User talk:Chzz

Leave me a message Emergency block button

Emergency Wikipedia shutdown 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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz

I would like to take the initiative to submit a request for adminship for you. You have made more much valued edits than I can count and if you accept the nomination you are a sure sysop. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 02:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you come to a consensus of whether you should run for adminship. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 04:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oopssies, I now understand that you have had a past nomination for administrator but was unsuccessful but this does not waiver my opinion. You are a constructive editor and have grown since your last bid for administrator. Please do not let your past experiences with sysops get in the way of your nomination and I will guarantee you that you will become an administrator. I will now go ahead and nominate you for a second time for sysopship. Cheers and hop to see you moping up the admin backlogs soon. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 05:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I am thinking about possibly doing it - and quite a few other people have asked me to - including quite recently, in this thread. But I haven't quite decided yet; so I want to wait until I am ready (myself). I do appreciate the thought though.  Chzz  ►  08:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are a great editor and has a fun spirit, If you dont get sysopship then my name is Jeffrey (which it isn't :D) Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 17:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way the page to accept the nomination is here, Thanks and accept the nomination, you'll do great. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 17:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to accept the nomination. You already have two support votes even before you accept and to more persons who are willing to co-nominate you, see here and here for verificationGabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you go for it. But I also suggest that you not spend time dithering here. In the wise words of Yoda "Do, or do not. There is no try". Good film series, that. Lots of good advice contained in it. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks (all) for the kind words, and I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, but, In the above - I did say, "I haven't quite decided yet; so I want to wait until I am ready (myself)". What I mean is...I am thinking it over. If I am to run, I'd want to spend some time digging through my contribs for good examples, thinking carefully about the nom statement and questions. I've been thinking about maybe doing this for a long time - but usually I get distracted by doing other things. I promise you - and the others watching this - that I absolutely will consider this further, as soon as I can - within days or weeks, not months. However, for right-now, I am not ready to accept. Sincere apologies for any hassle that may cause, and I do, absolutely, appreciate the intentions and the positive wishes. Please feel free to poke me again in a week or two if I've done nothing further, but note: (at this current time) I have not yet decided if I want to do RfA. Thanks for understanding, and again, sincere apologies if I was not clear enough.  Chzz  ►  20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Post ec-addendum @Anthony Bradbury - Absolutely; I don't want to mess anyone around. If it is best, feel free to move or delete the nom statement; I know people get all antsy when these things sit around (although I don't quite understand why).  Chzz  ►  20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bradbury, no deadline there is  Chzz  ►  20:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Chzzz, my apologies for not being forthcoming in my offer of a review; regretfully I have been very busy in real life, and recent discussion over a current RFA with an arbitrator has incensed me to the point of considering retiring this account to be honest. As long as you can be clear and communicative over the SOCK issue at your last RFA I'd suggest you run - be open and forthright with questions but let supporters challenge weak opposes would be my advice. Certainly clear the "sock" issue in your nomination acceptance however. I've given up on the edit conflicts now so if this doesn't work I'll just post it on my talk. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are not ready to accept your nomination then fine I am totally alright with that but as you said to come back in a week or two and I will. Ill give you two weeks to gather your thoughts and think about your nomination and what your going to do when become a sysop and such but int he words of the terminator "Ill be back" :) Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 23:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I hope ill doesn't come back! ;-) Killiondude (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Adminship: As I mentioned before, I would certainly be happy and ready to nom or co-nom. Kudpung (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding (everyone). I will think about it.  Chzz  ►  21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the kind of discussion I usually get into, but here's my take on it:

• You'd be excellent; IMHO you're an incredible person and there's no way you'd abuse the position.
• If you don't actually want it yet, then it wouldn't feel right for you. Go with your gut feeling after your thinking time. Whatever you do has to be right for you, not just popular with everyone else. You can always come back to the idea later. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) Very kind, thanks. (2) Yes; I think that is exactly correct - and that's what I'll do. I'll think about it a bit more - but I will let these good people above know, within a couple of weeks.  Chzz  ►  10:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming

I see that you fixed the issue with the category edit I made this morning. In general, though, it is not desirable to rename a category by adding a {{category redirect}} template to the top of it; it is much cleaner, although somewhat more tedious, to use the {{cfr-speedy}} process and let a bot do it correctly. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the same thing. You appear to be renaming numerous category one by one rather than use the recommendend and less-time-consuming process of speedy renames for the categories. Please add the template R'n'B provided to these categories, and a bot will handle everything in a cleaner, more efficient manner. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - however, sometimes I quite like the tedium of changing the names manually - it makes a refreshing change from the other types of editing that I do. I can't see any particular harm in renaming the article cats myself, instead of the bot doing it. Also, it allows for manual checking, and looking and subcats and other concerns.

