User talk:Chowbok: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Heads-up: new section
Line 457: Line 457:
==Talkback==
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Malik Shabazz|Lou Reed photos on Commons|ts=18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)}}
{{talkback|Malik Shabazz|Lou Reed photos on Commons|ts=18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)}}

== Heads-up ==

I mentioned you at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images]]. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:01, 17 June 2012

Century Gothic

Century Gothic, a mere digital face, is totally derivative of Twentieth Century, an actual FOUNDRY TYPE. The idea that something so ephemeral as a digital type face deserves it's own article, when a perfectly good article on the real thing already exists, shows a bizarre ordering of priorities. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foundry type is to digital type as Major League Baseball is to Rotisserie League Baseball, or coition is to self-abuse. Of course, I say this as a man who owns at least thirty job cases full of metal type.

Thanx for noticing my work on typography. I have a substantial library of specimen books and reference material and I've sort of made it my business to fill out the gaps concerning foundry type and its designers. I think my articles on Douglas Crawford McMurtrie and R. Hunter Middleton are long over-due, and I think the house-cleaning I did on Oz Cooper made the article clearer and more readable.Dutchman Schultz (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Green Party

Here's just one source for you; it took all of two minutes to find it:http://thesouthern.com/news/breaking/article_b92a3fa5-5522-53c0-8a57-8224ec892473.html. -Rrius (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posner article

Hi Chowbok,

Just in case you haven’t tracked it in the last couple days, there’s been considerable debate on the Gerald Posner talk page, and a bunch of edits to the article (with additions, then deletions of the additions, along with deletion of the sentence in the article noting the falsified quotes, etc.). Thought you might be interested.Eurytemora (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom. Did you know...

I think you did know that! I decided his partner needed an article too. OK? Victuallers (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Louis Darling

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Chowbok's Day!

User:Chowbok has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Chowbok's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Chowbok!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Monkey

Sorry Chow for changing your listcruft clean version of Sock Monkey. I did not understand what your goal was until after I changed it back to the old version. Is this "cleaned" theory just yours or a movement for all articles? I think this data is valuable but am starting to like the cleaner look/feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.51.147 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Are You Doing?

Dude, you are totally baiting and hounding, again. From here to here to here - and now this little gem. You've never edited this article before - what possibly brought you there? The answer is obvious. You have a very easily proven history of harassing this editor, and you simply don't want to stop. This is not going to bode well for you in the end: I can assure you... Doc9871 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It must be nice to have an army of meat-puppets to spring up to defend you in every single editing dispute. I'll have to ask WLH if they provide her with a bulk rate...—Chowbok ☠ 15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very carefully read WP:MEAT. My trying to point out you must stop your blatant harassment of "WLH" is disruptive and makes me a meat puppet? Nope. "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care." Doc9871 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chowbok, stop harassing Wildhartlivie and Crohniegirl, and stop using incivil language such as accusing them of being meatpuppets. You turning up on articles you've never edited before and on threads unrelated to your editing is becoming increasingly disruptive. Your comments are almost always unhelpful. These editors are not "meatpuppets", they are simply Wikipedians who collaborate in their editing. Your obsession with challenging their editing has become unhealthy and if it continues I will block you. Fences&Windows 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally it's said out loud, thank you Fences and windows. It gets real tiring to be accused of things when I try real hard to be a civil editor and try to do the right things. Chowbok, I really do want peace. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speaking of meat ;)

Hi. Ever hear that there's nothing new under the sun? In some form it must go all the way back to teh trees in East Africa. We, or wikt:, must have something on it. But I'm here to point you as a collection that's moar specific:

There are a lot of pages there and I'm looking for a good example to start you off with; other than the top, of course.

It's worth the time to review the many other page; they're all linked, it's a wiki ;)

Some of the accumulated knowledge of the interwebs.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. There's also My year of meats, but that's fiction; and recommended.


terminology

Hey, I've looked into a bit of terminology:

I think the key distinction re WikiProjects concerns open vs. closed membership.

