User talk:Chzz

Instant IRC

พระकपासअवअ

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！

Archives

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, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

Moment magnitude scale

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

Hiya thanks for responding so promptly. I was browsing from [[ ]], and wikilinked through to Moment magnitude scale - and I wanted to verify some of the assertions.

The lack of inline refs makes it hard for me, as a reader, to check up on the facts. For example, it says, "magnitude 5.0 earthquake will be about a 5.0 on both scales". In theory, it should be possible to click on the ref for that, and get the books/look at the URL, to make up my own mind about the facts.

I hope this clarifies my tag?

Cheers, Chzz ► 18:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that one is a mathematical fact, derived from the equations (which have references). Mathematical manipulation is one of the exceptions to WP:OR and doesn't need an inline citation. Are there any other specific facts which are contested and would thus require additional citations? The article as a whole has plenty of references. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but as a non-mathematician, I don't know how I could understand that. I'm not trying to be awkward here, honest :-) Perhaps sometimes an 'outsider' with a fresh pair of eyes can see things that are missed by experts. I don't see why mathematical proofs should be an exception to OR - I fully accept their inherent logic, but that doesn't exempt them from citations to verify the assertions.

The phraseology, "about 5.0 on both scales" immediately made me seek further clarification.

The article continues, "Unlike other scales, the Moment Magnitude scale does not saturate at the upper end" - again, I'd like to find out why, and see no reference that demonstrates the facts.

I think the problem I have with the article as a whole is that the referencing is unclear. For example, in the first paragraph of "Compared to Richter Scale" it states facts about the development of the scale by Charles Richter, etc. I couldn't see where those facts were referenced; after some thinking and looking, I realised that ref 3 at the end of the para covered the entire para. Whilst that is technically acceptable, it makes for complications; if, for example, a user quite justifiably added another, cited fact in the middle of that para, the citation would no longer be clear. I therefore advocate citing refs clearly for all bold statements.

I must admit, I was not entirely sure of myself on the above point, and therefore discussed it with some colleagues; they concurred, saying "sentences that make bold claims should always be ref'd. even if the paragraph already is".

I truly hope that this feedback is constructive, best wishes, Chzz ► 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is that the maths doesn't have a source. You pick a number and plug it into both equations - routine calculations. I think it was 5.0 and 5.06 when I did it, hence "about". If you can think of a better way of expressing that, or a direct comparison in a source feel free to change it.

I'll investigate which source I got the other paragraph from and add the ref. The MMS doesn't saturate at the upper end because the moment of an earthquake has no upper limit, but the displacement on a seismometer (used in LMS) does.

OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I will, some time, try to find a course that talks of comparison; I had a quick look on the net, but I think a book might be a better bet for this one. I'll have a look in the library. Chzz ► 22:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exit stage 9th dimension

Kasava! Buddha Bless You. This is a temporary good-bye note. My wife is supected of having ovarian cancer and I'm beside myself. (Yes, I'm a married Buddhist priest, 25 years and counting I hope.) I'll be offline for messages and communications until further notice. So no fun editing and torturing your snobby admin. eds. for a while. Pray for her, Kasava, if that is your mindset. RevAntonio (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, and of course I wish you all the best.

I don't know if/when you'll get this, so I'll just briefly reply to some of your previous questions - I was intending to do so, but didn't have the time in the last few days.

I understand the difference between synopsis and opinion; as I say, I'm currently uncertain of how it applies to Wikipedia with regards to movie plots. I'll find out one day.

As regards pages for fans to make comments - that is one of the purposes of the article talk pages. Certainly the example you gave, it would be appropriate for fans to make comments about bagpipes etc on the talk page.

Re. "You folk make a Wikipedia contribution tougher than English literature term papers!" - substitute "WE folk...". It's as much up to you as it is up to me. Although there's endless controversy and drama about referencing, it really is quite simple. All facts must be able to be proven by the reader. That's what it all boils down to.