In the case of the entry R'n'B undid - I was in the process of renaming Category:DJ Clue albums to Category:DJ Clue? albums (to match the article name, as DJ Clue is a redirect to DJ Clue? which appears to be the artists name.

I had redirected the former just before I created the latter - because it was easier to make it via the redirect link. There was a less than 2 minute gap between my redirecting it at 11:21 UTC [1] and creating the new cat at 11:23 UTC [2], during which the edit was reverted [3].

Unless there is a particularly compelling reason for using the bot method, I think I would rather continue by hand. Please let me know if that is of concern.  Chzz  ►  20:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For one, the changes are being done out of process. You are making changes that may well be uncontroversial, but users of the category and the wiki-community in general should be notified and made aware of the proposed changes via the speedy rename process per WP:CFDS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that, in the event of a simple correction to spelling/format of the name (as above), there was a necessity to hold any discussion. I will check the policies and guidelines.  Chzz  ►  23:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A good example where proper procedures would be better is your changing of Category:Cartman albums to Category:Eric Cartman albums. This was entirely incorrect and had to be reverted by another editor. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; that one was simply wrong, and I should've checked that more carefully. But what do you think about other cases, such as, for example,

Speedy rename Category:Exploding Hearts albums to Category:The Exploding Hearts albums - C2A per Exploding Hearts => The Exploding Hearts. Rich Farmbrough, 06:05, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Speedy rename Category:Explorer's Club albums to Category:The Explorers Club albums - C2A per Explorer's Club => The Explorers Club. Rich Farmbrough, 06:05, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Speedy rename Category:Fannypack albums to Category:FannyPack albums - C2A per Fannypack => FannyPack. Rich Farmbrough, 06:05, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Speedy rename Category:Fatima Mansions albums to Category:The Fatima Mansions albums - C2A per Fatima Mansions => The Fatima Mansions. Rich Farmbrough, 06:05, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Speedy rename Category:Fiery Furnaces albums to Category:The Fiery Furnaces albums - C2A per Fiery Furnaces => The Fiery Furnaces. Rich Farmbrough, 06:05, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

ie - do you think I should try to help 'fix' those, and the 500 or so more (assuming I check them with greater care), or shall I just stop entirely? Please note, I don't mind at all; I was trying to help out, as someone asked me about the list in User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp19/redir and I thought I'd try to assist with it.  Chzz  ►  06:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Because everyone knows how to deal with category renaming and if they don't they should leave well enough alone, right? What happened to BOLDness, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and R'n'B? Your messages just left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Killiondude (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering how you knew the criteria for speedy renaming when you said you didn't know the policy. I definitely don't want to discourage you from doing anything. I do think anything beyond a punctuation or spelling error should be listed on the speedy rename or a full CFD, such as Category:Melanie Chisholm albums. While the article is named Melanie Chisholm, all her albums are recorded under Melanie C – you may not get any objection at all, but I think it would be a courtesy to do this. Finally, if you're going to rename the categories, could you please add any DEFAULTSORT as necessary (e.g. Explorers Club, The or Morse, Steve). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know the policies - it can come down to interpretation of C1A though - e.g. for DJ Clue -> DJ Clue? (just example) - as to whether it is a 'simple typographical' thing, or if it is a case where a band name differs from the person-name. And of course it is complicated by bands changing and displaying names differently on different albums - sometimes it is pretty impossible to tell if the 'correct' name is something like "Ch$$ Big Band" or "ChZZ BigBand" or whatever - and often the album articles are not consistent. Nor are the artist websites or the physical record covers.

But yes - point taken. I'll hit only the obvious cases.

