Jump to content

User talk:Chzz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taiwanman1 (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 13 August 2009 (→‎Cookie !: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

DO NOT PRESS

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

File:326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png
ようこそ！

Cheers

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

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

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

Template Removal

The article was Habban, and the discussion was at User talk:Alfebe. I already did ask him, but all he said was he did not want the article to be removed. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 18:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Correction: Alefbe (talk · contribs)) (checking into it now)  Chzz  ►  18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my error. Please inform me when any changes happen.  Thanks Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the discussion etc, I see here a classic case of two different views - you think it should be moved to Wikt, and the other user disagrees. You put the tag on, they removed it; that's fine. The next step, if you still think that it should be trans-wiki'd, would be to start a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Habban - and then ask that user to please contribute to the discussion. It would help to get more opinions, so you could add a similar request for input on e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments for example - although that doesn't look very active, so perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music would be a better place to ask. I'd suggest just a brief note, asking them to please contribute to the discussion. The idea is to build a WP:CONSENSUS - bold, revert, discuss.
For what it's worth, my own opinion would be to keep it on Wikipedia. A quick search here, on Google Books indicates that the instrument is notable enough to have an article. Yes, there are a lot of 'dictionary-type' entries, but mentions in books such as "Omani traditional music" indicate to me that an article could be written. The current state of an article is not a good reason for deletion; if it is notable, and could be improved, then it should remain, so that others can (hopefully) make it better. Per WP:NOTDIC, I (personally) think that there is enough that can be written about the instrument, rather than just about the word itself.
Of course, if you wish, you could also take it to articles for deletion, and get more opinions that way.
Best of all, you could fix it yourself by looking at some of those references and expanding it.
It's not so easy finding sources for it, with it being an Arabic word (and I cannot speak Arabic) - but I'm pretty sure that it would be possible. A machine translation of the Arabic Wikipedia article didn't help me much, as I think that it is linked to the wrong article. The entry in List of bagpipes#Arab states of the Persian Gulf suggests that it is a 'generic term', so I'd need to look into it further. I did find it mentioned in this recent news article, and in bagpiper.com and Oman center for traditional instruments - not necessarily reliable sources, but reasonable indicators, I think.
I hope this helps; if there is more that I can do, please do let me know. I will try to look back on the article when I have free time, and may be able to improve it a little myself. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance needed

I Have Been Touched By His Noodly Appendage

HELP! I need the assistance of an august editor of your calibur. There is an article named Pentecostalism which left a lot to be desired as far as style and capitalzation. It is about a specific religious sect, and as such will provoke strong feelings. Whoever wrote the article capitalized any and all religious references. Can you please read comments on the page Talk:Pentecostalism? All the technical corrections I had made, including gross errors, were reverted to protect a point of view, I suspect. I conceded that Pentecostal references could be capitalized, but very many others were miles away from being proper names. I did earn a ThD degree, so religious terminology is not removed from my field of expertise. Thanks you so much. Respectfully yours, R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Word, That Is Dreadful. What Would The Flying Spaghetti Monster Think?
I Will Attend To The Matter.  Chzz  ►  04:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your intro to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do you think the Pastafarianism Church would accept a poor man like me? Can you recommend me for membership? 17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rak-Tai (talk • contribs)

You might wish to comment...

While I understand and agree with your tagging much of the Charles Dennis article for sources, and indeed the sheer number of the tags you placed is what inspired me to work on it, your tagging and then re-tagging the filmography section as unsourced got me worried, as it had never previously been policy to do so in the BLP of an actor. I asked the question at the relevent project in case I was doing something incorrect. Please visit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Sourcing_a_filmology if you'd like to offer your views. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for visiting the conversation and I have sincere appreciation for your continued good work. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:

Hi, thank you for the message you posted. I made my own remarks within the section and I support the semi-protection along with bringing back the other artists booted off. I know you are neutral but I was wondering if we can take this to any higher authority or to an administrator of some sort. The purpose of Wikipedia as I understand it is to bring together everyone's contributions or at least gather everyone's opinions for a 'democratic' solution. The self-proclaimed owner of that page is shutting out all other contributions and crafting the page to suit himself. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be done. Vpuliva (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The highest form of authority on Wikipedia is that of the community consensus; an administrator can carry out the wishes of the community, but that is all; they aren't particularly 'in charge'. That said, there are certainly other avenues we can pursue, if necessary. Let's see how this attempt to reach consensus goes, and take it from there. For a good explanation of appropriate steps, see WP:DISPUTE. And indeed, nobody owns any pages.  Chzz  ►  04:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's Sales

Hi thanks for being so helpful man. A lot of fans are still emotional with him passing and all and it really looks bad on wikipedia that after he dies he's now held to some insane standard nobody else on that list is held to. There have been countless sources listed for his 750 Million total. What more could anyone want? Also in effort of fairness I think MJ's total should be reverted back to the original amount that it has been for the past two years which is 750+ Million. Atleast until this is sorted out. On the "Protected Wikipedia page description" it states during times like these with heated debates it's usually best to revert everything back to the way it was originally in the effort of fairness.