Enough; all these pages are useful reads, given the impending RfC re WikiProject authority. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking Lar

Thanks for replying. I didn't know whether or not you'd asked Lar and I understand what you're saying there as the comments he made about the decision being pending were vague. I don't want this issue to keep being ignited either. I just think that whatever problems you have with WHL, Lar's decision and Lar's lack of communication is something that only Lar can explain. When you've raised the point, and I've seen you raise it at least twice, it seems to be directed at WHL rather than Lar. Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you asked if I know which other admin it may have been passed to - no, I don't know who that may be. Rossrs (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll put it another way. You should distinguish between what is Wildhartlivie's responsibility and what is within her control and what is not. If you have concerns about her editing or general behaviour you should address it civilly and within guidelines relating to behaviour. You're entitled to do so, and if you do it correctly nobody could fault you for it. If it's something that is not WHL's responsibility or not within her control, it's not right to raise the point as though it's something she has to answer for. For one example you do not need to know the exact terms of the evidence she provided. The fact is she provided something and Lar accepted it based on whatever criteria he worked under. If you're unhappy about that aspect, Lar is the person responsible for that. When you raise the point as part of a general discussion you are making her seem responsible for Lar's acceptance of the evidence, and for Lar's decision to keep his rationale to himself. The tone of your comment implies that WHL owes an explanation for that, and I believe she is as completely in the dark on that score, as you are. That's not WHL's doing. She was responsible for answering the sock accusation, and she answered it. She's not responsible for how Lar chose to handle it. Just try to see the line that divides the two. That's all I mean on that point. Rossrs (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment " I don't understand why I should pretend like...." Is there a single word in any of my comments that suggests you should "pretend" anything? I don't how much clearer I could have said that WHL is accountable for those actions that she is directly responsible for, as are all editors, but you seem to want to blame her for everything. What I don't understand is why you think it falls upon you to make a quest of this. Rossrs (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok, please step away from this for now. Thanks, Jack Merridew 10:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok, we don't see eye to eye on everything, but I wanted to acknowledge this comment you made to me. I appreciate it and I accept that your intention was not to be hostile towards me. Thanks for taking the time to address that point. Rossrs (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removal of "tm" symbol from direct quote

This is a continuing problem with Chowbok. See this diff[1] and four or five times previously. That article includes a quotation from the author which uses sarcasm to make a point about outrageous waste of fuel in the industrial boating sector. The direct quote using the "Suburban™", with the trade mark symbol meant to convey a sense of sarcasm. Chowbok keeps coming around and removing this symbol from the quotation. We tried to hide the symbol, using {{sic|hide=y|&trade}} but Chowbok keeps improperly deleting the symbol. How can this be fixed? It is tiring to keep watchlisting this article to protect it from the Chowbok bot. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The timeline is that I asked about the "tm" problem[2] July 2009, and the "sic" template was added then[3] to fix the problem. Except the problem happened again in Jan 2010. (Which I just discovered today). In other words, Chowbok removed the "tm" symbol which was supposed to be protected by the "sic" template. This indicates that the "sic" template did not work as the protection as hoped for in July 2009. The confusion might be that I am thinking that AutoWikiBrowser is the same as Chowbok, but I guess it might not be the case. My concern is that repeatedly, the "tm" gets improperly removed from that quotation in the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem now, you are just a user of the bot, and I should be asking this question over at the AWB bot page, doing that now. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it, over at the AWB bot page[4] they don' think that the bot removed the 'tm' symbol. Not a big deal, I am just mentioning this in case you are curious. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments on deletion discussion

Since you seem to be a regular, I won't template you. But regarding your removal at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff (2nd nomination), I will remind you that you do not determine what is "helpful" or "unhelpful" on such discussions. There was no personal attack, only comments about the editing styles of two editors who appear to have major issues with each other. So please don't take it upon yourself to decide which opinions on deletion discussions should stay and which should be removed. Thank you. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack, but it was irrelevant to the discussion about whether that page should be kept, as well as inflammatory. If you think that admins should watch those users or whatever, there are other places that can be brought up.—Chowbok ☠ 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, and it's fine for you to express that opinion, just as it is fine for others to disagree with your opinion. What was not acceptable was for you to remove someone's comments because of your opinion. I disagree with your opinions. It was not inflammatory (just a comment on two editors who can't get along with each other), and the fact that they can't get along bears directly on whether the page should be kept. We disagree. That's common on Wikipedia. But please don't remove others' comments if a policy is not violated, which was not the case here. Thank you. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got your point the first time. You'll note I didn't delete your comment again.—Chowbok ☠ 19:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC) '[reply]
Thank you, although it certainly wasn't obvious that you got my point. Note also that I am not the editor who restored my comment after you deleted it. Thank you. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious since you questioned me, why didn't you remove Jack's diatribe that was rude and also mostly irrevelent? If I would have posted something like that you would have been screaming from the rooftops and deleted, never mind what you would have done if it was WHL that did it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to you at my talk page. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your question

