User talk:Chzz

Leave me a message Emergency block button

Emergency Wikipedia shutdown Emergency block button DO NOT PRESS

File:326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png

ようこそ！

Fountain of Time

Can you strike resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I found your review to be unusual in two respects. You were willing to do a lot of the cleanup legwork. Usually a reviewer just makes a list and says do it. You did a lot of stuff yourself. This made it easier for me, but it is not necessary. However, I wish more reviewers would do so. Secondly, you passed the article with many things undone. While you have an article at GACoh, you have a captive audience. Often, there is no intention of taking the article to the next level. Thus, once you pass it the article will sit with all the problems. I have intention of taking this to WP:MILHIST A-Class review once the WP:GTC nomination is completed (if not before). I will attempt to address your changes before taking it there, so that is not a problem here. However, generally, I frown upon letting a GA pass with many suggestions unresolved. Try to encourage the editor to make the changes before passing the article. Otherwise your review was fairly standard. Overall, I consider your review to be very good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful.

I often find myself doing a lot of fixing rather than suggesting the fixes, on the basis of WP:BOLD and also because, often, it's quicker to fix something than to describe what's wrong. Sometimes it annoys me when people tell you 'such and such should be a wikilink to whatever', and the keystrokes in them telling you that could have been much more gainfully employed in making the change! However, the problem with that is, if everyone spent as much time on doing a GA review as I did on yours, the backlog would be enormous. Maybe I should, sometimes, just put a general comment saying 'the prose isn't up to the standard, please improve it and resubmit'?

I understand what you say about it being in the public eye, but feel it would be inappropriate to hold back an article from GA status pending further improvement when I freely acknowledge that the additional suggestions are merely that, and aren't a prerequisite to GA status; there is definitely a pay-off between that idea and the point you make about it stagnating, though. (In general, I mean; not as regards your article which you've explained your plan to develop).

I'm rather frustrated about an article I just put to FA. I was probably pre-emptive in putting it forward, but it received 2 very brief 'oppose' votes, and so I have very little to go on as to how to improve it. I suppose that's why, when doing your GA (and others), I'm very careful to give suggestions rather than mere complaints.

With regard to your article development, in addition to those sugestions, I did a little experimentation with the layout which you might consider. I played around with the structure, and feel it might be better structured with sections called 'Planning', 'Installation', 'Design' (and then 'restoration', as is). That might give it a more logical flow; I've put the para's in that order into User:Chzz/fount, it should give you an idea what I mean.

Good luck with it, let me know if I can do any more to help.

--  Chzz  ►  20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I reorganized the article as you suggested. You may be interested in voicing your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Washington Park (Chicago park)‎, where Fountain of Time is currently a part of a WP:GTC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool; I'll certainly chip in to that, when I get a bit of time. Is there a deadline to that? Also, are you going over my 'suggestions'? If there's any don't make sense, ask me. Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  01:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless I get a GAC on hold notice your suggestions are penciled in for the midnight hour tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No deadline. Personal schedule. Midnight Chicago time. 3.5 hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about your FA. I have an FAC that could use all hands on deck for Inauguration of Barack Obama.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on the GTC and for your tip. I will look at it next.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

LIke I said we need all hands on deck.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you said you like to make the changes instead of spending the keystrokes talking about changes that need to be made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this list may have all the citizens. You could probably google each one. I have linked three to the article already. I will probably get back to that article around 1:30. A new fire just came up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

←←I am working on your additional comments. I have put my questions in bold.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fountain of Time for an A-Class review discussion. Why don't you summarize your remaining issues with the article there and we can hold ongoing discussions with other people paying attention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! It passed WP:MILHIST A-Class faster than any other article I have ever submitted. I think there are two or three more points left to address from the talk page discussion. I guess we can talk there again. This will be my next WP:FAC so you should be really critical.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, congrats! I can do 'hyper-critical' :-) Get to you real soon. Well done mate! --  Chzz  ►  21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer tigers on my user page to barnstars. Leave me a tiger instead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tiger.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you at least strike your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I picked up two books at the library yesterday. I also found some vintage pictures online this morning (see the article).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither book makes it clear whether it is exactly 100 or more than 100. I am pretty much done with both as it relates to this fountain.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now nominated this at WP:FAC, please come by and paricipate in the discussion or voice your oppose/support opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

At one point you altered all of the Newsbank refs. Now, I am unable to open any of them. What exactly did you do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was these two edits. I can't undo them. Do you know a quick way to do so?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear; sorry! The way they use URLs on that site is a bit odd. The reason I changed the was, when you put the original URL in, it was redirected to a different address, so I figured it was better to put the 'real' adderss in. The 'redirect' was thrown up by the FA cite checking tool. I did the change by manally visiting each on e(as flagged up in that tool) and getting the 'true' URL.

