This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chzz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi,
You recently declined my article page for Center for the Army Profession and Ethic stating,
“This submission has been declined. The reviewer left the following comment:
What does that mean exactly? The only sources I am using are a government website because that is where I am obtaining the information. Please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USACAPE (talk • contribs) 21:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You may have not noticed, I left a further comment directly underneath that decline, which says;
Please note the need for third-party sources, which are independent of the subject - such as newspapers, books, etc. See WP:VRS.
Not sure if you watch my page and/or if it's been buried in the sea of titles in your watchlist, so I'm adding this just in case Airplaneman ✈21:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that you are a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionist or the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. I don't mean to be picky, but shouldn't it be the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATADMTD? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin! (I'm willing to ignore the "but" since it isn't capitalized)Buster Seven Talk14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
...
Particularly
Bad
Articles, but
That
Doesn't
Mean
They Are
Deletionist
= ...PBATDMTD
I'm not sure where you are getting that "A" from? Do you mean, that it should be ...PBATDMTAD, maybe? because of the "They Are Deletionist"? That actually does seem sort-of wrong; but on the meta page itself, the A of that "Are" is in square brackets, which I suppose means it is somehow excluded from the acronym - ie, it says, ...Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They [A]re Deletionist - so maybe it is acceptable after all?
Please note that the general secretary of the association is "Everyone", ie you, so feel free to change anything you aren't happy with.
A quick, brief, serious note: despite the name being a bit of fun, it isn't entirely frivolous; it highlights that it is not as black-and-white as "exclusionist" / "inclusionist"
with the way you keep trying to steer the RfC about pending changes in constructive directions, retaining the ability to state your own views clearly, but nudging the process along with exemplary neutrality. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
That is very kind of you to say, and very much appreciated. Often, when I am in the middle of the road, I am in danger of being hit by traffic coming in both directions :-) If you are following the RfC, you will no doubt see what I mean - however, I have faith in the basic concept of consensus. I do try to nudge it along, in a neutral manner. Sometimes I get it right, and more often I get it wrong. I hope I learn, and improve. Chzz ► 21:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Help Save the WikiWolfcub (Please!)
It's been Mfd"d, with the comment "This WikiFauna is redundant to the WikiPuppy. Even its userboxes are copied from the WikiPuppy's. If the creator wants, maybe we should userfy it for him since he seems to identify himself as a WikiWolfCub."
A WikiPuppy does not go and do the amount (or type) of stuff that I do - we are not the same thing! I shifted the Dartmoor Pony page from Start to C-class virtually single-handed - do WikiPuppies do that?
I'm miffed by the comment "Even its userboxes are copied from the WikiPuppy's." - Jeeze - how many ways can you design a userbox, after all, lol!
Yeah...and there is no rush; we've been in this crap for months. A few weeks makes no odds. Let's keep at it; we will get there. Wherever "there" may be.
I think we're approaching the stage where we can either start proposing stuff, or at least start proposing that we start proposing stuff. If that makes sense.
I think...possibly a proposal - note, not a damn poll - along the lines of, "Do you agree we should remove it from existing articles, ASAP, and then start proposing ideas for new trials" - might work. I'd suggest doing that in the form of a clear statement asking for 'support' and 'oppose' with brief statements, and begging everyone to keep any discussion beyond one sentence to another section. We also need to consider the logistics. It's on <1000 articles...we could shout on AN for 'please remove', and...IDK - give that a week? Talkpage all the prot'ing admins? something like that could work. And this stuff is what I'm talking about in "proposing a proposal" - 'coz we could have a bit of a chat about all these things, in the RfC, before we actually do a 'proposal' thingy with support/oppose and brief reasons. And then, we might just get consensus for that.
