


 * The phraseology, "about 5.0 on both scales" immediately made me seek further clarification.
 * The article continues, "Unlike other scales, the Moment Magnitude scale does not saturate at the upper end" - again, I'd like to find out why, and see no reference that demonstrates the facts.
 * I think the problem I have with the article as a whole is that the referencing is unclear. For example, in the first paragraph of "Compared to Richter Scale" it states facts about the development of the scale by Charles Richter, etc. I couldn't see where those facts were referenced; after some thinking and looking, I realised that ref 3 at the end of the para covered the entire para. Whilst that is technically acceptable, it makes for complications; if, for example, a user quite justifiably added another, cited fact in the middle of that para, the citation would no longer be clear. I therefore advocate citing refs clearly for all bold statements.
 * I must admit, I was not entirely sure of myself on the above point, and therefore discussed it with some colleagues; they concurred, saying "sentences that make bold claims should always be ref'd. even if the paragraph already is".
 * I truly hope that this feedback is constructive, best wishes,  Chzz  ►  22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the problem is that the maths doesn't have a source. You pick a number and plug it into both equations - routine calculations. I think it was 5.0 and 5.06 when I did it, hence "about". If you can think of a better way of expressing that, or a direct comparison in a source feel free to change it.
 * I'll investigate which source I got the other paragraph from and add the ref. The MMS doesn't saturate at the upper end because the moment of an earthquake has no upper limit, but the displacement on a seismometer (used in LMS) does.
 * OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; I will, some time, try to find a course that talks of comparison; I had a quick look on the net, but I think a book might be a better bet for this one. I'll have a look in the library.  Chzz  ►  22:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Exit stage 9th dimension
Kasava! Buddha Bless You. This is a temporary good-bye note. My wife is supected of having ovarian cancer and I'm beside myself. (Yes, I'm a married Buddhist priest, 25 years and counting I hope.) I'll be offline for messages and communications until further notice. So no fun editing and torturing your snobby admin. eds. for a while. Pray for her, Kasava, if that is your mindset. RevAntonio (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that, and of course I wish you all the best.


 * I don't know if/when you'll get this, so I'll just briefly reply to some of your previous questions - I was intending to do so, but didn't have the time in the last few days.


 * I understand the difference between synopsis and opinion; as I say, I'm currently uncertain of how it applies to Wikipedia with regards to movie plots. I'll find out one day.


 * As regards pages for fans to make comments - that is one of the purposes of the article talk pages. Certainly the example you gave, it would be appropriate for fans to make comments about bagpipes etc on the talk page.


 * Re. "You folk make a Wikipedia contribution tougher than English literature term papers!" - substitute "WE folk...". It's as much up to you as it is up to me. Although there's endless controversy and drama about referencing, it really is quite simple. All facts must be able to be proven by the reader. That's what it all boils down to.


 * Re. Asimov / bats - nice story :-) If that was on Wikipedia, of course his own book could be a reference. Except that Mr Asimov shouldn't have edited his own article due to WP:COI - but he could have suggested it on the talk. I suppose, though, that I could imagine - in many years - finding some info on Wikipedia that I had written. Not a problem, though, as the info would have references - and the refs would back up my facts. That's the difference; there's no WP:OR (or at least there shouldn't be). Nobody should ever cite wikipedia as a source; instead, they should check the refs and cite them.


 * So - just a bit of a reply; I really do wish you the best, and hope to hear from you one day.  Chzz  ►  21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick Thanks
Just a quick Thanks for footnote referencing help. Trying today to get it right on two sites. MKohut (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(replied on user talk  Chzz  ►  21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

collaberating with others
--Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)jamiejojesus--Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)how do i collaberate on an article...for example i would like to add some information on wage peace's "god as the devil" or is that just editing? i would think you would have to perhaps request permission from the author of the article? there is so much more that could be added like the burning of witches, the holocaust, war in general, suffering and pain, aging and dying (it is rarely a peaceful passing...as i was there when my father and grandmother died...it was horrowible). anyway my time is up at the library. may return after checking out this "good friday" theing, which i know with all certainty was not a "good day"for jesus and his family and friends!--Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)jamiejojesus--Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry...
how did my message appear twice...is it because i signatured twice?...is anybody out there today?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiejojesus (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I wasn't online much in the last couple of days; if you ever need instant help, use the talk to us live thing.