I see now that the URLs have stopped working. It's possible that the long URL has some kind of session data in it, specific to the visiting machine.

I also see that, if I use the old URL (from the diff you provided) the page has another link at the bottom, which it says, "To bookmark this article, right-click on the link below..." - I think, maybe, that would be the better link to use? Does this work for you?

I also see, now I look harder, that the ref to that first one (for example) doesn't give the date of the actual article - nor does that online source. That might be a problem for FA. I wonder if, in some cases, it might be possible to find the article via the newspapers' own website, and use that?

I don't know of a quick way to put the old versions back, no - apart from manual. I'm quite happy to do that, if you want me to.

Once again, sincere apologies; let me know what I can do to rectify it. The edits were with the best of intentions.

--  Chzz  ►  15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please revert back to the permalinks from the bottom of the page rather than the URL that it redirects you to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. What do you think of the current review going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(unind) I just looked it over - haven't had time before. And I conclude that you're an extraordinarily patient person :-) Looks like you're getting there. Good luck; let me know of anything I can do. I will try to find time to review once more myself. --  Chzz  ►  21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I drove by FoT today. I am quite certain it has no more than 100 figures. I did not count up to 100, but am doubtful it has 100 figures unless about 25 of the women are holding babies. I will count figures when the weather is warmer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I certainly applaud your enthusiasm. You'll be out there measuring it next! Great stuff. I hope the FA process isn't *too* distressing. Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  02:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, a reviewer said that this will not pass without another editor reviewing the prose. Feel free to jump in.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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. :( - NeutralHomer • Talk • 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. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 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 :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 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. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 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

Cssiitcic has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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.

Move

Hi, can you explain why you did this move please? I don't understand it. You also left a redirect into your user space behind and that is against the rules. Thanks :) fr33kman -s- 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reworked the article so that it does not have to be deleted for a move now. I still don't understand why you did the move but, c'est la vie fr33kman -s- 02:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Hope your connection stays stable :) fr33kman -s- 02:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation question

Hi, Chzz, I was looking at the article on the Birds of Prey comic book series, and I saw that there were some missing citations under "Running Gags" that I could possibly provide. However, although I know how to cite a normal magazine article, I'm not sure how to cite an occurrence in a comic book (page, frame within a page, etc.). Add to that that what I have ready access to is comic scans (I have the physical comics, but they are buried in long comic boxes and I owe my chiropractor too much already, lol) and some of the scanners do not include the ads so even once I find exactly what frame backs up the assertion in the article, I don't know what the actual page number is. Can you offer some guidance? Bradp521 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as the comics are not too terribly obscure, you can simply cite them as you would a book. Scans are not necessary, and indeed would likely breach copyright. There is a specific template that can be used, Template:Cite_comic. Hope this answers,  Chzz  ►  02:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look at what I did and make sure I did it right? Thanks again! Bradp521 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, nice one :-) The only thing is, some of the names are redlinks, so you could just remove the [[ ]]. Or, even better, make new articles :-)

Chzz :  Chat  02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chuzz

Thanks Chuzz! We are please to meet you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIFILM (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mikroglottika

Hello, I've received your message. I'm searching for sources for completing it. --Auslli (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Unverified

You have nominated an article, which I have created: Improving Fight for it's non-existance? Please check the website containing screenshots of the game. I don't believe you are taking this nomination seriously. If you wish to speak with the leading designer Severin Hansen, you may send him a message on the Devolition Corporation website.