Hi, I didn't want to engage this conversation over at the rfd but I also don't want to ignore you. The reason I iVoted to blank here was because an uninvolved administrator felt blanking it was appropriate. If no action was taken and the page was just up for regular deletion review I would have said to delete it probably. I see blanking as no problem here since it's a collection of difs from within the project unlike yours. Your's was mostly guesses and things you didn't know anything about and to be honest still don't know. I hope that answers you enough. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you know this...

...but they've had this discussion before.  :-) —Prhartcom (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you couldn't tell, I was mocking our Dawn Wells friends. Maybe we should report that situation to RfC as they suggest. Anyway, I thought this might interest you; I wonder if it's true. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. —Prhartcom (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a request

Hi. Please stay out of the proposed mediation by Rossrs regarding WHL and myself. She's to ask the same of her supporters. And interpret this fairly broadly, OK?

fyi, you might be interested in how I reformulated the referencing scheme on pages such as Phoebe Halliwell. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

answering questions

I won't have a chance to say hello or goodbye when I'm blocked/banned/whatever. So, "Hello; I'm not holding my breath on anyone addressing your questions concerning Dawn Well's page on Wiki; and I better get in a good-bye, as I feel I have the lifespan of a May fly in a low ceilinged room full of bullfrogs; not because I’m wrong, but because anyone on your side of the issue is going to be attacked and baited into some infraction, an infraction ignored by someone they like, but an infraction that will be worthy of execution when committed by me.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.195.159 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann

Have you read Dbachmann's comment in Talk:Muhammad/images#Procedure_to_hide_the_images_at_Muhammad_page? I cannot understand his point. He writes "Whatever you do client-side is your business and you don't need to tell us about it." in his talk page. There is a procedure in Talk:Muhammad Q4 A4, if you follow it all images are gone, I suggest changing the procedure so users who don't want to see Muhammad's images can see other images in the page. If it is user's business, why is this guide included in the talk page? He thinks that I personally want to hide these images, he gives me advice on this issue. I did not say that I was distrubed with the images. My suggestion is to change the procedure in Talk:Muhammad Q4 A4 so that people who use the guide can see the images which are not "objectionable". Kavas (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions

I have found 2 solutions from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#How_to_filter_specific_images_in_a_page.2C_but_view_others It works, we only have to change the line body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;} to 

body.page-Muhammad img {
    display: none;
}

body.page-Muhammad a[href="/wiki/File:Aziz_efendi-muhammad_alayhi_s-salam.jpg"] img,
body.page-Muhammad a[href="/wiki/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg"] img {
    display: block;
}

then all pictures except Aziz_efendi-muhammad_alayhi_s-salam.jpg, Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg are disabled. We can add other pictures which are not "objectionable" to this code. Kavas (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

miscommunication

I understand where you are coming from, and i hope my response at ANI clarifies where I am coming from Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois

What is your problem? Why did you revert my edits?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Cool Userpage

The Excellent User Page Award
For a unique Userpage Vegavairbob (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User rights upgraded

Chowbok, you're a highly experienced editor — more so than me. I was surprised to see your user rights haven't been expanded by now. I just granted you WP:REVIEWER and WP:ROLLBACK rights. They are available if you want to use them.

You probably won't notice that you're a reviewer unless you come across a page that's pending-change protected, in which case you have the ability to accept edits from new or anonymous editors. Personally I find the reviewer implementation rather kludgey, but that's being worked on.