Re. Asimov / bats - nice story :-) If that was on Wikipedia, of course his own book could be a reference. Except that Mr Asimov shouldn't have edited his own article due to WP:COI - but he could have suggested it on the talk. I suppose, though, that I could imagine - in many years - finding some info on Wikipedia that I had written. Not a problem, though, as the info would have references - and the refs would back up my facts. That's the difference; there's no WP:OR (or at least there shouldn't be). Nobody should ever cite wikipedia as a source; instead, they should check the refs and cite them.

So - just a bit of a reply; I really do wish you the best, and hope to hear from you one day. Chzz ► 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick Thanks

Just a quick Thanks for footnote referencing help. Trying today to get it right on two sites. MKohut (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replied on user talk Chzz ► 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

collaberating with others

--Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)jamiejojesus--Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)how do i collaberate on an article...for example i would like to add some information on wage peace's "god as the devil" or is that just editing? i would think you would have to perhaps request permission from the author of the article? there is so much more that could be added like the burning of witches, the holocaust, war in general, suffering and pain, aging and dying (it is rarely a peaceful passing...as i was there when my father and grandmother died...it was horrowible). anyway my time is up at the library. may return after checking out this "good friday" theing, which i know with all certainty was not a "good day"for jesus and his family and friends!--Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)jamiejojesus--Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry...

how did my message appear twice...is it because i signatured twice?...is anybody out there today?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiejojesus (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I wasn't online much in the last couple of days; if you ever need instant help, use the talk to us live thing.

How to collaborate - well, there are two approaches, and you can use both. First, be bold and make edits - as long as you use verifiable references. Second, discuss things on the article discussion page (the 'talk page'). You certainly don't need to seek permission from the author, because nobody owns the articles.

Lastly - why did your message appear twice - no idea, but it doesn't matter. I think, probably, you clicked 'save' and then went back, and saved again? Anyway - doesn't matter.

Good luck :-) Chzz ► 22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from FDA (trade union). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I have replaced the material you removed and it is now properly referenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did actually give a full edit summary, explaining why I removed text, as shown in these two edits; [1], [2].

I'm glad to hear you've managed to add some referenced info, and I'll try to look back at the article some time.

Cheers, Chzz ► 22:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sleepy

hey, sorry i left without saying anything, my connection suddenly flooded and i can't get the irc to work right now. Also my scripts for autoconnect gone crazy...see you maybe tomorrow. gnite

(unsigned by Mezod (talk · contribs) 01:46, 12 April)

Heh, no worries, good night. Please remember to 'sign' your message next time, by putting ~~~~ at the end. Cheers, see you soon! Chzz ► 02:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

It must be insanity that I'd return here to check for messages... but I have one disagreement. You seem to be implying that I am as responsible for things here as administrators/grand poobah editors. You know that is false.

I have little technical knowledge. I barely have the intelligence to edit a page to Wikipedia's liking. And I do not hide who I am behind weird usernames. I am not returning to Wikipedia for any reason at all whatsoever.

You folk can label me all you like, and even make up an insulting bio page about me. That is perfectly fine. It's funny how you folk0 have a persecution/inferiority complex, and how you belittle and make others feel stupid.

Now this is not aimed at you personally, because I do not know what you do or don't do, chzz, and for that matter I have no idea who you are, but you can certainly show this message around, I know that.

RevAntonio (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Hey, I didn't remove a thing! I did, however, 'hide' them because my page was a million miles long. I noted exactly what I'd done, and if you look up the page a bit you'll see it - click 'show' and all will be revealed :-) Also, I've replied to things.

Note, though, that like most innundated people any section on my talk that doesn't have a comment for 100 hours gets put in the archives - which are all available at the top.

Best, Chzz ► 21:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

Chzz, Homebum (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 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![reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the help on the classical quaternions articleHomebum (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note of thanks

Thanks for looking over my page/s. I'd like to get more creative in the look of the page rather than use everyone else's template, so I'll probably be asking for help on finding more editing notes. Thanks again. ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chouchin11 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

making an article

i want to make my own wikipedia page. like, i want to have my own article on the nintendo dsi. how do i make that page?