 * How to collaborate - well, there are two approaches, and you can use both. First, be bold and make edits - as long as you use verifiable references. Second, discuss things on the article discussion page (the 'talk page'). You certainly don't need to seek permission from the author, because nobody owns the articles.


 * Lastly - why did your message appear twice - no idea, but it doesn't matter. I think, probably, you clicked 'save' and then went back, and saved again? Anyway - doesn't matter.


 * Good luck :-)  Chzz  ►  22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. I have replaced the material you removed and it is now properly referenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I did actually give a full edit summary, explaining why I removed text, as shown in these two edits;,.


 * I'm glad to hear you've managed to add some referenced info, and I'll try to look back at the article some time.


 * Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

sleepy
hey, sorry i left without saying anything, my connection suddenly flooded and i can't get the irc to work right now. Also my scripts for autoconnect gone crazy...see you maybe tomorrow. gnite

(unsigned by 01:46, 12 April)


 * Heh, no worries, good night. Please remember to 'sign' your message next time, by putting ~ at the end. Cheers, see you soon!  Chzz  ►  02:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Query
Do you have some reason for removing the messages I have left you?

RevAntonio (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It must be insanity that I'd return here to check for messages... but I have one disagreement. You seem to be implying that I am as responsible for things here as administrators/grand poobah editors. You know that is false.

I have little technical knowledge. I barely have the intelligence to edit a page to Wikipedia's liking. And I do not hide who I am behind weird usernames. I am not returning to Wikipedia for any reason at all whatsoever.

You folk can label me all you like, and even make up an insulting bio page about me. That is perfectly fine. It's funny how you folk0 have a persecution/inferiority complex, and how you belittle and make others feel stupid.

Now this is not aimed at you personally, because I do not know what you do or don't do, chzz, and for that matter I have no idea who you are, but you can certainly show this message around, I know that.

RevAntonio (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted the following reply to the first query you posted in here; unfortunately, it didn't save until 2 minutes after you'd placed the second edit, during which you removed the original question. I've put the original bit back so that this reply is in context.  Chzz  ►  20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hiya! Hey, I didn't remove a thing! I did, however, 'hide' them because my page was a million miles long. I noted exactly what I'd done, and if you look up the page a bit you'll see it - click 'show' and all will be revealed :-) Also, I've replied to things.
 * Note, though, that like most innundated people any section on my talk that doesn't have a comment for 100 hours gets put in the archives - which are all available at the top.
 * Best,  Chzz  ►  21:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In reply to the second message you left, I really don't know what to say; it's unfortunate that it took me 8 mins to reply to your first question, and I'm sorry you didn't get to see my reply before you added the second lot.

I do consider your remarks to be addressed to me personally, because I feel that I am one of what you describe as 'you folk' - an expression which I don't really agree with, because it should be 'us folk' - ie the whole community, which includes you. I've no idea what you mean about your bio, as I've never looked at it, or looked for it.

P.S. Note that my replies to your earlier posts, which I rearranged into that 'hidden' section, have now been archived, and can be seen in User talk:Chzz/Archive 4 - but please don't respond to them there, because it's an archive.  Chzz  ►  20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!


, Homebum (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the help on the classical quaternions articleHomebum (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome :-) Any time  Chzz  ►  19:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note of thanks
Thanks for looking over my page/s. I'd like to get more creative in the look of the page rather than use everyone else's template, so I'll probably be asking for help on finding more editing notes. Thanks again. ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chouchin11 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and I'll help any time. I'd be careful about being too creative though; remember that people read Wikipedia on all kinds of systems, from Linux mobile phones to blind readers; the pages are frequently read in by automated programs that reformat the data and present it in all kinds of ways. For this reason, it's often best to present the info in a fairly plain and standard way.
 * If you glance at the very extensive manual of style, you'll see that, for an article to become 'featured article' class, it must meet quite exacting standards. For this reason, looking at featured articles, and seeing how they present the info, can be very helpful in improving your style.
 * Always remember that nobody owns the articles; if you spend hours getting the format just so, another editor is very likely to come along and change it all.
 * Cheers, and good luck with the editing.  Chzz  ►  19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

making an article
i want to make my own wikipedia page. like, i want to have my own article on the nintendo dsi. how do i make that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluh101 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Wikipedia already has a good article on the Nintendo DS. If you want to make your own, for fun, you could make one in your own user area. As explained in the welcome message I left you;