And then...maybe the fetchy/Beeblebrox idea of some 'committee' to draw up ideas for a further trial; we could chose people, and they could go off and come up with a clear proposal for a further trial - and a fresh RfC could get similar consensus for their suggestions - ie, number of articles, who chooses them, how long for, what happens at end, how do we evaluate what happens, etc. - each point of which may need discussion. But hey, no rush. Those are my thoughts; what are yours? Chzz ► 00:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If you remove it imo the discussion will die, this is my main objection to turning the tool off. I will go and start requesting semi protection if you turn pending off. If you support wide semi protection of lesser watched BLP articles I will switch it off myself - apart from I can't support it because of the open to edit foundation position. The only vote I support is for large expansion of the tool to all low watched low notable articles about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a good, and objective, practical concern. I heard it, and took it on-board. Let's see how the RfC progresses. Chzz ► 03:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
IRC chat
Hello, there is an upcoming, very informal discussion on IRC on the freenode channel ##chzzalphaconnect (quick webchat link) on the 6th March 2011 at 17:00 UTC concerning ways to improve help over IRC, and other matters relating to Wiki?edia channels in general, but mostly about #wikipedia-en-help.
This is just a friendly, informal chat. Nothing official, no fixed agenda. There is nothing 'secretive' about it - anyone is quite welcome. Some of you had a chat there, the other day. We wanted to invite them to carry on discussions, at a prearranged time - and thought it courteous to ask group contacts and channel founders too. Or if you signed up manually.
If you aren't at all interested, feel free to remove yourself from the names we've spammed this to, which is in User:123Hedgehog456/IRC informal chat users. If you didn't sign up, well, people have been adding loads of names to the list, so someone might have accidentally added your name.
Because that page is an archive of previous discussions, I don't notice new messages there; you need to post new messages here, on my talk page - so I see them. I'll copy the message here, below, and then answer it as soon as possible.... Chzz ► 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem; best of luck with it. I didn't have the time to check the references in detail - so I'm not sure if it'll satisfy the notability requirements or not; but either myself, or another reviewer, should get to it soon. Cheers, Chzz ► 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz
I've been declined again and am hoping you can help me "de-code" why?
notability? Roberts is mentioned in about 10 other places already on WIKI but there is not entrance on him. Isn't that a contradiction?
Hi. I'm sorry about that, but I must admit I was expecting it. I think the reviewer has explained quite clearly at the top of the page - but, I will try to phrase it differently, to claify:
Mentions in other Wikipedia articles are irrelevent to the issue. Wikipedia articles mention many things which do not have their own article. That isn't what the Wikipedia definition of "notabillity" is about.
We need multiple, independent, reliable sources - with "substantial coverage". For example: if there were 3 or 4 articles specifically about that person, in some good newspapers - that would suffice.
I have not personally checked all the references in detail, but I'm sure the person who reviewed it did - and they concluded that there was not enough coverage in reliable sources.
I am sorry; I am very happy to help in any way I can, but one thing I am unable to do is, to "make" something meet the notability requirement; it either does, or it doesn't. The reviewer was CharlieEchoTango (talk·contribs) and I'm sure you could ask him, if you want, on his talk page - if you disagree. His conclusion was, "The sources provided are generally unreliable per the sources guidelines and do not show significant coverage" - and I think that is probably quite valid. He also suggested looking at two pages - WP:42 and WP:BIO - which explain this in more detail. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not dodgy at all...my mouse acts up sometimes and all of the sudden I see a message that my rollback succeded. I wasn't even looking at that diff. Just a mistake, all good...RxS (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Helpme about the login problem and image transfer
Hi. Please accept my sincere apologies for not replying to your helpful notes on my talk page. I spend 99% of my time proofreading on Wikisource and forgotten to return. Everything is OK. It seems that I could log in normally, but not through secure login, but my global logins are working fine. Also, the image was transferred to the commons without any problem. - Is there a way to filter Wikipedia images that are in the public domain? I am interested in helping out with the transfer of public domain images from individual wikis to the commons. Many thanks for your kind help.--Ineuw talk page on English Wikisource11:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Logins - if it's still a problem, ask on WP:VPT. They're the experts. (sorry to 'pass the buck')
Hi again. I needed to copy some PD images to the Commons for my Wikisource PSM project, but please consider granting me permission to rename images before moving them (Public domain only). I have such permission on both Wikisource and the Commons, where I uploaded around 5,000 images from the 19th century publication Popular Science Monthly, as well as global login to make corrections on different language wikis.