Rollback gives you a "rollback" link next to the "undo" link when viewing diffs. It's a quick way to revert disruptive edits, including sequential edits by the same editor. Rollback is intended to be used only for reverting obvious disruption (vandalism, spam, clear NPOV violation, etc.) because you can't control the edit summary. For other reversions, it's best to keep using the "undo" feature. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exception in MainForm.Save

Hi. Please download AWB version 5.1.0.0 and tell me if you still get this bug when pressing the Watch button. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, seems to be fixed. Thanks!—Chowbok ☠ 03:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estill Voice Training

Hi Chowbok, I was wondering if you could give me advice on how to improve my article on Estill Voice Training. You've labelled the article as being written like an advertisement but I'm not sure why. The article isn't advertising or information about a specific company or product, but details a vocal training technique that is widely adopted. Yes, this technique is promoted by a company, Estill Voice International, but I don't work for them and believe I wrote the article in an objective and unbiased style with sufficient third-party references to justify this. I've included information on both proponents of the system and criticism. Is it the external links to Estill Voice International that caused you concern? What do you suggest I add or remove? Thanks in advance for any help you can give. And thank you for your clean up on my use of trademark symbols. I've just re-read MOS:TM and agree with the edit. Knavesdied (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chowbok, I've made quite a few amendments to the Estill Voice Training article and hopefully got rid of any spammy language, and have taken off the Ad template. If you get a chance I'd appreciate a quick review from you to make sure I've done a good job. Thank you! Knavesdied (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communications Wireless Group

Hi, thanks for cleaning up the trademarks on this page, did not know not to use, and I removed the orphan tag you added w/AWB. This page had a link to the Verizon Wireless page that was dropped when another editor moved and renamed the page, so I fixed the link and de-orphaned, since criteria for orphan tag is "ZERO incoming links from other articles." Just wanted to let you know, and please advise if you review page and see any other issues that I should address. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vistademicci (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. thoughts

Hi Chowbok. When you get the time, could you please remove the content regarding me from the section "Misc. thoughts" on your userpage. I feel the comment is derogatory, and violates our no personal attacks policy. It also misrepresents me, as that was not the reason for the block. Regardless, if you feel you have some kind of feud with me, your user page is not the right venue to take that.. - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep picking parts of policy which suit you, rather than the whole policy (maybe you should be concentrating more on "accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence", or simply "[do not] comment on [...] the contributor") . I'm open to criticism, what I'm not open to (as I've stated before) is random, derogatory comments about me. Besides, smearing me on your user page isn't criticising me, it's simply insulting me (you'd also be wise to not use the blanket defence that it was criticism, some criticism is acceptable, some is not). Also, as mentioned before, it's incorrect, because that wasn't the reason for the block. I'm appalled that you seem to be unable to let this grudge you appear to have with me go, and don't see a problem with the content on your userpage. I've had disagreements with other users, that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable for me to go to my userpage and say "THIS person was incorrect! They acted very poorly". When I have a disagreement I know how to bring it up with the editor properly, and when there's been a community discussion about the issue, it's even less appropriate to then keep complaining about the issue (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Speaking of I didn't hear that, I don't see why I need to keep repeating these points to you, please simply remove the content, and we can both go our separate ways. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that this reflects on me poorly is clearly a personal comment, maybe try saying you disagree with the block, which is a comment on the action. The "I didn't hear that" is because this was discussed at ANI, where there was a consensus for the block, you brought it up at my user talk page, where there was a consensus that the block was good, and where you were told that your comments about me were inappropriate, and then you go and add a comment on your userpage continuing to refuse to admit that you are wrong and accusing everybody else of being wrong. Regardless, I didn't block TechnoFaye for her opinions, which I've made quite clear, and you again are refusing to get that point as well. As I just mentioned you do keep complaining about the issue. You "didn't plan on bringing it up", no you were simply happy to let things be... as long as you could have a rude comment about me on your user page. I'm quite happy to discuss an issue when a user disagrees with me, but we already discussed this, and I'm not happy for someone to leave personal comments about me on their user page (that is not discussing). I had hoped you'd have the maturity to drop this pointless and disruptive grudge you seem to have against me due to a misunderstanding on your part, I really didn't come here looking for an argument, and I'm not particularly willing to get into one. But if you insist on keeping that content on your userpage, then maybe we can reach the compromise that you provide the actual block rationale, or at least links to the discussions about the block. - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingpin13&oldid=383999071#TechnoFaye Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello Chowbok! I saw something you edited the other day, and I remembered you from the somewhat humorous Dawn Wells brouhaha. I went back and re-read some of those wonderful, endless discussions, and as I did so, I began wondering why you never once acknowledged me? —Prhartcom (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at the number of your contributions! You have edited many more articles edited than I have. And each one is "clean up using AWB". That's impressive. Thanks for your many edits. —Prhartcom (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown, Texas

