User talk:Chzz: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:17, 16 April 2011

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

b

Hello

Chzz, I had not made any edits because i was catching up on Wikipedia policies. Is it ok if I copy and paste an article I have been working on in a subpage of yours so you can take a quick look at it before I publish it. Cheers. maucho eagle 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure - but you're probably best putting it in your own userspace - so, maybe User:MauchoEagle/draft? Cheers, Chzz ► 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, should be there. Mind taking a look for me. I have been reading policy an the references I have meet guidelines, eh. maucho eagle 20:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good; a few comments;

It would be better to add a couple more references, if possible. I generally suggest a minimum of three, to avoid notability issues. Maybe a few facts from newspapers? Google news archives might turn something up with a bit of a search, e.g. [1] (ie looking through, or using more creative search terms) - or, are there offline newspaper sources that mention him?
Instead of;

...is a [[Canada|Canadian]] politician...

...I suggest,

...is a [[Politics of Canada|Canadian politician]]...

Because 'Canada' is considered a very common term, and the link to politics seems more appropriate and exact for the subject.

You don't need Mayor of Victoria, British Columbia in 'see also', because it is linked in the text
It would be nice to add Template:Persondata, and maybe an template:infobox person.

Hope that helps :-) Chzz ► 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any website that you can think of that has good references. maucho eagle 21:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article is now live, as Robert Cross (mayor). Articles can improve over time; references do not have to be websites - in fact, often the best references are newspaper articles or books. I do not know any specific sources for articles about this person - as I said, I suggest searching Google News archives, or maybe looking to offline news sources. Best of look, Chzz ► 15:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox on Outreach wiki

Hi Chzz, can you set up the Sandbox header bot on outreachwiki so it replaces http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Sandbox with {{Sandbox header/en}}  every 24 hours and, if it's been removed, buts it back on every 5 minutes, please? Thanks in advance, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, should be fine; as discussed, I'm improving the bot code - hopefully within the next few days - and then I can make that happen. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re PEPID

Copyright permission was sent over and I requested that my user name be changed. How long does this process generall take? Below is a copy of our original correspondance and below that is a copy of email corespondace regarding the copyright permission;

copyright problems

Copied over from User_talk:The_Earwig#copyright_problems [2]

The content that is said to infringe on a copyright, is in fact owned by us, it is also cited back to our website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilliamspepid (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(noting that a live article, PEPID Knowledge Base, now exists)

Awilliamspepid, hello.

Firstly - you need to change your user name. User names shouldn't be company, group, or anything like that - so, please head over to WP:CHU/SIMPLE

You really need to do that immediately - request a change of name. Otherwise, your account may be blocked.

Secondly, if you want to use the material from the website "pepidknowledgebase.com", then you'd need to give explicit permission - because, on that webpage, it says "Copyright © 2011 PEPID, LLC". If you want to give permission allowing anyone (including Wikipedia) to use it, then you'd need to declare that.

To do so, please see WP:DCM#Granting us permission to copy material already online.

Thirdly, you really need to read WP:BFAQ.

If you need any more help, just ask. You can contact me on my own user talk page, which is User talk:Chzz.

Cheers, Chzz ► 22:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

04/12/2011 22:01 - Amanda Williams wrote:

> Here are links;

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/PEPID

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PEPID_Knowledge_Base&action=edit&redlink=1 > > Were these articles deleted before I had a chance to address the issues?

The first was just blanked, as in it had its content removed. I undid that and placed a label indicating permission has been received. The article should be reviewed shortly. The other actually was deleted, but I have put in a request for it to be restored. I put a notice on the article's talk page noting that permission has been received.

Sincerely,

Aaron Adrignola

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilliamspepid (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with your name change request - because there is already a user called "Awilliams". So please go to Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#Awilliamspepid → Awilliams the request page, and respond underneath your request, telling them what you want to do.

You could 'take over' (WP:USURP) "Awilliams" if you wanted, because it has not been used.

Or you could just pick something else, e.g. "A.williams", "A.Williams", or any random nickname.

You can check if names are used using this URL, and changing the actual name part on the end: http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Awilliams

E.g. http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=A.williams (shows that there is no such user)

However, you may want to choose a 'nickname' that is not your real name; as it says in the instructions,

"Using your real name as a username may put you at risk of harassment."

Once accepted, the change of name usually happens within days.

Re. the draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PEPID - the permission has been received and noted, and that is no longer a problem; however, the other issues noted on that page remain - that it is 'advert-like', and relies too much on primary sources instead of independent reliable sources (such as newspapers or books; but not PR)

You can try to improve it, and when ready, there are instructions (in the coloured box at the top) on how to resubmit it.

I really strongly recommend that you edit some other articles - something you do not have any conflict of interest with. You'd soon learn more about Wikipedia by doing so, which would help greatly with the difficult issue of writing about a company you are involved in. See User:Keegan/Butterfly.