Also, yes, I will work on adding DEFAULTSORT on new ones, and on the ones I've already done. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  07:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Killiondude, I never said that Chzz should not rename categories, I just suggested a better way of doing it. For one thing, if you "rename" a category by creating a redirect, you will leave articles in the "wrong" category for up to seven days, because the bot waits that long to make sure the redirect is not vandalism or controversial. Using the {{cfr-speedy}} template actually results in a quicker rename, and also allows other editors to see what is being done, just in case there is a mistake or a controversy. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, because as I'm redirecting, I am also editing the articles to change the cat - immediately. For example, I redirected Category:Valentin Elizalde albums to Category:Valentín Elizalde albums, and within a couple of minutes, edited the cat member article Vencedor changing the cat there [4]. In that case, there was only one album, but in other cases I've changed all of them (either using AWB, or "by hand"). In the case of quite trivial changes such as that one, is that "ok"?  Chzz  ►  01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corpus Christi Thursday Massacre

Hey there. I'm going to remove your post on the page declining the request and the notice on the user's page, with your OK. I made a mistake and did not indicate the article was accepted, leading you to believe he was recreating an existing article. It was my first time reviewing and posting an AFC article, so I forgot to redirect the page to the main space to indicate acception. Again, my apologies for the confusion. MobileSnail 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

All sorted out, via IRC and see user talk.  Chzz  ►  01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Will Henry Stevens DYK

Hello! Your submission of Will Henry Stevens at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! J04n(talk page) 00:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... - see User_talk:Jordan_Ahlers#Will_Henry_Stevens  Chzz  ►  01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Article about the author Aleksandar Obradovic

Dear colleagues, I am a journalist with twenty years experience in the profession. I tried to write an article about a writer and painter Aleksandar Obradovic on Wikipedia, and met with a problem that administrators demanded the additional, credible data sources from me. Imagine ... You possess six of his books and in each of them is his biography, his books are listed on the National Library of Germany (the link I mentioned), the U.S. Library of Congress, the Open Library, the catalog of the National Library of Serbia, you, personally, conducted two interviews with him on the radio, you listened an interview with him on Radio Free Europe, you have read dozens of articles about him, you know that one of his books is used as a textbook at the Philosophical Faculty in Belgrade, you found the same book in the Italian Encyclopedia of Aesthetics (This link I mentioned), the author is on the list of members of the Association of Writers of Serbia , you have, at your home, the Catalog of artists of the Academy of Nations , you were on two exhibitions of his paintings in Munich and then you sit down and you write an article , which administrators consider insufficiently persuasive . Imagine that you are in my position. Thank you for your attention Nobelovac (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Copying over to user talk page, to answer there.  Chzz  ►  02:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Chzz/dsc

Hi Chzz. I have recently (along with other editors) been working through your list of files that need to be renamed. I was wondering, to help streamline the list, make it more managable, and to notify other editors on some of the slightly unclear cases. For example, all deleted files would be removed from the list, as well as ones which had been renamed. Notes could be left next to files which are missing a description, and let others know what steps have been taken to contact the uploader (either by talk or email, this would help prevent multiple emails regarding the same issue). Sorry if I haven't explained my idea very well, thanks for your time :) Acather96 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll re-run the query, which will produce a new list - without any deleted entries - ASAP (within a day, I'd hope). I'll let you know.

No problems if you want to edit it, add notes, etc. - whatever you like. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've now created that updated list - User:Chzz/dsc0311. Feel free to do anything you like with that page - make it a table for comments, or add instructions, or whatever. And if you need me to do something, just ask. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Two minor edits for your evaluation, if possible

Aloha Chzz, A month ago you (along with a few other admins) were kind to help guide me through a sockpuppet investigation which concluded with the finding that myself and several others are not in fact sockpuppets.

A perplexing blog post was written last week here, and the author seems to have misinterpreted the results of the sockpuppet investigation. In their defense, it probably is challenging for those not familiar with Wikipedia to interpret pages within the WP community! This blog post is somewhat focused on my coworker User:MBMadmirer, but it also (again, mistakenly) insinuates that I am somehow in the wrong. This is confusing, as I have never edited articles related to the subject matter that this blog regularly critiques. The blog post suggests that Wikipedia admins "banned" the users in question as "unethical sock puppets", referring to my account (along with accounts which belong to others) as "dummy accounts" and "one of many fake accounts". This contradicts the actual findings of Wikipedia Admins (as discussed in this ANI). In fact no bans are in place. As my long-term contribution history shows, I see it as of utmost importance to follow Wikipedia's WP:COI guidelines to the tee, and have been diligent about exercising care in advancing the aims of Wikipedia above all else.

