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'-----→
I'm gonna strip the AFC page - remove the {{AFC submission...}} and the <!-- comment> stuff and the auto-reference part, and see what is left, and if it looks anything like an article
[17:18] <@Chzz> also, gonna be able to advise people if they ONLY put refs UNDER ==References==
[17:18] <@Chzz> but...yeah; that is on the long to-do-list
[17:19] <@Chzz> am just trying to get less "false positives", but miss less who do need ref-help
[17:19] <@Chzz> am also gonna check number-of-edits, and not give any help on e.g. >50 edits
[17:19] <@Chzz> and I'm gonna fix the sandbox-cleaner so it clears more 'sandbox' pages, in tutorials and talks
[17:19] <@Chzz> and fix the stalkbot up
[17:19] <@Chzz> and add another stalkbot that actually checks the diff
[17:20] <@Chzz> (which thus becomes as powerful as 'edit filter')
[17:20] <@Chzz> then I just need to install the "laser beam" and we're good to go
[03:31] <Shearonink> 1) can you crop the images into A)Each individual RAISIN panel B) Both RAISIN panels
-> Commons
[03:33] <Chzz> you don't want the "Buena Vista" then?
[03:33] <Shearonink> no
[03:33] <Chzz> just the 2x "Raison" rite?
[03:34] <Shearonink> yes
[03:34] <Chzz> c-c-c-combo, and split into two
[03:34] <Chzz> and looking good at thumb size
[03:34] <Chzz> do you like it 'straightened' - like I did on that demo?
[03:34] <Chzz> ie I 'distorted' the pic, to make it 'straight'
[03:34] <Shearonink> yes
[03:34] <Chzz> yep, ok
[03:35] <Shearonink> yes I noticed it was crokked in the version gene upcloaded
[03:35] <Chzz> and I'll fiddle with the colour/light balance, to make it as clear as poss without it looking bizarre
I also work for Wikipedia, and had a rather scary email recently: "Before you edit a banner or update some code, just remember that if our readership was a country it would be the 3rd largest country in the world."
SELECT SUM(single) FROM (select cl_sortkey,COUNT(*) as single from categorylinks LEFT JOIN recentchanges ON cl_sortkey=rc_user_text where rc_timestamp>"201110XX202500" AND cl_to="Wikipedia_user_talk_pages_of_shared_IP_addresses" GROUP BY cl_sortkey HAVING cl_sortkey RLIKE "^[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}$") as dummy; XX=day
Note: 17:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) [16:57] <Chzz> I'm gonna do something, later; I'm gonna start an election; for AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD - I'll make it look like an RFA-type page; I will nominate myself as "Person responsible for post-ironic humour"
MSGJ would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact MSGJ to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I think it's time to accept a nomination. Wikipedia has suffered for long enough without your skills as an admin :) Please say yes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much MSGJ; for now, suffice to say that I'm very flattered in your confidence. I am currently on holiday, and not on wikipedia as much as normal - but I assure you that I will give your suggestion due consideration, and will respond further ASAP. Thanks again, Chzz ► 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for all the work you do here at wikipedia, I always see your contributions on AfDs and see that you put in great work and have a good understanding of the policies here. I wanted to talk with you briefly about the List of best-selling artists worldwide as I recall you had a fairly balanced view on the matter a while back.
It seems that since the time I last contributed to the discussion the article has becomes, in my view at least, a mass of original research. A new column has been added for verified sales for The Beatles, Presley, and Jackson which is composed entirely of numbers that editors have compiled. The sources provided don't unambiguously state the claimed numbers but rather each number is one generated by editors adding all the sales for individual releases in a given database. Worse is that "Total certified sales" number at the bottom adds all these editor-generated numbers up compiled from different databases - a clear instance of synthesis. There are other details about the page which make it seem out of step with OR guidelines - the notes section is expansive and grievously includes the first-person "we" in discussing the methodology for the numbers.I would try and change these faults in working on the talk page, as I do with most pages I work on, however the dedicated editors who have made these changes simply overwhelm with massive walls of text - most of which don't actually cite policy. I feel extremely discouraged seeing such an important page out of line with policy, knowing that I cant change it as the small group controlling the page is much more dedicated as to the amount of time they are willing to put into debate. Im just curious as to your opinions on the matter and if you can suggest a recommended course of action, or if you think like I currently do, that its a battle that's just not worth fighting. Thanks! Solid State Survivor (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completley with what you wrote; I have been monitoring the page, and I am also dismayed at the OR content and the inappropriate 'notes'. I previously removed an inappropriate section from the article which detailed how it should be written (ie the types of ref to use, etc). I am also concerned about all the caveats at the top of the talk page, which the editor who wishes to 'control the page' has made sure stay there, as opposed to the archiving of other discussions. At present, the article and the talk page do not conform to Wikipedia policies. I also fully cognizant of the problems trying to discuss anything on the talk page. I feel that something should be done, but I'm not sure what; a note on WP:ANI does not seem quite appropriate; how about asking the Mediation Cabal for help, what do you think? Chzz ► 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contest Deletion of Article I posted Sir A T Pannir Selvam
Wikipedia itself should not be used as a reference, see WP:SELFREF
The fact that other Wikipedia articles might mention the subject does not help to assert notability; each article needs to pass the general notability requirements under it's own merits, ie it needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Are such sources available? Chzz ► 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i appologize
my professor at school adviced me to try it out. Nas is the man so is jayz.
InvestingPennyStock.com which is a resource site about penny stock getting deleted as a external link
I do agree with OccamzTalk. However InvestingPennyStock.com seems like a good resource site about penny stock investing. It got loads of information about topics like penny stock, penny stock scams, risks, discussions. So I think this is a good site to be added as a external link in this page. Just removing links to good resource sites in the external links section without much clarification does not help a reader who is after more information.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Done Answered on talk Chzz ► 21:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)