Jump to content

User talk:Chzz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
PasoAPaso (talk | contribs)
50 edits
No edit summary
Line 175: Line 175:
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I award you this barnstar for your being kind to the newbies. [[User:MichaelQSchmidt|MichaelQSchmidt]] ([[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|talk]]) 04:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I award you this barnstar for your being kind to the newbies. [[User:MichaelQSchmidt|MichaelQSchmidt]] ([[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|talk]]) 04:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
|}
|}

Hi Chzz,


could you help me with editing the reference in the following page:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/School_Science/Bell_jar_model_lung#cite_note-0
The symbol for the reference apears, however the reference is nowhere to be seen.

Also would it not be better to move this article back to Wikipedia since it essentially an article about simple lung models and not a book or part of a book.

If I forgot to enter an "Edit Summary", can I still enter one after the fact?

If I forgot to login before editing a page, can I change the edit accordingly to show me as an editor?



PasoAPaso

Revision as of 13:10, 9 August 2009

Leave me a message
Emergency block button
Emergency block button
Emergency Wikipedia shutdown
Emergency block button
Emergency block button

DO NOT PRESS

Where has my message gone?
My talkpage is very active, so please check the archives.
Put your user name or article name into this box, and 'search'-----→
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

File:326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png
ようこそ！

Question

would you be interested in taking on the added responsibility of admin? — Ched :  ?  08:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about it a few times; not sure. I hate the DRAMA side of things. Hmm. Why do you ask?  Chzz  ►  09:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've worked with you both on wiki and off. I realize that you have exceptional skills. You're able to approach situations with a rational viewpoint, evaluate the circumstances, and provide a reasonable solution. Skills that are befitting an admin. You concentrate on building the 'pedia - be it the "spotlight" project, or the chzz/10 - your efforts are always geared towards building. I'm a real "new" guy and all, but I know that the folks who actually work on building the 'pedia, are the most valuable. I just thought that if you had a couple extra tools to work with, you could do even more. — Ched :  ?  09:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I really appreciate that. I will give it some thought.  Chzz  ►  09:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to give the go ahead, I would defiantly put in a co-nom. BTW I hope to be back in with the spotlight channel sometime soon.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Chzz  ►  03:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shannon leech

Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.210.213 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow (if somewhat puzzled) reply  Chzz  ►  09:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha thank you you just made my day ^.^ Captain n00dle T/C 16:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent problems at Zoltan Kodaly, pt 2 / Robert Hawker

This is something in the past now: I have always entered edit summaries as a routine and now get reminded of blanks. For a minor edit I might not put anything very meaningful in: I have seen ones like "removed duplicate full stop" which is more than required. Occasionally I will revert an edit which I am sure is vandalism but perhaps the explanation shd be the first thing in the edit summary rather than added at the end as it might not all be displayed. For a good faith misguided amendment I would delete the standard message and enter something relevant. Another thing that I found puzzling was an fine article on Robert Hawker which had been originally a section in another called Charles Church but references for both these articles were virtually non-existent yet the content had been scrutinised by many different editors.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree; I see that you've tagged it. Sadly there are a lot of articles like that - important ones too. All we can do is try and make things a little bit better. That one will make a nice project for someone, one day - get hold of a few books from the library, and that could be an excellent article.  Chzz  ►  18:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You might be interested in spotlight  Chzz  ►  18:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Marble, Slate and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers, Tile and Marble setters' Helpers and Marble Mosaic and Terrazzo Workers' Helpers

etc.  Chzz  ►  05:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Woolly Bandits

The article The Woolly Bandits has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:BAND notability criteria

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks Much Better than when I tried to put some lipstick on this pig, then I tagged it when the refs started looking bogus … I also removed the Category:Flagged articles tag from The Woolly Bandits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Added Unnecessary Requests for Citations to the Article

Chzz, someone has added unnecessary requests for citations to the Charles Dennis article. Please go to the Charles Dennis article and you will see what I mean.

Will you tell me how I can find out who added those requests for citations? I was not able to find out who put them in. They need to be removed anyway, and do I need someone's "permission" to remove them?

I looked at the following in wikipedia:

From Wikipedia Burden of Evidence page:

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

From George Lucas Article page:

In 1969, Lucas married film editor Marcia Lou Griffin, who went on to win an Academy Award for her editing work on the original (Episode IV) Star Wars film.

All three of his children have appeared in the three Star Wars prequels, as has Lucas himself.

So the above and says that editors must be given time to provide references. It also shows that "everything" does not need to be, nor can it be, referenced.

