User talk:Ched/Help Threads

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right and Wrong[edit]

In answer to your first question, nope, you don't need references on your userpage. You may put any information you like on your userpage, as long as it doesn't violate your privacy. In answer to your second question, there are the Wikipedia IRC channels which may also be helpful.

Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How to fix pictures used for TV shows and movies[edit]

{{help me}} I am trying help add to the Star Trek Voyager episodes. on the talk pages, I see the warning thing about fair use regarding a screen shot of an episode. when I click on the link ... it takes me to a page with the picture. there is an explanation for why it's called fair use. I've read a bunch of the links and fair use stuff. what still has to be done?

if it is ok, how do I add the done check box? (although I guess I can find that one myself) does anything else need to be done, if so, is there anything I can do? thanks, Ched Ched Davis (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done sent thx to user talk page: Ched Davis (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


12/21/2008 Questions[edit]

{{helpme}}

note: I have tried to do these things or find these things myself first before I asked for help, and I don't expect any one person to be able to answer all the questions, but I do appreciate the help. Also ... is it better to get the IRC figured out for these types of questions?

  • Whether or not you use IRC is a personal choice. I've never logged on to it, but I know plenty of people who find that it is helpful in answering quick questions. I'm going to remove the "help-me" template as you seem ot have had your questions answered. Protonk (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC) said thx ...  Done[reply]

page tags[edit]

do the tags get posted on the article page ... or the talk page? (I've seen some of both, but which is right)? example: page tags

The tags you pointed to should be added to the article, either on the top of the page or below the relevant ==Heading== Unpopular Opinion (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate your time, have a great holiday! Ched Davis (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

change template[edit]

how do I change or discuss the change for the Star Trek info template? I tried adding a pipe and corresponding info, but it didn't change display. I also did a search for Infobox Star Trek Episode, but couldn't find the template. example:

{{Infobox Star Trek episode | name = Scientific Method | image = [[Image:Scientific Method.jpg|270px|]] | series = VOY | ep_num = 75 | prod_num = 175 | date = [[October 29]], [[1997]] | writer = [[Sherry Klein]]<br />[[Harry Kloor|Harry 'Doc' Kloor]]<br />[[Lisa Klink]] | director = [[David Livingston (director)|David Livingston]] | guest = [[Rosemary Forsyth]] as Alzen<br />[[Annette Helde]] as Takar | stardate = 51244.3 | year = 2374 | prev = [[The Raven (Voyager episode)|The Raven]] | next = [[Year of Hell (Voyager episode)|Year of Hell, part I]] }}

Its easy to find the template - just Google it. The template you are talking about is probably this one: Template:Infobox Star Trek episode. Use its associated Talk page to discuss changes. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re;Joyride[edit]

Hi Ched - basically if the article is very short, you add a stub template at the bottom of the article (either the plain {{stub}} or one of the more precise ones - if you simply add {{stub}}, a stub-sorter will change it to a more precise one soon enough, but if you can even make it a slightly more precise one it'll save work later). Usually if it's that short, then it'll be pretty obvious the sort of thing that the article needs.

If it's a longer article but still needs work, and you're less sure that it's easy to see what still needs attention, add an expand template at the top instead, and put details on the talk page. The difference between "short" and "longer" is pretty arbitrary and depends a lot on what the subject is (I've got a short essay on that at User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs), but if it's more than a couple of screens-full of information, it's usually beyond being a stub. Hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia - keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 01:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tags page[edit]

Hello Ched,

I removed the hangon template from User:Ched Davis/tags. Having the actual template on your subpage put the page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which is used to patrol the category. The other maintenance templates (wikify, unsourced etc) will also put your page in the relevant category pages, though those categories aren't dealt with as regularly.--Kubigula (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and no harm done. Ironically, I made a similar mistake to put this page into CSD too.
Don't sweat the policies and guidelines too much - you eventually learn them as you go along. There are a lot of them, and certainly no expectation that newer users need to learn them all - in fact, we have keystone principles that you should be bold (WP:Bold) and worry less about the rules than simply about improving the encyclopedia (WP:IAR). Kinda funny if you think about it - we have so many policies and guidelines that we need more pages to tell you not to worry too much about them.
To actually answer your question, Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is a good page that actually shows how the article cleanup templates look. /Cleanup is part of the larger Wikipedia:Template messages page that links to all the various template collections.
Feel free to ask me if you ever have other questions - I'm happy to help, though I can't always promise the right answer.--Kubigula (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


MfD nomination of User:Ched Davis/archive/sg1-1x3[edit]

User:Ched Davis/archive/sg1-1x3, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ched Davis/archive/sg1-1x3 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ched Davis/archive/sg1-1x3 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ched (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should you have any more to do please use {{Db-u1}} instead. Less red tape. Agathoclea (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes just copy the {{tl|Db-u1}, obviously only on pages in your userspace, where criterion U1 applies. Agathoclea (talk)

British and American spellings[edit]

Hi -- I see you've been doing spelling corrections; a much-needed job. You might want to take a look at this page; when an article is clearly tied to one or other side of the Atlantic, it uses British English or Canadian English as appropriate. For other articles which don't have a tie, the rule is that they stay in whichever variant they were first written in -- so an article on Mozart or coral reefs would stay in British English if it was originally written in that version of English, and would stay in American English if it was written that way. I do see in your edit history a couple of pages that are clearly British so you might want to take a look at those. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC) [..][reply]