I respect your right to add the advert tag, but I'm afraid I cannot see what part it is that you find to be "advertising"? This article is no different from most all city articles on Wikipedia. There is no intent to advertise, only to accurately portray the town. If you'd enlighten us as to which parts bother you as advertising, we'd be glad to re-edit them. As it is now we're perplexed. Appreciate your feedback. Austex • Talk 03:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Chowbok may not want me commenting here (Hi!) as we have a "uneasy" past, but his page is one of many on my watchlist (delete away if you're still mad at me Chowbok: I'll understand).
Austex, you don't happen to work for Don Martin Public Affairs Company, do you? Your page would seem to indicate that you do, or at least that you have a strong favorable "opinion" of it. One of WP's core policies is WP:NPOV, and a public affairs company might not be the best source for "unbiased" encyclopedic information, you know? Referring to yourself in the third person only makes it further seem that you possibly represent a company. Advertising tags should only be removed when the issue has been resolved according to consensus among editors: not like this[5]. WP:COI is also worth a glance. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am Don Martin. That's no secret. But I don't live or work in Georgetown although I used to work there years ago. And I absolutely DO NOT represent any company regarding this article. It is my personal passion. Being in Public Affairs does NOT disqualify me as an editor and I scrupuously follow WP:NPOV and WP:COI guidelines -- I am quite familiar with both. If you'll look at my edit history I have edited seevral pages - that have nothing to do with me or my business or clients. To set your mind at ease: I HAVE NO CLIENTS OF ANY KIND IN GEORGETOWN, TX.
If there is a reference or bias shown that I am unaware of in the article please let me know and I will correct it. There is NOTHING in Wikipedia rules and guideline anywhere that says public affairs professionals or even public relations progfessionals, or advertising professionals, or marketing professionals cannot write and edit articles. You insinuationhas no basis in fact. So back to the original question: what is it specifically about this article that makes it an advert? I cannot find it myself.
I won't remove your tag but I'd like to convene a group of editors if necessary to review the advert tag and see if we can all reach consensus. But the contructive thing would be for you to give some idea WHY you placed it there and let's work together to correct it and get it over with, cleanly and politely. I personally am open to any changes and in fact removed several areas last night in hopes of trying to guess your concern. So....what's the problem? Austex • Talk 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re your suspicion re third person: "us" and "we'd" refers to Georegetown folks I am working with like the City and County Public Information office (to find notable resiedents for example), and the City Librarian who I ask to check facts. Not some conspiracy re my firm. (Besides I am a one-man firm so I would not use third party for that). Again, I ask, what are the issus with this article? Austex • Talk 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't "bold text" comments for emphasis like that: it's gives the appearance of WP:SHOUTING, and is a less than collegiate way to discuss things here. Relaaaaaax: it's just a wiki! I didn't insinuate any sort of "conspiracy": I just noted that you work for a public relations firm, and an article you are involved in was tagged for sounding like an advertisement - just what do you think an independent observer would ascertain how those two facts could possibly be interrelated? I also never insinuated that you were "disqualified" from editing anything because of your profession, and I'm glad you are familiar with NPOV and COI. I didn't tag the article, but I'll look at it more closely now (I've been "a little busy" w/other WP activities recently ;>). There's no WP:DEADLINE here, and I just want you to know that you should not remove maintenance tags that other editors put on articles until the issue has been resolved: it's kinda against the rules, and there are even warning templates for it (see: WP:WARN for all the warning templates). Chowbok, the floor is yours... Doc talk 23:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - Almost forgot, you say you would "like to convene a group of editors if necessary to review the advert tag and see if we can all reach consensus." That is exactly how we're supposed to deal with things here: and I know you won't remove it, and I didn't mean to insinuate you would. Bring it up on the article talk page, and watchers from all walks will hopefully respond. It's a "Start" class article, and the goal is to bring it up to a Featured Article (or somewhere in between). Cheers :> Doc talk 00:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it appeared as shouting. I thought that was all caps. I just wanted to emphasize that I have yet to have received any kind of comment or direction on why this is listed as an advert. Thanks for all the constructive advice. (And that I had no client in this). I have to admit I got some of your advice and comments mixed up from those of Chowbock who inititated the advert tag. My apologies and thank you for your comments. Austex • Talk 01:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Austex, there is a possibility Chowbok may not ever acknowledge reasonable request. I have worked alongside him in the past and have asked him to acknowledge me and he has yet to do so (see section above). If he does not, the reason may be that you (and I) have not yet reached a requisite number of edits to Wikipedia, as he warns when you edit his talk page. Rather humorous. Doc, I think it's okay if he removes the tag for now. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number of edits, it's the ratio of edits in mainspace to edits elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with having a low edit count, I'm just tired of people who are more interested in politics than editing. (No reflection on anyone here, that's just my general attitude.)—Chowbok ☠ 18:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just haven't had time lately to write up my concerns about the Georgetown article, but it looks like the conversation is going fine without me.—Chowbok ☠ 19:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Austex, I just had a look myself. Until we hear back from Chowbok, perhaps you could consider removing the mention of those two corporations in that one sentence? That should help. Then I would go ahead and remove the tag. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fractions