Improving Fight page

(Above unsigned 13:06, 31 March 2009 Trap The Drum Wonder (talk · contribs)) --  Chzz  ►  15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you

this welcome page is very lively, and sure useful too! thanks, KerenOr9 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I wanted to thank you for the warm welcome I'm kind of excited about being a member of Wikipedia

freedawn7 Charles Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedawn7 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:TLCbass

There was some useful information and links in the block template itself - but the user blanked out all prior warnings from their user talk page - including the block template. Primarily the user was disruptive at the article, inserting unsourced info without discussion, did not engage in any discussion on the article's talk page, appears to be an WP:SPA with a WP:COI, etc. etc. etc. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion about policies

Chzz, I am slightly confused about some of the policies you informed us of and how they are playing out. User:Xtian1313 has edited his COI-related articles, editing out information about Kyle Justin on that article and on the Crispin Glover (song) article, with no discussion on the talk page. The edits are here:

• Kyle Justin edit
• Crispin Glover (song) edit
• Crispin Glover (song) edit

Are these rules applying to everybody or just us when it comes to NOT being allowed to edit pages? I am making sure to use my proper username and not sign on as Matthew Eilers' account Godblessyrblackheart. I do not have a conflict of interest as I'm not in the band Skeleteen, correct? I am confused about that as well.

Basically, I'm really confused and I'm asking why these edits are being made to pages related to User:Xtian1313's COI without discussion, as this violates the exact rule you pointed out for me. You stated for all this to not happen and it's happening. These rules apply to everyone, correct? Is User:Xtian1313 not supposed to follow them? You said these edits need to be discussed if any of us wanted them removed/reverted, but these edits were made with conflict of interest. From User:Xtian1313's word-of-mouth, they said they re-did Kyle's tracks on the recording, which is why they edited it saying "these edits were made by someone with a conflict of interest and are not WP:NPOV," which I don't have a conflict, and User:Xtian1313's edits are just as unsourced (the supposed re-recording of Kyle Justin's bass tracks).

I'm beginning to not have time to do a lot of this anymore as I did the past month, so I would like to come to a conclusion soon. Please clarify the rules so we can work this out. I will be checking in and responding when I'm able as I want this to be resolved. I'm looking to come to some sort of conclusion with User:Xtian1313, but everyone needs to follow the rules as well, correct? Looking forward to hearing from you soon. FriendofDorothy (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Let's look at it in non-specific terms;

• Person A edits an article and adds FACT-A. Later, Person A admits to COI. Person B joins, admits COI, removes FACT-A
• On the one hand, FACTA could be removed by anyone (as it should never have been added, due to COI)
• OTOH, Person B shouldn't edit the article, as they've admitted COI

My considered recommendation is, call it a no-score draw, and let's try to move forward. I note that there was no reference given with any of the 3 edits; if you think that they should now be added to the articles, proceed as per previous advice - suggest the edit on the respective article talk page, with a WP:RS, and everyone can discuss it.

This is, as always, IMHO.

Best,  Chzz  ►  00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I READ THE LINKS I NEED HELP WHAT ISTHE PACIFIC PROMBLEM PLEASE

(Warning: very loud part)

--Asha Black (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I have read the links that you keep showing me I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HE PROBLEM IS CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AND IS THER A EMAIL TO CORORSPOUND TO SOMEONE WHO CAN HELP ME PLEASE DO NOT DELETE AND SEND SAME MEESSAGE CAN YOU TELL ME PECIFICALLY WHAT IS THE ISSUE OR PROBLEM i HAVE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES THAT TOLD ME TO POST THIS HERE WHAT IS GOING ON PLEASE HELP THIS IS MY 3 RD TIME ASKING FOR HELP I HAVE READ ALL OF THE LINKS AND I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM COULD POSSIBLY BE

User:Greystone36

You seem to have had a conversation with User:Greystone36 similar to the one that I've been having. To reinforce the point you were researching, I'll quote from what I told Greystone,

Secondly, just because something is in some court records, does not mean that it can or should be in an article. I'll quote again from WP:BLP, just like I did at the bottom of this page, "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." I emphasized the important bits that relate to this discussion.

The emphasis added is mine. And I just thought I'd make you aware, in case you weren't, that we have both been trying to work with Greystone on the same subject. Dismas|^(talk) 04:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper and the FDA

Can you advise on the next stage of the dispute? I have managed to get him/her to respond, but it is clear that we are not going to be able to resolve the dispute, as it is not a real dispute, as I do not believe s/he really thinks that the FDA is not legally a trade union etc....

I would be grateful for your help here, as I regard his/her actions as vandalism.