Best of luck, and please ask for help at any time. Chzz ► 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Street

Hi Chzz,

I know there is a way I should be linking this to an earlier discussion on your talk page but I couldn't seem to find anything when I searched history....hence another new entry -sorry! Just to say, thanks very much for getting the article sorted for Did You Know... That's brilliant, very exciting! Cheers! There's been so much activity on editing the page, I can hardly keep up with what's been going on! (BTW I think I can fix most of the stuff you had to take out by including better citations but I'll get them all organised and run it past you before I put stuff back). Thanks again Lisaseventyfive (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The linking - it's absolutely fine. As you can see, my talk page gets very busy - so, apologies, but yes, I put the previous stuff in the 'archive'.

Unfortunately, because I did that just 2 hours ago, the search at the top ('where has my message gone?' doesn't work (as of now - it will later). The servers seem to be a bit slow. But, it is in User talk:Chzz/Archive 30.

I'm glad you are pleased - and yes, it does sometimes get a bit hectic. The secret is, not to panic :-) The article might get more attention when featured - but that's generally a good thing, over all; it should become a better article for it.

Feel free to ask me anything, but don't be afraid to be bold. Best, Chzz ► 22:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two sides of the coin

Hi - your comment here is completely the opposite of your very vocal position throughout the pending trial discussion, "If it goes horribly wrong, we turn it back; no worries. The specifics - the process - will quickly develop, once we jump in to the idea. Change We Need. There is, I think, "general agreement" that something needs to happen; and we need to remember WP:BOLD" - here you don't even want specifics and claim the process will find its own path if we are bold - no worries indeed.

It appears your position is ignore all rules and be bold about things you support and what about the rules and don't be bold about things you don't support. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring any rule at all; I'm just expressing which proposal I support - and I hope it gets consensus. Chzz ► 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just think you should say openly and clearly that you do not support pending protection, without all the wikipedia rules comments, like the wheels will drop off if this and if that is not followed and we need specifics and clear guidelines, when on issues you support you comment to ignore all rules, and that guidelines are not required, just do it the wheels will not drop off. You have been actively vocal on this position against pending protection and to see you actively vocal in the exact opposite statements in regards something you support is difficult to understand - it appears what you support requires no guidelines and no specifics and so on and what you don't support must have guidelines and specifics. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The proper name of the river is Ganga and the official name of the Canal project is 'Ganga Canal'. Please stop vandalising the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome. I've replied to this on the talk page of the article, which is the Talk:Ganges. It is you who are edit-warring, not others - because it was you who made the change. Whilst we encourage bold changes, when others disagree with you, it is necessary to stop, and discuss things. Thanks, Chzz ► 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Farren Phelps Article

Wow, do your homework before you censor! I wrote none of the content for Jill Farren Phelps. I was simply mopping up horrifying sentence structure, serious grammar issues, and basic mechanics. You shut me down for biased POV? I actually added several "reportedly," etc. You restored an earlier version (original) that is more biased than my many edits for clarity and readability. If you have a problem with the article, shut the fucker down, but don't revert back to the unreadable entries prior to my edits. I was just having some fun with re-writes. I don't even watch soaps. I happened across this horrendous display of quasi-literacy and wanted to give it some shine. And then you had to come along, raise your skirt, and piss all over it.

Next time you do that, check the edits a little more carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.124.239 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 April 2011

Hi there. Thanks for discussing it.

In your edits, you added various information about a living person which did not have a reference to a reliable source - and that is why I remove it.

For example, you wrote, Ms. Phelps acting lead to many longtime viewers becoming alienated from the show, about the most criticized story lines, of slumping ratings, that quality began to suffer and so forth. Whilst those claims may be 'true' (I do not know), you did not provide a reference - so, they are not verifiable.

I appreciate that the existing article may well be 'wrong', but that does not excuse us adding to the problem with unreferenced claims. I hope you will understand, and I will further raise your concerns on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard.

Best regards, Chzz ► 06:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jill_Farren_Phelps and Norlns22 (talk · contribs) Chzz ► 06:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Assuming that you are the same user that edited anonymously, earlier...)

No... I was simply combining sentences and editing. All of the examples you cite above were not my "additions." Rather, these were necessary to clean up copy and remain true to the original writer's meaning, which was clearly biased from the beginning. They may appear to be my additions, but they are (were) not. If he wrote "show started to go downhill," I simply changed it to "quality began to suffer." You see? Same general meaning, repackaged. I was never intending to verify anything, and have no vested interest or agenda in characterizing the subject. The entire article was improperly and/ or inadequately sourced. This proves why wikipedia is unreliable. I originally edited the "Santa Barbara" section months ago, and it has, aside from some very minor edits, remained untouched until a few days ago when two new sections were added. Only after a barrage of successive edits today by me to try to clean them up, while not logged in to a valid user account I might add, did some bot or program alert you to check this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norlns22 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but the policy on this matter is absolutely clear: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (see WP:BLP). So re-wording it is inappropriate.

