User talk:TachyonJack

Welcome
Hi,. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to 'sign' your comments, by putting ~ at the end, every time you post on a talk page! Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

talkback
Quick!  Chzz  ►  17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Chzz  ►  11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

IRC Ghosts etc
Hi there,

Regarding IRC and ghosts, here is my own 'perform on connect' - if you adapt this to your own, it will sort out any ghostie issues on connection;

/nick chzz_ /nick chzz /nickserv identify /nickserv ghost chzz /nick chzz /nickserv identify /join #wikipedia-en-help /join ##chzz

See, that will sort it out either way - I know it might seem a bit silly to change nicks etc, but it solves the problem.

If you just change the chzz and chzz_ to your own nicks, and put your password in, it should work for you too.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill of Federalism
Thanks for writing Bill of Federalism. Good job, especially for a newcomer. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have the right plan (add info, wait for more sources). I hope that over time there will indeed be lots more sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Randy Barnett
I secured that image from Randy Barnett by email before I became aware of OTRS. If you have secured a newer image that is on-record with OTRS, great! DickClarkMises (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Sorry it took so long... busy week.  wadester 16  17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Irving v. Penguin Books and Lipstadt

 * Very nice work.Historicist (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Congratulations are in order. Constantine  ✍  22:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you've got an interest in English law may I invite you to a collaborative project me, Wikidea and RichsLaw are working on? We're going to get English contract law as a topic to GA standard. First proper example is really Privity in English law and, through that, Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Drop me a line if you have suggestions or would like to get involved. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your contributions so far have been brilliant :). I didn't know you could link books and inlines, but be my guest! It is definitely v rather than v. - unfortunately not all english cases are at this standard on WP yet, so it gets a bit confusing. Any contributions you could make would be brilliant. The "project" per se is completely informal, WikiProject Law is what we're based on. In relation to the article, a few points. First, you'll need to put something in the "relevant issues" section other than a "see also" link - either that or scrap it and put it into a "see also" section entirely of links at the bottom. Second, more inlines would be helpful. Generally the rule is to inline anything that is questioned, could be questioned or is particularly controversial, as well as all quotations and the like. Sentences like "In her book, Denying the Holocaust, Lipstadt called Irving a Holocaust denier, falsifier, and bigot, and said that he manipulated and distorted real documents." for example should really be referenced. As a final point it is generally frowned upon to have both a GA and Peer Review open at the same time. I'd advise closing the peer review for now, since a GA should cover most of the same points and a peer review is normally just minor tweaking before an FAC anyway. I don't think Wikidea/RichsLaw are big on GA stuff, but you could try asking User:Steve Smith. He's very thorough, and just reviewed Claud Schuster, 1st Baron Schuster for me. Ironholds (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, see the OSCOLA examples. OSCOLA is the central form of legal citation, I don't know why they've decided not to follow it on BAILII. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

David Irving and "Mein Fuhrer"
Thanks for the heads up, I've responded on the article talk page. I still believe that this fact is not sufficiently verifiable to meet BLP (because we are essentially arguing about what he MEANT, not what he said), but am reviewing how to proceed pending the results of further research. Alereon (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GA request
Hi Jack (if I may so call you) - I might be able to get to that early next week, if nobody else has picked it up. No promises, mind you. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Irving v. Penguin Books and Lipstadt peer review
I am sorry I've neglected this for the past week, but I'm on track again. I'm reading your revisions, but I see from the edit history that you are planning more expansion. Would it be best if I waited until the expansion is complete? The lead is looking a lot tidier, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got your message. In my experience, having artices on GA and PR simultaneously causes problems; sometimes the reviewers say the same things, which is wasted effort, sometimes they have different views, which can confuse the nominator. If Moni wants to do the GA review now, that's fine – I'll wait. If you want me to complete my review first, then perhaps you'd ask her to hold off until I'm done. Brianboulton (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I note you've withdrawn from GA while you try to get the Trial section together. I'm not sure that I can help much with this since I don't know the subject, but you should bear in mind that you are writing a summary encyclopedia article, not a blow-by-blow account. Thus the opening arguments of each side should be summarised; the rebuttals should be presented, together with details of cross-examination and statements from witnesses. Presumably there were also closing statements. Try and present the whole trial in a nutshell and don't give too much detail on any one aspect. I'll happily look at any draft of this section that you come up with – just let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

TachyonJack, I wanted to make sure you saw this. Generally, (though inconsistently) if you post a message to a talk page, it gets answered there. This is responding to the message you left on my talk page about the GA review for Irving v. Penguin Books and Lipstadt.


 * Yeah, I read the article and thought some of the sections were small for the concepts covered in the trial. Please think very carefully if you want the article to be nominated. I was planning on doing my review tomorrow. After I list questions and suggestions, you'll have seven days to make improvements. If it's not ready after seven days, the article will have to be failed and you'll have to wait a few weeks before nominating it again. If you have multiple sections you're considering expanding, you might want to take a few days or weeks to do that. Generally, articles are (or should be) ready for the GA review when they are nominated. There's no problem or shame in postponing the review by removing the nomination to renominate when you think the article is the best you can make it. Let me know what you decide. --Moni3 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw your removal of the nomination. I look forward to the article being in its fully expanded state. If you would like me to review it at the time, I would be happy to do so. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

gTranslate.js
Just looking at your awesome Google Translate links script and noticed it doesn't create a link for Persian, which Google now supports. Just figured I should let you know :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad to hear that my script is being used. It now supports Persian! --TachyonJack (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks! And yeah, it's really bloody useful. I do a lot of work on stuff to do with the Holy Roman Empire and its states. The English Wikipedia articles for all these places are pretty poor, but the German Wikipedia has much' more content. My German is ok-ish, but not that great. Being able to hit a Google Translation in one click — and, importantly, being able to see the original German source in a popup bubble — makes working on these articles so much easier. Thank you! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  10:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 00:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

CS1 error on Major questions doctrine
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Major questions doctrine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_questions_doctrine&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1162746110%7CMajor%20questions%20doctrine%5D%5D Ask for help])