Thanks Guineveretoo (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

IRC

Hi. Are you on the IRC today? (I think I may have spotted an incarnation of you there, & left a Qn. for you). Trafford09 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the pope catholic?  Chzz  ►  21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done
Love that reply! Trafford09 (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have called on a third party.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just Thanks

File:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Thank-You for being a such fantastic benefit to Wikipedia; both on site, and on IRC. Taking your time to spend literally hours explaining all the technical details of technology and wiki-culture is a value that I find difficult to place into words — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  07:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Words will fail to encompass the true value of your efforts Chzz. It is seldom that I'm able to find such a knowledgeable person in the technology field who is willing and able to impart their wisdom without an arrogance and condescension that often accompanies those who possess the technical knowledge that you do. Wikipedia may little note, but should long remember, the contributions that you have offered to our community. A small graphic in a formatted box may not seem of much value; but, I thank you for your valuable time. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  07:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here here, from just one of the many new Wikipedians you have tirelessly encouraged and helped to get started. Trafford09 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 Chzz  ►  19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rev here

Hi that is a beautiful site, I hope to read it more intimately soon. Was very impressed with your mention of teaching in Japan-- that puts you far and away miles ahead of me in Japanese. I'm not in the least fluent though I understand some spoken and very little Hiragana. Katakana, which I'm always mixing up with Hiragana, so forgive me if I just slipped-- I follow that only because of the Sutras. Even in Romajii I'm at a loss about 88% of the time. I'm going over to the "live place" to inform you of this as well. RevAntonio (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See me here Phra!

This might interest you, [1], it's me! You can learn a lot about me here and please read some of my boring-as-hell blog! By the way, can you tell me how to get a nifty colorful signature like your'un??RevAntonio (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned message re. Improving flight

Don't delete the article about Improving Fight.. THE LINK WERE WRONG... Theese link can verify it. And I am the leader of the project. www.devolitioncorp.webs.com/improvingfight.htm www.devolitioncorp.webs.com and www.devolition.tk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danskesever (talk • contribs) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied in users own talk  Chzz  ►  19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

Link

The link you just left me linked to a very strange page... I managed to get to peer review though. Thanks! I had been looking for something like that but can never find what I want when I want it on wikipedia... AC (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chzz, Sorry, I didn't mean to break any rules, my manager originally created the article and my reference to "MY" article was not in anyway meaning that I owned it. When it was written, I was truly honored and have received many compliments on it, so naturally I was concerened when someone with a negative agenda attacked it and me. If it would be better, I will have a member of my staff do future editting. Thank you for your response,

Robert Hunnicutt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaghostsociety (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

ZooFari 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

you sent me a message

heyy thanks for sending me a message that was very nice of you trying to help me out i am actually new to this website so i am really thankful and ummm pretty much thats it i just wanted to thank you one more time for your kindness and the help you gave me i am hoping i can talk to you later and i have edited a webpage that this person on wiki deleted it is called school tips if you have enough time i hope you can visit it and leave a message back

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whwarriors09 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FDA dispute

I think I have got it right this time, and have posted in the right place - namely, the talk section of the page which is now known as "First Division Association", but it is clear that this dispute is not going to be sorted out without some intervention, and I am not sure what I have to do get that intervention, and what evidence you will need me to provide, since haldraper's argument is that the legal and factual position is irreleant, because, in his view... etc. etc. I can readily provide evidence of the FDA's name change, and of it being a registered trade union, but it is clear this will not be enough to satisfy haldraper. Anyway, I am grateful for your advice, and apologise for my hesitancy and for not understanding the wikipedia protocol, and I hope that this dispute can be resolved! Guineveretoo (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A short time only for now

Thanks, I loved all the stuff-- I'll have to go over that gargantuan list of questionables in the Buddhist subject.

I do not know how I can possibly give you Kasava in Sanskrita unless I "paint" it myself in a special program I use and email it to you.

I have noticed in years past that it is virtually impossible for me to acquire ANY foreign alef-bet scripts/characters over the computer. Aside from this, I am no Sanskrit scholar!

I'll throw something together-- let me know how I can email it to you. And yes, the Thai looks right for Phra. RevAntonio (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevAntonio (talk • contribs) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion of fun

Know what I'd rather have you see is the giant list of Hebrew and Sanskrita/Paliskrita words that are IDENTICAL in pronunciation, meaning and even context. It's a project I'm hoping to turn into a published paper and maybe for my next book. I'd have to email that to you also.

RevAntonio (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is how we remember

I want you to go here [2] and do it yourself, but the offer still stands if you want me to email you a shitty, trembling version I can write out myself....

RevAntonio (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Teaching Friends Wiki

Thanks for the reply, we will make sure we all make a healthy contribution. NaturalKnowledge (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

RE: Signatures

Hello Chzz,

Apologies, I keep thinking the signature is automatic.

Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennie--x (talk • contribs) 10:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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.