An example of an image naming conflict occurred here with an image named File:Hewitt.jpg. This name already existed on the Commons and used on the it.Wikipedia for Angela Hewitt. I made the necessary changes on the respective links, but I could save a couple of steps (and time) by first preparing it here before copying. Thanks for your consideration.Ineuw talk page on English Wikisource06:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Taj Pharmaceuticals Limited logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm considering it. I'm just genuinely scared of the process. I'm worried that people will find some bits or pieces that I've done wrong, and will pull me apart. I was so put-off, the last time, that I stopped using Wikipedia altogether for many months. Chzz ► 13:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd support you, even though it seems like we cross swords every time we see each other :-P . (My criteria state that I do not care about how much I agree with you, as supporting/opposing based on level of agreement would be ridiculously petty.) Perhaps requesting that you be checkusered before your RFA would allay people's fears that you might still be sockpuppeting. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you'd make a brilliant admin, Chzz - your understanding of WP these days seems to be, well, virtually encyclopedic! Plus, your clarity, personality and sense of humour would be so welcome in an admin! But I sympathise completely with your reservations, FWIW... Hope you're ok and settled now. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
≈
In reverse order:
Pedro, hell yeah; please do.
Nortonius, yes, I have really really sorted out my life. I have a groovy new flat, with a huge TV, and wall-to-wall HD lobsters. It is all wonderful.
Reaper Eternal, that's really very good of you to say so. We have indeed crossed swords, but we haven't poked them around; our debates have been civil. And I suspect, really, we agree on almost everything. The tiny bits we don't are, of course, much more interesting to discuss than just nodding at each other! I think you're a great admin. That won't stop me complaining if you do something stupid - you're human, which is best, really. So am I, and I love it when folks remind me of my unfortunate tendency to occasionally (too often) make mistakes. We live and learn, and that's what it is all about. Now let's go edit someth. ---no, seriously. I'm now gonna hit 'random' and make something just a little bit better, and I hope you will too. Chzz ► 01:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly! Though, I'm not convinced by the "you arse" bit - I've always thought it'd be spelt "post hocter proc", as a simple, meaningless parody of "post hoc, propter hoc", "after the event, etc." - but I could be wrong! Anyway, sublime, IMHO! Nortonius (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat09:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
. . . about this. It's happened to me before, but I'm not sure why—my comment gets inserted (without an edit conflict) above a comment that was saved while I was dithering over the wording of mine in an open edit window. Deor (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries at all; as long as Jane-new-user gets help, who cares? Thanks for letting me know though - very decent of you. I stuck an {{ec}} between our comments, so it might be clearer to the OP. Cheers, Chzz ► 02:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of it was all quoted from what I'd just written on Off2riorob's talk here (which I've just tried to clarify with a fancy-pants box) Chzz ► 03:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh. =) Also, he happens to have deleted your post in much the same fashion as he has already deleted mine before you. CycloneGU (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi again :)
Hi Chzz. I think you should leave a note on Neelix' talk page (if you've not left one already) as the RfA will close in five or so hours and you might not get a reply otherwise. <3 and wishes Wifione ....... Leave a message07:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks for telling me; I hadn't noticed the timing. I looked at it in detail just the other day, and came back to it and...gosh, how time flies! Thanks for mentioning it. I'll ponder what to do. Chzz ► 07:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hm - not 5 hours - more like 11? I think I'll let it sit there for a bit; see what happens. Ending (UTC) 18:57, 3 March 2011, Time left 0 days, 11 hours Chzz ► 07:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome to as many as you can get done! I have a helper script to move the articles across, so if you use {{Category redirect}} I can pick that task up fairly easily - or there is a bot that does them in the end, if I miss some. {{Category redirect}} also helps people in the future if they make assumptions about category names.
I have done the first one on the list just as an example.
OK, cool; I'll have a look, when I have a bit of free time. It's a nice little background-task, sort of thing. Cheers. Chzz ► 18:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
どういたしまして。 ご質問があれば いつでもどうぞ translation:You're welcome; any time (...At least, that's what I hope I am saying! I speak only a little Japanese) Chzz ► 22:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Chzz, Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 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! Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Well, despite my username (which is not my real name) I am not a Japanese. Its only a name I have chosen for my activities on the web. I am actually from Germany. Ich spreche Deutsch als Muttersprache (engl. I am a native German speaker). But thanks for the translation anyway. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that! Nice nickname :-) Heh. The surname especially, because it is super-easy Kanji...山口 :-) I don't know if you know? The symbols; a mountain and a mouth, so, quite easy. Anyway. The translation...I always put that, if I post in non-English. It avoids potential confusion for others who might read the page. And for some bizarre reason, people seem to read this page. Bitte! my German is worse than my Japanese though! Chzz ► 01:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
help with merging
Hi, Chzz
I have preposed a merger between Galaxy (British television) and Pick TV
on the Galaxy talkpage, but I don't know what to do next.
my friend that introduced me to wikipedia suggested I ask you what to do next.
