Jump to content

User talk:Chzz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 272: Line 272:


:Even better, come back to IRC and I can talk you through, etc. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background-color:darkblue; color:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B; background-color:yellow; border: 0px solid; ">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
:Even better, come back to IRC and I can talk you through, etc. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background-color:darkblue; color:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B; background-color:yellow; border: 0px solid; ">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

== Cast The First Stone Helpme ==

My helpme was moved to your profile... Can you assist:-DThanks.

Revision as of 22:26, 7 April 2009

พระकपासअवअ

File:326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png
ようこそ!

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. :( - NeutralHomerTalk • 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. - NeutralHomerTalk • 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 :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 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. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 16, 2009 @ 09:28

Helpme

Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at WhiteHandofSauramon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback request

{{Talkback}}|WhiteHandofSauramon

A Quick Question: TALKBACK

{{tb}}|Cssiitcic|A Quick Question Cssiitcic (talk · contribs)

talkback

{{talkback}}|gnfnrf gnfnrf (talk · contribs)

Talkback

tn Cssiitcic (talk · contribs)

Re talkback template

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.

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)[reply]

Let me declare at he outset - all of the following is IMHO.
The image conjured up by "intersection" (UK)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have called on a third party.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. – iridescent 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RE: Signatures

Hello Chzz,

Apologies, I keep thinking the signature is automatic.

Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennie--x (talkcontribs) 10:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   ↑fail :-)--  Chzz  ►  10:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch with me.

I nominated Sound Vs. Silence for a speedy deletion because, in my humble opinion, it fitted [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)[reply]

tb JohnCD

{{tb}}|JohnCD|Sheree Silver JohnCD (talk · contribs) ref Sheree Silver Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Innit

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, you tagged this article with {{refimprove}}. What specifically do you think needs additional verification? OrangeDog (talkedits) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkedits) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)

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)[reply]

Re:Vandalism

{{tb|download|Vandalism}} download (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]

Interesting, thanks.  Chzz  ►  12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi!
Looking from an 'outsider' point of view, a brief check of those edits makes me think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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#Customizing your signature
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)[reply]

Cast The First Stone Helpme

My helpme was moved to your profile... Can you assist:-DThanks.