A few minutes after I left you the message, I posted on the BLP noticeboard [3] and then removed the contentious material [4]. Chzz ► 20:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article

The article was deleted. I would like to post it on the User-space. I will just keep on my talk page so I can edit it, and when more reliable sources are available remake the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbum98 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better - neater - to undelete it, and move it to a 'user subpage'. You could work on it there, but it would not clutter up your 'user talk' page - which should be used for talking to others (like we are doing right here).

If you want, I can ask for it to be undeleted and moved to a subpage - and then clear the other version from your talk page. I'd make a link to it, so you could easily get to it.

Would you like me to do that? Chzz ► 13:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Fun

Are you a member of the Department of Fun? I asked this question on IRC and a user I was talking to didn't have a clue. Cheers.--The Master of Mayhem 14:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this on IRC - but no; I'm not a member of the Wikiproject at Wikipedia:Department of Fun. Chzz ► 19:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public policy

(I replied, 19:33, 16 April 2011 [5])

Yes, that's fine. I will give a look-see at -- and a helping hand to -- both articles. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Great, thanks. Chzz ► 20:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article

There are TWO Wikipedia articles about the SAME person on the site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_bin_Khalifa_Al_Thani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_bin_Thamer_Al_Thani

I think these MAY be the same person with slightly different spelled names in the titles of the article!12.196.37.227 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not the same person.

Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani is the current - monarch, or Emir of Qatar - the ruler (like a King or Queen).
Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani is a businessman, involved with media companies (chairman of Al Jazeera TV company]].

They are related though; as it says in the first article, Sheik Hamad is a distant cousin of the network chairman, Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani. Chzz ► 19:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Henderson Street

On 16 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henderson Street, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Neptune, god of the sea, can be found in Henderson Street, Edinburgh? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Be Glad to Help :-)

Hello Chzz:

First, we are "mates", so call me Cliff, not Mr. Knickerbocker. Second, I am NOT random - as you well know, I am "pseudo-random" :-)

Now, for the important stuff. I will, of course, do what I can to help your mentees. That said, my knowledge of the two areas is not great, to say the least. I am going to start with a welcome, then a quick general copyedit.

Because time is short, I will keep you advised of where things stand on at least a daily basis. I will post on article and mentee talk page(s). Let me know how things are going, or if you have anything specific, as soon as is convenient for you. Thanks for the opportunity to become involved with this very worthwhile project - and for your confidence (misplaced though it may be, to some extent).

Your friend: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks; I couldn't have hoped for better. Chzz ► 19:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Q

I ;posted a blog address as the Ron Daws article referenced was originally published in a print magazine (I own the rights) and found this the easiest way to get it on his site. I can add the article to the Ron Daws website (I own) if that satisifies the need. Just let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraSuperior (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that Q was not from me.

There are two separate messages on your user talk page. The first is a 'welcome' from me, which I put there in June 2009 [6] when you'd edited the article Medea.

The second message is from a 'bot' - an automated program - sent today (16 April 2011) [7].

However, I will try to help;

The bot removed your edits because you'd added external links in an invalid format.

External websites can be used in one of two ways;

(a) References - if they are 'reliable sources' - in which case, they go in the main body of the article, directly after a fact, in-between <ref> and </ref> - e.g.

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

Those appear automarically, as numbered footnotes, in the references section.

(b) In the section at the end entitled == External links == - but only if they meet the specific requirements of the WP:EL policy.

You added three links,

http://www.snowshoemag.com/viewContent.cfm?content_id=901
I'm not sure what you wanted to do, with that one
http://harmonizingkeys.blogspot.com/2011/04/ron-daws-25-km-2009-30th-edition-of.html
Blogs are usually not considered reliable sources; that seems to be something Mr. Daws wrote - did you intend to add it as an external link?
http://www.rondaws.com/
That website doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:EL

Because you have a conflict of interest, you should be very careful about adding links - please see the business FAQ. Please ask again, if I can help further. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not getting new password

This is probably nothing you can advise on, but you did sent me a note when I first registered, so...

Wikipedia is rejecting my password, which AFAIK is correct. I've asked to be sent a new password anyway, and wikipedia reports it's done so; but nothing has shown up in my mailbox within the past few hours after requesting. What might be up? thanks, 72.93.173.151 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:16, 16 April 2011 edit 72.93.173.151 (talk) →‎not getting new password: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:17, 16 April 2011 edit undo 72.93.173.151 (talk) →‎not getting new password Next edit →
Line 254:		Line 254:
	This is probably nothing you can advise on, but you did sent me a note when I first registered, so...		This is probably nothing you can advise on, but you did sent me a note when I first registered, so...

	Wikipedia is rejecting my password, which AFAIK is correct. I've asked to be sent a new password anyway, and wikipedia reports it's done so; but nothing has shown up in my mailbox within the past few hours after requesting. What might be up? thanks, ed		Wikipedia is rejecting my password, which AFAIK is correct. I've asked to be sent a new password anyway, and wikipedia reports it's done so; but nothing has shown up in my mailbox within the past few hours after requesting. What might be up? thanks, [[Special:Contributions/72.93.173.151\|72.93.173.151]] ([[User talk:72.93.173.151\|talk]]) 23:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)