I suggest you wait for a week, and see if others comment; I hope they will.
If it is clear that everyone supports the merge, then you could go ahead and perform it - you do need to state where you've copied from / to, but it is not too complicated. See WP:FMERGE.
Note to self; I'll archive this, but I'll watch the talk page. So far though, it looks like the merge will be rejected. Chzz ► 01:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Another question about talk page archiving
Hi, now that I have set up archiving of my talk page through a bot I have another question. What do I have to do in order to have wikilinks to all my talk archives on my talk page? Is there a template for that or do I have to do something else for that? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The references look fine, yes. I moved "External links" down to the end; that has to come last. Cheers! Chzz ► 07:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I am still working on finding more references (if I can get my Dionis Macnair book back from my offspring, that will help!); hopefully I can bring this article up to a decent standard ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw that you fixed one bit yourself - that you need to split "last" and "first" names.
Also - apparently - if using "Cite book" and similar, you need to put "|ref = harv" - but with just "Citation" templates, that is automatic. That, plus there were a couple of typos, "pp. 123-456" instead of "pp=123-456", and some other little bits.
OK, I changed the cite book bits to citation bits (and fixed another en-dash-wossname). And they still appear as links. So what's going wrong? They should just be text, shouldn't they? What's the point in them being a link? [sulks] ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah! Because...when you click them, it takes you to the corresponding bibliographic entry, further down the page. That's the idea of Harvard-style references. The number e.g. [1] in the text links to the short-form ref, e.g. "Bob, 1984" and then clicking that links to the full details of that book.
So they're blue because they link to something. Not external links, but in this case actually just links to another bit of the same page.
Maybe I am hallucinating, then! (Wouldn't surprise me - not enough sleep!) My brain has gone off walkabout somewhere (some distant solar system, well past The End of Civilisation As We Know It, (Jim) ...... ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah; I think what it probably is, is... because the bilbio. entry happens to fit on the same screen-full, you don't notice that when you click on the link it hops down there. But it should, probably, highlight the line.
It makes much more sense on a page with a few hundred references - e.g. have a look at Lat (which will be "Today's Featured Article" tomorrow...if that makes any sense) and click some of the links there. Because there's lots, you should more clearly see what happens when you click on the short-form link - ie, it should move to the book details? Chzz ► 18:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your message of encouragement. I was feeling a bit jumped on as you said, but as a new Wikipedian it's really up to me to fit in with the established protocols, rather than the other way round. However, I'm more than a little disappointed to have discovered that the purpose of Wikipedia is not for recording knowledge and information. It seems ideally suited as such, and that is what I (clearly mistakenly) believed its purpose was. After all, once lost knowledge and information are irrecoverable.
I have since been working on a new article (Alderley House), and I hope to submit it once I have some suitable photos to include.
Does Robert Lawrence's attendance at Rose Hill School constitute contentious material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrews (talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 February 2011
Potentially, yes.
Let's forget the specific case, and say "Mr. Example attended Sample School", as an unreferenced addition to an article.
What if, upon inspection, we find that "Sample School" is a girls' school, and there have been blogs speculating about Mr. Example's sexuality? Or it transpires that Mr. Example is an outspoken fundamentalist Muslim, and Sample School is a Christian one.
The specific examples may well not apply to this case, but...we have over 100,000 biographies of living people, and many more articles with "BLP content". We do our best to ensure that deliberate factual errors are not introduced, but that task quickly becomes impossible if unreferenced additions are permitted.
On several occasions, subtle forms of vandalism such as those in my examples have caused considerable media criticism of Wikipedia.
Also, WP:V does not only refer to contentious info; it talks of "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" requiring a reference.
