An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopaedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.
Another editor has tagged the above infobox for deletion. It is not clear why he has done so, but he has his reasons. Please carefully review the above infobox, but please do not delete it without first counting to a googol and only then with reasons related to frogs.
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'-----→
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]
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]
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]
IF the PC trial ends, then I would consider supporting a proposal to use PC according to some appropriate scope, etc.
I see no contradiction in those views. I can understand that you feel it is hypocritical (demanding cautious conditions for PC, but advocating 'work out the details later' on the other) - but a) they're quite different situations, b) for 'confirmed', the alternative main suggestion seems to be a trial - and we already know that there are many problems with that such approach, from the PC experience.
I suspect we may never agree about Pending Changes - that's fine. However, I wish you'd believe me that I am not anti-PC. You seem to indicate that I should declare that I am - how can I, when I am not?
I'd like PC to develop, and possibly be used in some form or other. What I am opposed to is, the use of it without consensus - and I believe that the best chance - indeed the only realistic chance - of PC actually making progress is to sort that mess out first. Right now - with the trial continuing - there is zero realistic chance of any proposal for use of PC to gain any acceptable consensus - which means, the scope of PC cannot be extended beyond the few trial articles, and the few admins who are prepared to use it with no consensus to do so. Once the trial is finally closed down, then it becomes possibile to evaluate and propose some use of PC which can gain community support. Chzz ► 02:43, 19 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.
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]
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 [2] when you'd edited the article Medea.
The second message is from a 'bot' - an automated program - sent today (16 April 2011) [3].
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.
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]
Make sure the user name and password are EXACTLY correct - it is case-sensitive, so "Bob Smith" is not the same as "Bob smith".
Some browsers will 'auto-complete' the username and password, if you'd mistyped it before. You might be able to clear that, depending on your browser - in Firefox on Windows it is under 'Tools', 'options', 'security', 'saved passwords'.
Can you try it on another computer?
For the email, check if it has been filtered into you 'junk mail' folder (or similar)
And if all that fails, you're out of luck, and the only solution is to create a new user account - but you can always mark on your user page using e.g. {{Former account}}|Example - giving;
This account was formerly used by Example. It is not a sock puppet, but is an account to which the password has been lost, or which the user has abandoned. The user who legitimately owns this account has created a new account as Example. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)
I'll try, ASAP. The specific scripts and things I used for that are not available to me right now, but I can find 'em - within a few days. Thanks, Chzz ► 02:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I see you going through the songs right now. Question: do you, as the involved admin, have to be the one to change the cats in all the articles? Because if you like, I could help with that. Yves (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin.
I have a script thingy which can fix the links in all subpages (ie, it shows pages that mention the cat, and helps suggest the appropriate substitution, which I can save). Hopefully properly; and hopefully done within the next few hours; it'd be great if you could check over it though; cats can be a bit complicated. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your recent help about the pipe symbol and the translation - I am very impressed. However as you mentioned, "But, as the other said - there is no point, because we would never use that as a reference in a Wikipedia article. It is not an appropriate reliable source, and we do not use Google to translate things - we cite the original language, and the reader can translate if they want. Chzz ► 11:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)".
So I'm not sure what is meant by "...the reader can translate if they want." Does this mean that I don't need to include those two references.?? i.e.
Thanks again for your help and I hope you can help just a fraction kore so that things become more clear to me. --NehruR42 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The important thing to remember is, that a reference is to allow the person reading the article to check the facts for themselves.
Therefore - if you say "XXX is the Thai word for YYY" then you might use a dictionary to verify that fact - or, you might use a book written in the Thai langauge. In either case - you just point to the place where the reader can check it. It is not your concern to provide a translation.
If you cite a reference that is in Thai, then it is helpful to note that fact - which can be done in {{Cite Web}} with the | language = parameter.
When you add a new section on a talk page (such as here), please add it at the end, not the beginning.
Also, when you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right..
The fact that the article is listed on the 'missing notable pages' does not mean it satisfies the notability requirement. All articles must demonstrate "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" (WP:GNG) - and currently, the article does not do that; that is why I marked it. The solution would be to provide references to e.g. newspapers, magazines, books, or appropriate websites (e.g. CNN News, BBC, or whatever) but not press-releases.
Thanks for replying. It's amusing to see that Wiki is working in the opposite direction to the rest of the internet, where newer content goes at the top, but sure, duly noted.
Artluce didn't even have a stub so I figured that something was better than nothing and notability was provided by linking from other authoritative sites that were relevant to the topic.
Unsurprisingly, CNN doesn't feature any information about niche topics like Italian Industrial Design companies.
Wikipedia can be a bit hard to get used to; stick with it though, it's worth it. Thanks for understanding.
Re. the article - the core idea of Wikipedia is, to present info that is 'verifiable' - ie, that can be checked by the reader. We don't say "THIS IS TRUE", we say "This is a fact.and here is the reference to a reliable source."
Hence all articles need to demonstrate 'notability' - even if you and I know they are "notable", that doesn't mean they satisfy the Wikipedia notability requirement - please look at WP:VRS.
I appreciate your adding a reference, but, it still needs improving. But that is all the 'tags' at the top are for - to highlight that it needs work. We need to see where each fact comes from. So, it says, Arteluce gained renown in the 1950s - OK, so where can I check that? What happens if another person edits it, and changes it from 50s to 70s, or from 'gained renown' to 'gained a bad reputation'? I hope you can see why we need to insist on references for all facts.
That is often one of the hardest things for new users to understand - but, if we allow any information - without it being verifiable - then anyone can write anything. That's why we need references. See also WP:PILLAR.
By the way... does 'Manc' refer to Manchester? (I happen to be in Manc myself, at the moment).
Armbrust has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
Sure; that happens quite a lot. You could nominate the article for deletion if you thought it inappropriate; but in processing the AFC, all we can do is use our best judgement. If the user chooses to make a live article, that is their prerogative. Cheers, Chzz ► 02:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I dislike the WikiCup. I appreciate it does 'good things' - however, there are about 90 GAN candidates that have no response dated prior to yours (11 April 2011) - so whilst I really want to help, it doesn't seem very fair - if you see what I mean?
I've no idea what the answer is to that; just that is the situation we are in.
I'd like to help though. I'll see what I can come up with, in the next few days; I have one idea - maybe I can show someone else how to review it. Chzz ► 02:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Omg >.> i just wanted to lead myself to a childish pathway of convincing ubisoft to release some news about PoP 2008 sequel and you ruined it
congratsd
Doing... Chzz ► 01:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