If you use Firefox, you can easily download British, Canadian, and Australian English dictionaries to more easily spell-check articles. I use those, plus Spanish and German, and it makes life so much easier. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A link would be useful. They are just addons, located at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:3. After installing them, you can right click in any text box and select the appropriate dictionary under "Languages". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge help[edit]

{{helpme}} I was looking through unpatrolled pages, and came across List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations. I saw that it was related to the movie, and thought, well it should be merged with the movie article. I added a merge tag (I think it was the right way to do it) .. and saved ... then I realized it was a FL. I immediately removed the the merge tag. I don't understand how an article that makes FL, is unpatrolled. And did I do the right thing by reversing my edit? Sorry for contributing to the workload, still learning here. Ched (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was about to come over and ask you why you were suggesting merging the list because it is a featured list and then saw you had removed it. The list was made because the extensive number of awards and nominations were of interest beyond the scope of the film itself (acting, directing, screenwriting, editing, cinematography, etc.). The complete list would overwhelm the rest of the article and wouldn't allow for the details contained in the list. No Country for Old Men (film) is 55kb in size, but when the two are combined, you would get this note: "This page is 85 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." The suggested article size is around 50-60kb (although I wouldn't advise trying to enforce that! :) ) One of the discussions WP:FILMS had was possibly to begin to table what would be extensive amounts of awards on articles. This was done as an example and then I realized that the content and referencing was sufficient to achieve featured level and took it through that process. The list was created on December 20, 2008 and passed FL on January 4, 2009, which is fairly notable for its quickness. I don't know why or what gets put onto patrolled lists or why. Perhaps that has to do with vandalism and its potential? I think you were correct to remove your suggestion but then I created the list. Perhaps something like that would be better broached on the talk page first, although I don't normally make too many merge suggestions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special:NewPages has a bit of backlog, and this would be one of the articles that has been missed. Nothing unusual there, but kind of embarrassing that it wasn't spotted when it went through an FLC. The reasons for not merging are given clearly by Wildhartlivie, and there was nothing wrong with you reversing your edit. Don't worry too much about making mistakes, just be bold and edit - things can be corrected around here :) Cheers. Chamal talk 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A pleasure to meet you too. When it comes to Larry Sanger and Citizendum ... just remember, there is a world of difference between an essay which anyone can write, and say almost anything) and a policy (which only exists by virtue of community consensus, is meant to help explain how things work to new editors, and are very important when editors come into conflict. It is true some essays are generally well-regarded and you will find many policies or WP guidelines that link to essays. And Larry Sanger is in a unique position because he and Jimmy Wales worked out the essential rules for Wikipedia at the start. But an essay by him is still just his POV; it may be thought provoking or useful or you just may want to skip it. Policies however deserve serious attention, always.
I think you will find that most editors are not professors (and many people who write ass if they taught at a university actually do not!). Academics have an advantage in that they work at a place that has a great library, and they have already read a lot of stuff ... both are most important when it comes to complying with a crucial part of NPOV, which makes us distinguish between mainstream, majority, and minority views (all of which go in) and fringe views (all of which stay out). In some cases (the world is somewhat spherical vs. the earth is flat) the difference between a mainstream view and a fringe view is obvious to pretty much anyone who made it past grammar school. In other cases (why did the NAZIs come to power in Germany in 1933) you need to read a lot more to know the different major views, at least among historians and other scholars. Here, a college professor has an advantage but it is only an advantage. Anyone with a good high school education, access to a good library that has lots of books and scholarly journals and a good dictionary, and lots of time to read, is pretty much equal to a college professor in what they can contribute. And of course there are plenty of topics where a college professor has no particular advantage. But even if you are writing about fly-fishing or different kinds of motorcycles, it is generally important to provide verifiable sources. I am guessing that people who love fly-fishing or motorcycles have plenty to argue over, and if there is anything all fly-fishermen agree on, I bet it is in some book. Or if many fly-fishermen go one way, and many the other way, that will be in a book, or two books. Anyway, citing the books does a lot to stop arguments here. And finally - citing verifiable sources is good for someone reading the article who wants to learn more and doesn't have a friend who has been fly-fishing twenty years and doesn't trust the guy behind the counter at the local sporting-goods store for advice. If you can find it in your library, probably someone across the country can find it in his library ... and learn more than will fit into a Wikipedia article. So it's a service to other readers.
Well, good luck editing! I wouldn't worry about ArbCom. Keep reviewing the Wikipedia:Five Pillars and just write or contribute to good articles and focus on collaborating with other editors in good faith and you will do a lot for the project! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Actually 2 questions here: {{helpme}}

  1. Would it be proper to tag this: UltraSurf with the {{advert}} tag?
  2. Where is the right place to ask this kind of question? (help desk, talk page of Wikipedia Spam, an individual admin ... other)?

I saw it on unpatrolled pages or spelling check, not sure which. I know it needs something, but not sure what's proper. Ched (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The advert tag would be proper, in fact so would {{db-spam}}. I've just deleted the article as blatant advertising and totally unverifiable.
  2. Very blatant ads (like that one) can be marked with a speedy deletion tag. Less problematic ones can be tagged as you suggested, and it should get dealt with soon (i.e., eventually). If it's really bad, but not "speediable", you can also nominate it for deletion. And if you're ever not sure, this method or the help desk works too. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ched/Help_Threads&oldid=1079734572"