In that specific case you give, it might be debated that it'd be best tagged with [citation needed] pending addition of a reference. However, the V policy quotes from Jimbo Wales;
“
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
”
I agree with Mr. Wales on that point. I hope you understand that we go to great lengths to protect individuals. You probably consider that my attitude is overtly bureaucratic, but that's fine; I'd rather have that, than have living people contacting WMF in distress because of inaccurate facts in articles. Best, Chzz ► 18:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In that case you and Mr Wales are both guilty of misinterpretting the guidelines. The BLP guidelines explicitly state that contentious material about a living person that is unsourced should be removed immediately. The specific information that I added, while unsourced, was NOT contentious and therefore should not have been removed.
It is a little hypocritical to conveniently ignore those parts of the guidelines that do not fit with your own personal agenda, no? Alexandrews (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
That seems to be a fallacial argument. Another policy says that "copyright violations must be removed" - but it is not logical to conclude that anything that is not a copyright violation should be left. Chzz ► 21:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Errr... no, it is in fact the other way round: your argument (and that of others) that any material about a living person that is unsourced MUST or SHOULD be removed is fallacious: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." To therefore claim that the guidelines state that non-contentious unsourced material about a living person SHOULD be removed is simply untrue. The bottom line is that you cannot use the guidelines to justify the action as right (as Geoff B tried to do) because the guidelines are (at best) ambiguous in this respect.Alexandrews (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Alexandrews, I'm with Chzz on this point; it is very difficult for people to tell if unsourced biographical claims are contentious or not, and so we should generally err on the side of caution. At the same time, I wanted to offer an apology to you for one thing that Geoff B said to you: "If you're incapable of understanding the policies of Wikipedia, you shouldn't be editing it." That was really rude of him, and I regret that it happened. Your actions appear to be completely in good faith and your work excellent. This is a legitimate point of inquiry, as to whether we can establish the facts of Mr. Lawrence's schooling to a sufficient degree of reliability to include in Wikipedia, given the apparent lack of easily accessed sources. There was no reason to call into question your capability of understanding.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe tthat the comma in the title, and the lack of the "Dr." are correct, as according to the Manual of Style. When I changed it, I did check with other people - and they compared with other articles (featured articles). I think it is correct as it is. If we say "Dr. Haynes, [...] is a rural family physician and surgeon", that is repetition. He's referred to in the remainder as Dr. Haynes. And the comma before Jr. is the Wikipedia agreed style convention.
Thank you for your contributions to our work. We are new to the wikipedia platform, but we hope to be able to cope with the responsibility.
Perhaps we made a few mistakes , but we are very excited about the created article, and therefore we try to make small steps at a time.
Just for being special; whenever I have a techie-type question, I never have to go anywhere else for an answer. You're patient, you're a wonderful teacher, and I really value your help and assistance in so many things :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree this has been going on long enough - only reason I posted at the BC page was because I asked Courcelles and he suggested that might be a possible route to take.
I've added a suggestion to the test page. I decided it's better directly on that page so as not to cloud up the talk page or have this accidentally archived. If you later wish to remove it, you may do so, but it summarizes some of my ideas. CycloneGU (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries; it's a wiki; pages are for editing. Thanks. -I have not read it properly yet, but I will. Speak soon. Chzz ► 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes it's my first full day of being "twinkle's" with usernames. I am here to ask for some advice from my teacher and mentor (you).
What/How do you feel about IP addresses being able to edit articles?
(My answer: Am I able to give them a suggestion to create an account or not to forget to log in if they do have an account?)
How do I find newly registered users, "usernames"? What's the location?
That's all the questions I can think of at the moment. I'll be back and add more here when I think of more or have a question about "Twinkle". Adamdaley (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The stance is, "You don't have to create an account, but there benefits in doing so." The principle that "anyone can edit" - without needing to create an account - is very important to Wikipedia. If users had to create an account, many might not bother. It'd been suggested that we change it lots of times. So - whilst there are lots of advantages for logging in, and it is fine to suggest it, you need to make it clear that it is not essential. There are specific "welcome" templates for saying that, to anonymous editors - such as Template:Welcome-anon.