So, Chzz, I would appreciate your assistance with this matter. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberusrunning (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see who added them in the article history, which is here - and you'll see that it was actually me!
It's true that, strictly speaking, not everything needs a reference - just anything that is challenged. It's also true that unreferenced material can simply be removed; in this case, I marked it to make it clear that references were required to assert the facts. There is no defined timescale; I merely wanted to mark the concerns. You could certainly try to address the issues by citing the facts, and that would be fine. As the policy says, uncited material may be removed by any editor.
I'm not quite sure why you mentioned that part of the George Lucas article - is it because it supports some of the facts in Charles Dennis? If so, then the references from that article need citing in this one - Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source, because it is a tertiary source of information.
As per best practice, I will of course help in any way to get the citations required, and of course I'll help in any way. The article does need good sources for the facts - and it's especially important in biographical articles. Imagine, for instance, if somebody came along and added lots more unreferenced facts to the article - we can only have verifiable information.
I hope that you will understand why I tagged the facts required; we all want to make better articles, and one way of doing so is by highlighting problem issues such as this.
Anyone can remove the 'fact' tags and 'unreferenced section' tags - but to do so, they should fix the actual error by providing a suitable citation.  Chzz  ►  04:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athena

The Teamwork Barnstar
Many thanks for your constructive cooperation - a most pleasant and refreshing experience. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, cheers. I just noticed it on newpages, and thought I'd have a poke around. Good luck, and thanks!  Chzz  ►  14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Hey, cheers for the comment on my user page :)

Just wondering if you could give me your opinion on the discussion currently underway at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use covers in a video game discography. Feel free to add to the discussion but I was wondering if you could give me your opinion ON the discussion... if that makes sense? -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the subject, and on the discussion, are intrinsically interlinked.
I struggle to understand the basic idea behind "fair use" of non-free content. It is frequently pointed out that copying without permission is a form of theft. "Fair use" seems to me rather like saying, "It's absolutely wrong to steal, and it is illegal, except if you only steal a little bit, and you have a really good reason to do so.
Thus, it is impossible to define; akin to questions like "What is pornography". What exactly makes it "fair use"? Looking at one tiny aspect, as an example - the picture must be "low resolution" - so what, precisely, does that mean? I don't know of any clear definition in any policy; there seems to be a kind of 'convention' (in respect of album covers, at least) that 300px is OK. Why this number? Why not 301px? Would such an image bring down the Foundation? The truth is, nobody really knows, until a court makes a decision in a specific case. And the size issue is merely an example; the whole topic is a grey area.
Thus, in your discussion, I see valid arguments on both sides - but the problem is, nothing can be defined. You will not be able to come up with a clear bullet-point list saying "THIS is OK, but THAT is not". What, precisely, is a 'discography'? Your questions regarding the definition is valid; what is the inherent difference between one article about three albums, or three articles about one? And why should different rules apply? Taking it further - what about sound samples; why is it apparently OK to have an unlimited number samples of tracks in an article (ref. WP:SAMPLE), but only one picture? Oh, as long as they are under 10% or 30 seconds, of course. Rounded up or down? Who knows...and hey, it's only a style guideline.
It is important to remember that the legal folk spend an awful of of time debating such fundamental dichotomies, and the infinite potential for straw man arguments ensure that they will always have plenty to talk about - and thus plenty of scope to charge for their time.
So - there are no answers; there are no definitions. If you seek them out, it will drive you crazy. You can debate it forever, but it is an open question, there is no solution. It would not surprise me in the slightest if, one day, Wikipedia decided to (or was forced to) remove all non-free content.
Thus, the only rational attitude to the topic (as far as I am concerned) is don't-give-a-fuckism - which many dismiss as a joke, but in reality, it is a way of staying sane.
I hope that this is constructive. Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for help

thanks for the help http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ganesh_J._Acharya&oldid=306761539 Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Emergency Wikipedia shutdown

Isn't this just another atom bomb kept in the open with a trigger that anyone can press? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one way to find out... (press it)    7   talk | Δ |   11:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steinway Model D-274

Thank you very much for your help. I filled a "3 revert" report [32] but apparently there's no violation. I think i didn't fill the report well. Thank you for your help. --Karljoos (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bollinger

Nice rescue tagging. I am supposing that those suggesting he does not meet WP:AUTHOR based that opinion upon the 2 audio books in the original version of the article, and not upon a cursory look at Google Books. Bollinger used his language skills to make the crossover from writing to acting and voicework, but has apparently returned to books of late... now in audio format. Care to help me dig to see if his earlier books have received favorable reviews? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got involved via a helpme from a new user, and felt sorry for their first experience on Wikipedia. I did spend a bit of time looking, hence my comment in the AfD that I'm not yet convinced myself (yet) that it can be saved. I just wanted to do anything possible to restore the faith of the new user, per the sad tale on User_talk:Pdsabooks. Hence, my "rescue" request was a cry for help, really. I hoped, perhaps, others might be able to find things. I will certainly look at it again ASAP. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked an admin to politely look into advising the editor about his username as a quick block may turn him off on Wikipedia entirely. Like yourself, I commented on his talk page and advised the use of a sandbox for preparing articles... and if this one gets deleted I will suggest a userfication. I am hoping that investigating the body of the author's work will come up with some critical response of his work. Thanks for being kind to newcomers. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm glad I had a hand in re-writing the article, as the original was worrisomely similar to this. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your being kind to the newbies. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chzz,


could you help me with editing the reference in the following page: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/School_Science/Bell_jar_model_lung#cite_note-0 The symbol for the reference apears, however the reference is nowhere to be seen.

Also would it not be better to move this article back to Wikipedia since it essentially an article about simple lung models and not a book or part of a book.

If I forgot to enter an "Edit Summary", can I still enter one after the fact?

If I forgot to login before editing a page, can I change the edit accordingly to show me as an editor?


PasoAPaso

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz&oldid=306971002"