Hi. Your recent edits appear to be putting in unicode characters for fractions. For example, replacing 1/2 with ½. Are you aware that Unicode fractions are "discouraged entirely" according to WP:MOS? See Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Fractions. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are still doing this. Please stop. The best method is to use the Template:frac. For example: {{frac|N|p|q}} gives N+p⁄q. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. The frac template just gives such terrible results, though. And I'm not convinced by the logic presented at the MOS--allegedly fraction characters don't display in some browsers, although nobody can give an example.—Chowbok ☠ 16:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot bring yourself to make those edits in accordance with WP:MOS then I suggest that it is better not to make those edits at all - especially not making wholesale edits using AWB. If you don't agree with the MOS then bring the matter up on a suitable talk page. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your great work on Ella Sings Gershwin :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion of Template:Refu-c2

A tag has been placed on Template:Refu-c2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detour (1945 film)

Greetings. Great job on your recent edits after the anon editor passed through like a cyclone. It was on my to do list to fix it up, but glad you got to it first. My best -- Luigibob (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant Logic

Hi Chowbok. I reworked the Radiant Logic entry. I noticed you marked it for an advertisement and wanted to see what you think of the newly revised edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyeppy (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I'll see what I can do to make it sound less promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyeppy (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cataloger

This spelling is used by the US Library of Congress, among others.Dankarl (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syria

Over 300 people are now dead in Syria. Still think your insults in the article were hilarious? Do you now understand why we have special rules for living people, particularly those in the public eye? 10 March until 26 March Flatterworld (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vernors article

You may wish to monitor the Vernors article more as someone is deleting factual info which I had to reinforce with additional citations regarding the former Vernor's shop in Flint MI which is now a Halo Burger restaurant. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MilHist + GUNS question regarding your edits to cartridge pages

Chowbok, there is an ongoing discussion here regarding your edits to firearm cartridge naming, specifically regarding the use of "×" vs. "x". Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -Deathsythe (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Dahlia.jpg

The reason we don't want to use a mugshot as a lead image in a biography is because, in this case, she isn't notable for being a criminal. She's notable for being violently murdered and mutilated. It's unnecessary to use an image which shows her in a negative light when we have the alternative of using a cropped image as the lead photo. This is an encyclopedia, not a sensational rag mag. Lara 12:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like you're making inappropriate moral judgements. Criminals "deserve" to have their full mugshots available, victims get to have them doctored to look nicer. Not very NPOV in my opinion. Anyway, I don't think having messy hair shows someone in a "negative light"—I'd be in trouble if so.
To summarize, your reply demonstrates that you are attempting to editorialize with your image cropping, and it is therefore inappropriate. Leaving the entire image is more in keeping with our general editorial philosophy.—Chowbok ☠ 19:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Nothing about our editorial policy suggests anything of the sort. Lara 19:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenpox

You're right--my mistake on Chickenpox, as Straight Dope does appear to be a reliable source. Sorry about that. Now, others may be arguing for removal on some other grounds, but it shouldn't be sourcing. Hopefully someone will explain on talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney

I just removed this box.

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (May 2011)

In the case of churches and many other such institution, information such as details of personel, and in-house organisations such as the choir can only be located on the organisations website, unless they are of unusual fame.

The history of most cathedrals is written by a historian within the cathedral staff, having good access to the archives. This is normal. The guide book, was, in this case, written by an entirely independent architectural historian who had no connection with the Sydney Diocese. Joan Kerr was one of Australia's most renowned art historians.