it was awesome how you made that 'do not press' button! i got really scared! i thought it would give my computer a virus or something! good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny016 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You recently added a [citation needed] to the Driberg article. This is a misuse of the citation tag; while the "Underconstruction" banner in place, some statements may temporarily lack citation - that is the nature of article development. There are thousands and thousands of WP articles that genuinely lack citations. May I respectfully suggest that you give these your attention, rather than selecting an article that is very obviously in the latter stages of a comprehensive development? If you have any constructive suggestions relating to the Driberg article, the talk page is at your disposal. Meanwhile the tag as been removed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've got my own stuff to move the albums, too. I've been moving them. Glad to help; it does take time because it really does need human checking on each case - but as I said...it's a nice little 'background' job; it makes a refreshing change from lengthy debates (e.g. the PC RfC, and several more I'm embroiled in), and GAR, and...stuff. So...sure; I'll just carry on then, when I feel like doing some - that's great. And sure, if/when I get to the end, running it again might be a good idea. And those 'sister' page, yep. Just do let me know when you see my inevitable mistakes. Cheers. Chzz ► 00:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
First, I think you'd need to try and establish - did they copy it from Wikipedia? Not easy to tell - but it certainly happens all the time.
But anyway...there is a really good guide on how to deal with this sort of thing - Wikipedia:Cv101.
Please have a bit of a look at that. If you need help with it though, of course I will try. Let me know. Cheers, Chzz ► 15:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The WP article seems to have grown slowly and incrementally over time - so on balance I'd tend to think that we had it first! I can't see any sudden jumps in data, having had a quick scan through, so maybe they did copy it from here, after all (heaves sigh of relief). ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Phew, that's good news. This is one of the many reasons why sorting out copyvio is so tricky - when an article has been around for years, of course there are bits of it copied onto other websites. They should give attribution to Wikipedia of course...but they rarely do. And it is often impossible to tell "which came first".
Many people don't get this, and are taken aback when we blank an entire article for a seemingly innocuous bit of copy-paste. Anyway - I'm glad, in this case, it seems OK. Chzz ► 01:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
Category:Toshiko Akiyoshi – Lew Tabackin Big Band albums change errors
Hi. It appears you recently changed one category of several Toshiko Akiyoshi Jazz Orchestra album articles (using a script or "bot"?). I notice a couple of problems with these changes - one technical, one subjective:
1) There appears to be a typo (script error? / copy-paste error?) in the naming of the (new) category. You've created the new category:
Category:Category:Toshiko Akiyoshi – Lew Tabackin Big Band albums (note the doubled "Category:Category:...")
instead of (what I presume you intended) simply putting these albums in the existing category:
Category:Toshiko Akiyoshi – Lew Tabackin Big Band albums
2) I don't have terribly strong views on this next issue but, I'm not necessarily convinced this category change is needed. The albums in question are all albums released by the New York City-based Toshiko Akiyoshi Jazz Orchestra - not by the Los Angeles-based Toshiko Akiyoshi – Lew Tabackin Big Band. The two bands have the two leaders in common (Toshiko Akiyoshi and Lew Tabackin) but otherwise are not the same group. Previously, both of these categories were sub-categories to "Category:Toshiko Akiyoshi albums" - which seemed reasonable / appropriate (to me anyway). Of course I suppose I can see why one might make an argument for bundling all albums-from-Big-Bands-led-by-Toshiko-Akiyoshi into a single category (like putting all albums from the various Woody Herman "Herds" into a single category - even though different "Herds" from different eras were relatively distinct groups). But then the common category should probably not simply use the name of the Los Angeles-based group (that disbanded in 1982). I thought the previous arrangement of having distinct categories for each of these two Akiyoshi orchestras' albums - and then placing both of these album categories as sub-categories to "Toshiko Akiyoshi albums" made better sense.
In any case, The first issue (the "typo" / "script error) needs resolving. The second issue is much more subjective and can/should be discussed further. Simply reverting these changes would resolve the first problem and then the second topic could be discussed further??? Just my "two cents" worth. Best regards, Pugetbill (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Therefore, things are hopefully back as they were previously.
Thank you for bringing the error to my attention, and again, apologies.
Now to explain!
Clearly, the typo was just a mistake, on my part. I was using something called AutoWikiBrowser to help with the "search and replace" part of the task, and I'd accidentally put in the duplicated "Category:Category" in the replacement. However, use of tools is no excuse, and I still take full responsibility - mea culpa, apologies for any inconvenience that it caused.