--Mrparissm (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not; see m:The wrong version. The only way to avoid edit wars is to stop, discuss, sort it out, get it all clear, and then change things. There is no deadline; Wikipedia is timeless. What it says for the next few days really doesn't matter at all, in the grand scheme of things. I know exactly what you mean - in my early days on Wikipedia, I had a similar issue with an image on a page, and got into all kinds of troubles over the 'wrong version' being in place whilst we debated it (because it was protected in that state) - but now, looking back, I can see why this policy is important. I hope you'll understand.  Chzz  ►  23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could you use what you have to help change michael jackson sales Atleast until this is sorted out. On the "Protected Wikipedia page description" it states during times like these with heated debates it's usually best to revert everything back to the way it was originally in the effort like you said all the people on List of best-selling music artists should be treated the same you could see michael jackson has not look at the sources for the beatles and elvis and you can see that the sources for michael are more reliable—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i what to report JFonseka here is saying sony are wrong but the bbc are right beacuse that is what he wants to believe what do you lot think is more reliable and JFonseka you cant say which one is right just beacuse you said so

sony records know more about sales than anyone on wikipedia and that is a fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please change sales back to the orginal which is 750 million for the past 2 years for the time being thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


See above.  Chzz  ►  06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For leading the young and budding editors to victory over reference sorting

The Barnstar of Diligence
I award you this Barnstar of Diligence for being ever diligent on your quest to educate the masses in proper reference sorting. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 08:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one who's gone through thousands of unreffed links and converted them to proper, aesthetically-pleasing creations, you have no idea how good this is to see. Keep up the great work! :) Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 08:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mucke

Hello, Chzz. You have new messages at Fuhghettaboutit's talk page.

Uploading Images

Chhzz,

How do I add photos and images to my infobox? I've uploaded a photo and have tried several different ways but it won't show in my infobox...aargh. I've looked at various Wiki tutorials and how to articles, but still can't seem to do it. Can you help? Thanks, Burkeguy 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)

Photo deletions

Chzz, I uploaded a photo and got it promptly deleted due to licensing issues. I thought I did what was required by explaining that the photographer gave me permission to upload. Could you help me navigate the licensing maze? I really need to have this photo on the infobox I'm designing. After I get it uploaded, then it will show up, right?

--Burkeguy 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)

Hi! I thought I'd step in here and give chzz a hand. Wikipedia only hosts "free images". That is, media that is licensed to be freely distributed. You might wanna see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images. If it isn't a free image, you can upload it as a fair use image. See WP:UPLOAD, and click the link that applies to the image you're trying to upload. The instructions should help as well. If you need more help, you should talk to us live. :-) Killiondude (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell vandal

The Campbell Soup Company vandal is back again, this time coming from 12.44.74.2. His tactics are exactly the same. I'll leave it up to as to what to do, but I vote to semi-protect the article. I think warnings are useless against him. Thanks! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, he just left a message on my talk page (here), essentially admitting he belonged to a Wikipedia vandal network. So, I doubt blocking a single IP address will work... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Sorry that I was not online earlier. Anyway...that IP address have now been blocked here. Let us know of any further incidents, also, as before, we will monitor things. If you need urgent attention at any time (such as ongoing vandalism), please post a request on WP:ANI. Otherwise, the best thing to do is what you are doing - ignore them, and just let us know so we can block the address. Hopefully they'll get bored if nobody responds. Thanks for your understanding. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I can confirm that Billy Raymond has now sent Wikipedia the necessary template to confirm my use of his photo on his Wiki page. Hope this now meets with all requirements, but please let me know! Thanks. Linda C Wood 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wood200 (talk • contribs)

OTRS processed, done on user talk, re. File:BILLY-GCAC-2a.jpg.
 Done  Chzz  ►  20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanman1 has given you half a biscuit! May Mr. Moult bring you fair winds, your lenor always be discounted, your gargoyles never bear any resemblance to a comedian from Faversham, and your windows be free of condensation.

Spread the goodness of HMHB by adding {{subst:HB}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. Or don't.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz&oldid=307820068"