When it comes to using primary sources, you must realise that while sources like Kerr and Kinsela provide a valuable source of opinion and analysis, the primary sources in the Anglican Archives provide the dates of events, the original plans provide the specifications (and so on) with reliability. Primary sources are the ideal sources for basic facts. If you wnt to know how much the organ cost is 1873, you look at the receipt. Amandajm (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re someone else's problem, I'm sorry to trouble you with it then. Thanks for your reply! Delete, since it's not relevant. Amandajm (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CEA-708

I saw your edit of the CEA-708 page and you seem to know a lot about closed captioning streams for digital televisions. I am a student at UCSB, and I am looking for a way to export the CC code from my tv to my computer. I want to make the code searchable. If you you can help me in any way, please email me at evan_thomas@umail.ucsb.edu Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanthomas1 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AWB edit problem

Hello, in this edit you automatically removed the registered copyright symbol, but did so from an image name. I've fixed the image name this time, but please review your AWB edits in the future to ensure this doesn't happen again. Thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Anti-Spam Barnstar
Just a note of appreciation for your diligence in seeking out spam and nonsense. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi

As a Hebrew speaker (who's also a linguist), here are my comments:

1. The word had been pronounced (and spelled): Nabi' - in ancient Hebrew - i.e. more than two thousand years ago, but it became: Navi (in the way the word is pronounced and spelled) - in Standard Hebrew - at least one tounsand years ago.

2. The glottal stop (indicated in English by an apostrophe) at the end of the word, had been pronounced - in ancient Hebrew (see above), but this glottal stop is no longer pronounced - in Standard Hebrew (see above) at the end of words. Yet, the glottal stop is preserved in the way Hebrew spells our word (in question), just as English preserves the t in the way the word castle is spelled - yet not in the way this word is pronounced.

3. The a in Nabi' (i.e. in Navi in Standard Hebrew) is pronounced like the a in father, i.e. like the American o in not, etc.

4. The i in Nabi' (i.e. in Navi in Standard Hebrew) is pronounced like the i in machine, i.e. like the ee in seen, etc.

5. The stress is on the last syllable, i.e. it's pronounced (in Standard Hebrew) nahveeh (the h not being pronounced nor spelled in Hebrew), rather than: n o v v y (in an American accent). In Ancient Hebrew, it had been pronounced nahbeeh' (the h not being pronounced nor spelled in Hebrew), rather than: n o b b y (in an American accent).

6. As for the transcription: the best way - is to transcribe it: Nabi ' (for Ancient Hebrew), or Navi (for Standard Hebrew). For preserving the correct accent (for English speakers), one should write explicitly: nahbeeh' (for Ancient Hebrew), or nahveeh (for Standard Hebrew).

HOOTmag (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing advert template from VisualSonics' Wiki page

Hi Chowbok,

I noticed the advert mark on VisualSonics' Wiki page few weeks back and made changes in order to make it neutral and result in removal of the advert template. I am not sure how to remove the advert template on Wiki page. If the changes satisfy Wiki requirements, would appreciate your help in getting the advert template removed from the Wiki page.

Thanks, SKSK.VSI (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PGN

In Portable Game Notation, you replaced 1/2 by {{frac|1|2}. PGN will not accept that - it accepts 1/2. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenna.png

Hi - thanks for your input at the File talk:Lenna.png#Size_of_non-free_image page. You said that the test image was copyrighted. I was not aware of this - can you give me some sort of info to track this down, the name of the copyright holder, or whatever. Well, I expect that if it is copyrighted, it would be copyrighted by Playboy. Do you know of any kind of article, or anything that indicates that the test image as well as the foldout are both copyrighted? This would be an important point in the discussion :( Thanks PAR (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper

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

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Office of Criminal Investigations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Advert template from Openet page

Hi, I noticed you have put an advert template on the Openet page. I strive to keep information I add neutral and leave up any information that that is added which could be considered negative. Can you please advice me on what I need to do to get this template removed? Thanks Stephen 0001 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also add I would appreciate any feedback form others as to why this template may have been added to the Openet page? Thanks Stephen 0001 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any feedback on this at all? Stephen 0001 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Carol Lay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kindle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passed away

I think the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Passed away and another discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:EUPHEMISM. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

WIKIPEDIA IS KITTENS!

Pppowercurve (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antimarxist image changes

I hope you don't mind my correcting your antimarxism userbox to point to where the crossed-out Marx now resides. Frotz (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Chowbok. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Heads-up

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chowbok&oldid=497981572"