I hope the reversal is satisfactory, and I will endeavour to take more care in any further similar work. Many thanks, Chzz ► 01:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. No problem! I presumed the explanation was something like what you described here. Thanks for the reverts. I wasn't aware of the Rich Farmbrough list of suggested cat name changes - and I can see where this suggestion came from since the one "...Jazz Orchestra" article does redirect to the "...Big Band" article. But I would still vote to keep the album categories distinct for now (for the reasons I gave above.) Thanks again for your good work and your speedy response. Pugetbill (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I am perfectly happy to accept keeping it as it was. In trying to process that long list - most of which I think is a 'good idea' - I have to use my best judgement. I am sadly not cognizant of the works of Akiyoshi-san (although actually, now it has come up, I will investigate; she sounds interesting)
So I'm more than happy to accept the opinion of someone who clearly knows much more about the article!
One more thing...if you ever have a moment to spare, and could either check over other edits on that list (the ones I have done), or simply put {{notdone}} (which just makes a pretty Not done) and a reason on some that should not be done, that would be wonderfully helpful.
Hi again - and thanks again. I looked over the User:Rich Farmbrough/temp19/redir list and I see the difficulty in processing these recommendations... Many of the change recommendations are fairly straightforward and obvious (and helpful / useful). But there are others that (like the Toshiko Akiyoshi Jazz Orchestra example?) seem less clear / less obvious and would probably benefit from the input of a "subject matter expert" on the band or person involved. Unfortunately, I don't think I have much to contribute here outside of my one very narrow area of semi-expertise (Toshiko Akiyoshi's discography). I'm afraid my knowledge / experience of other performers is fairly narrow. As far as I can tell, your changes so far look very reasonable and you could / should keep going - at least with the unambiguous / obvious recommendations. You can always "pass over" the more ambiguous / "trickier" recommendations for now and then get back to them if / when you have time to make clarifications or dig into the underlying issues (or you could make all changes and then wait for "band/group/performer subject-experts" to chime in).
Thanks for your consideration - that is just what I will do, then. I will boldly change the more obvious cases, and I will skip anything debatable. If I have time, I shall post for input on those on the talks of the article and project groups. Thanks again, Chzz ► 05:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Your "Test"
LMAO, I guess that idea is kinda flushed for now? Saw updates on my watchlist and I'm greeted by a userlist or something. =D CycloneGU (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really, no. That page was a very rough first thought about a possible way forward. I'm quite happy, that lots of people are talking about it; that's fine. However long it takes - it's a big big change. As I've said on that page, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing (from m:Polling is evil). Chzz ► 15:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem; we all have bad days :-) Thanks for replying. Next time you feel that way, try to take time out before hitting save. I frequently get frustrated; I'm English, so I personally (and very often!) have a nice cup of tea and a sit down - which I find helps. Or, I go and edit something completely different for a bit - such as fixing a few typos in WP:CLEANUP. There's a really good essay all about this: Wikipedia:No angry mastodons.
Anyway, as I said - it was just a gentle nudge; much worse stuff is happening on Wikipedia, 24/7. Feel free to remove the 'warning' message from your talk page, if you want. It looks like you're doing great work on the cancer articles, so I'd hate you to get frustrated with Wikipedia. And if you ever do have any troubles - a dispute, or whatever - feel free to ask me on this page. Cheers, Chzz ► 15:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Joseph Jett
Thanks, Chzz. So far I've cut the article almost in half, taking out the biographical timeline of his court cases, and removing peacock and NNPOV words. Appreciate the second eyes. Enjoy your Wikibreak. Get outta here! Regards, --Manway (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
File mover.
Done, looks like you've been at this a while. As it's a new feature here on En.wiki, please keep an eye out for oddities and fix/let folks know if you come across 'em. Cheers! --joe deckertalk to me23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus) was completed successfully. Happy editing!
Thanks. I'm glad you showed me that; it contains some quite interesting questions (even if they are not "good" questions at RfA - still interesting). Chzz ► 19:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Chzz: Wasn't responding - thought you were still wikibreaking :)
Appreciate everything. Yeah, seems under control. Looks like we might have a couple more socks trying to break back in, but other than that, we're probably OK.