 * Play in your user area. For example, create User:Bluh101/test.
 * Please read the welcome message, as it gives you lots of tips on how to get started - and it also tells you how to get more help if you need it.
 * I see that you've created some articles in the live area, and they've been deleted. Please play in your user area, as described.
 * Good luck,  Chzz  ►  19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

BS for you

 * [[Image:Face-blush.svg]]  Chzz  ►  19:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
Answered on user talk and IRC  Chzz  ►  00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Notes to self
User talk:BasicallyGood Check for response re. moving article  Chzz  ►  00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

check on progress re Henry Azra  Chzz  ►  05:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Weatherstar4000

Wikipedia talk:Alleviate negative unsourced statements

Thanks for helping ☺
Thanks for helping me regarding the URL of Goose bumps. I was the guy on the IRC chat.

By the way, I accidentally hit the "emergency wiki shutdown" button but I had Java disabled, is it ok then? ;-) Elecbullet (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly note
But you shouldn't run automated tasks from your account, especially a welcome bot. Q T C 05:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never have - my welcomes are all manual. I type fast. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 in a minute fast? I'm jealous :P I guess it could be easily done with tabs. You just dont see very many manual actions that get past 5 or so, so I was just checking to see :) Q  T C 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries; I understand. What I do is, I look in special:logs, new users, 500 of them. I scroll down, looking for redlink talks with contribs. I ingore stupid names etc, and right-click on the talks, and open in a new tab. I open maybe 50 of them. Then (in firefox) CTRL-TAB takes you to next window; paste in, TAB, "hi", TAB, TAB, enter. Rinse and repeat.
 * Best,  Chzz  ►  00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for all your advice & help getting the braille article going. There really isn't any conflict of interest but I'd greatly appreciate you moving the article to the main space. Is there something I need to add to specify the exact title name? It needs to be Braille Institute of America - - and I guess I'll need to add a redirect for just Braille Institute? Still not sure exactly how all this works! Thanks again for all your help :)

BasicallyGood (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Message moved back to users talk page, to carry on the dialogue over there.  Chzz  ►  16:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thank you again for all your time and help. You really didn't have to do what you did. But thanks anyway. :D --Thenachoman (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to talk to you on the IRC Wikipedia channel. --Thenachoman (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm there, as always; saw you join at 21:38 but you left before I could say hi.  Chzz  ►  20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!
Enjoy! -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 00:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)



 The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Just curious...
What's the template for that big fancy welcome you put here?  Lychosis  T / C  01:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * user:chzz/w  Chzz  ►  01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)  Lychosis   T / C  02:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)



, Lychosis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Lovely, thanks! Feel free to copy the welcome thing; I just think it's nice to make ones own 'version'. With mine in user:chzz/w, I can just put on new users pages. I did it originally because I found the 'standard' welcomes a bit overbearing, with all the links. Like, "Hi there, welcome, and oh, don't breach COI, 3RR, study all this stuff before you *think* about contributing" etc. I just felt we were forgetting the core message, hence starting mine with "Hi, you don't need to read anything, jump in and edit". /rant Aaaaaanyway. Thanks for brightening my day. Best,   Chzz  ►  04:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Red cunt hair
I have nominated Red cunt hair, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, the article was found unintentionally via Special:Random, so nothing personal. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, really? That's amazing! (I'm not being sarcastic here - I believe you) - but, what are the odds of that, just a short time after all the IRC stuff! Wow! And, of course, no hard feelings at all.  Chzz  ►  03:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)