Lastly, the inaccuracies in the blog post have spread to other sites, prompting misinformed readers to form editing brigades (as shown in comment} on reddit.

I was hoping that you could take a look at the two most recent edits made by this IP editor (one to an article, and the other to User Talk:MBMadmirer). Both are not in line with Wikipedia policy and consist of incorrect information. The sources cited do not meet the reliable sources criteria. I would normally make such clear reversions myself, but since I have a close connection with both the userpage (coworker) and the New Media Strategies article (I am employed by them), I'd prefer to merely make you aware of these inconsistencies so that you can evaluate them as an objective observer.

Warm Regards, Jeff Bedford 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look ASAP. (Might take some time, to remind myself of the background, etc.)  Chzz  ►  22:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Chzz. Just a minor correction -- the "edit brigade' comment on Reddit which I intended to link to above is here. Jeff Bedford 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Bedford (talk • contribs)

• With regards to this edit to New Media Strategies - I removed it; my edit-summary explains why here.
• With regards to the sock accusation on User_talk:MBMadmirer - I also removed that with this edit.
• Whilst investigating, I came across this personal attack. I immediately removed it, and gave that editor an "Only warning" [5]. Personal attacks are not tolerated.
• I will try to monitor the situation; please let me know if there is anything further I can do.

Incidentally - I am not an administrator. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Links to archives and my sig

Thanks for those notes! And thank you for pointing that out about the Unicode characters in my sig; it was my expectation, years ago when I added it, that it wouldn't show up for many people, but I have always been content to let the rest of the world catch up to me.  ;^) If I recall correctly, the free DejaVu fonts are one of the ones that contains those glyphs, if you want to be able to see them. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered on users talk page  Chzz  ►  01:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah; like I said, I'm content to let people fix their own computers or I suppose that they'll eventually upgrade to an operating system that has a more complete set of fonts. But thanks for the suggestion, though! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered on users talk page  Chzz  ►  02:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I love the "at age 99" image on your user page. :^) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

E-mail canvassing

Chzz, I respect your work as an editor, but that canvassing e-mail you just sent to all en-wiki adminsambassadors, regardless of their involvement in the issue, was really not necessary or appropriate... rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Did I send an email to en-wiki admins? If I did, I didn't mean to. Please, double-check that, and show me? Chzzlive.co,uk I don't think I did, actually? I sent an email to the ambassadors - maybe you mistook that one?

And what was it CANVASS about? I mean... I imagine this is related to My76Strat (talk · contribs) who - after recent RfA - has announced retirement. So what am I influencing here?  Chzz  ► 

I suspect, Rjanag, that you've just made a mistake in checking which list you are reading, in email? If so...sure, no problem, we all make mistakes,  Chzz  ►  06:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, the e-mail was to all ambassadors, not to all admins; I was mistaken in the first message. But it still seems like canvass-y spam that is not relevant to many ambassadors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Phew. Thanks, Rjanag. I hate to think I could be canvassing. Simple point-of-fact here is, this user says 'retired'. I think, personally, that is a loss to Wikipedia. I think it a specific loss to the ambassador programme, which that user contributed to. I do not see how 'CANVASS' applies. 'DIVA', sure, it happens to the best of us. But all I intended with that mail was, to provide a little moral support - hoping to keep a user who has done much good. Please, in that light, tell me honestly - was my email inappropriate (in your opinion)?  Chzz  ►  07:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I do, but it's nothing to make a big deal or worry about. I just don't think you should send e-mails like that in the future. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely to ever happen again; in that inst, I invoke IAR. Beyond that, I'm content to drop this. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gold Hat

The user who is making these comments on Strat's talk page is trolling me because I asked them to change that enormous sig. They were making minor edits to my signatures at first, but they've apparently escalated to stalking. ANI is dead right now, so I'm not even going to bother, but just thought I'd let you know. Swarm ^X 09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Noted.  Chzz  ►  09:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert John Bardo is a stalker. you guys need to do your homework Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, quit removing my post; I didn't call strat a sockpuppet; I'm the sock, fwiw. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)