And thanks for the barnstar. A real pleasure making your acquaintance as well. All best.
Thanks for fixing the title on the giant otter picture I uploaded. Now I know not to use quotation marks in titles.
Rio Cicica (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Shared IP
Hi
if you share a IP Address with another user (because of editing on the same computer)
is there a prosess i have to go through to let other wikipedia-ns know this?
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.
Re. shared IP address - you do not have to tell people, but if you want to avoid potential problems (ie accusations of sock-puppetry), you can put a message on your user page (User:Oldham125) telling people.
If you don't mind telling everyone the other account, you could use the template {{User shared IP address|Example}} (where 'Example' is the other persons user name), which makes a box like this;
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HP iPAQ rx1950 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Paul 1953 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Belated response to your offer for help
Hello,
I just posted one minor change and a longer request for help on the IEEE Computer Society page. You sent me some information when I first started this project last year, and I wondered if you could take a look at the IEEE CS page and its Talk page (and maybe even my talk page) and advise me on what I could do to help remove the flags from the CS page. You were very encouraging and helpful before, and I appreciate any guidance you can offer now.
Thanks,
Cecilialw 22:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Cecilialw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilialw (talk • contribs)
Hello again, Ceciliaw - welcome back. Sure, I'll be happy to try and help.
First things first - could you please try to fix your signature? Ie, when you 'signed' with ~~~~ above, it did not work properly.
If you go into your preferences, and scroll down to the "Signature" part, and please a) remove anything that may be in the box to the right of Signature: (ie, leave the box blank), and b) make sure the option underneath that, which says "Treat the above as wiki markup", is not checked. And then 'save'.
Hopefully that'll fix it, so that when you "sign" it will link to your username and talk page. You could test it, if you like, with a quick reply here.
Regarding the article and the tags - I will read it as soon as possible, and make some suggestions - I hope, within a day or so. Cheers, Chzz ► 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've had a look over the article. The main point is, that Wikipedia is all about references - to independentreliable sources. All the facts should be referenced, and most of the article should use 3rd party references - such as newspaper articles, or books, or whatever. Things that are not connected with the society itself.
Some specifics;
Today the CS is the largest of 38 technical societies organized under the IEEE Technical Activities Board.
This is a non-neutral claim - so, either you a) find an independent reliable source (e.g. newspaper article?) to prove it, or b) remove it.
The CS maintains its headquarters in Washington D.C. and additional offices in California and Japan.
This is fairly basic information, so it it one case where a 'primary source' - such as the institute website - could be used. So if there is a page on IEEE which states that these are the locations, add that at the end of that sentence, as a reference.
CS members elect professional volunteer officers and a 21-member Board of Governors to set strategies and policies.
This is probably not worth including. It is 'inside information'. Unless the actual formation details have been discussed in e.g. New York Times, it is probably best to skip it. Remember, as an Encyclopaedia, we only publish information that is already documented elsewhere.
Representatives from the CS Executive Committee and Board of Governors sit on the corresponding IEEE governing bodies.
That sounds OK, if a reference can be provided. If the website of CS Exec says it, that'd be fine as a reference.
Notable leaders of the IEEE Computer Society (and its predecessor IRE and AIEE committees) include Charles Concordia, W.H. MacWilliams, Morton Astrahan, Edward McCluskey, and Albert Hoagland.
Be very careful with naming people - we have to take extra precautions here. Unless these people are well-known 'public figures', it is probably best to leave them out. The ones with Wikipedia articles (linked) are probably fine. Please see WP:NPF and WP:BLPNAME. (And of course, it needs a reference)
For the rest, "Main activities" contains a lot of information which I think is not suitable for inclusion - see WP:NOT. Again, it is unreferenced, and I doubt references outside of IEEE itself (or people publishing what they've said) could be found. I think that section needs major trimming.
Almost anything you can add, from other sources, would help. Try searching Google News archives, ie this - and add information that comes from reliable sources.
I hope that helps.
But the very best thing you could do is, edit some other articles. You don't want to be labelled as a single-purpose account, and by editing other things you'd learn more about Wikipedia, and probably get to know other Wikipedians who might be able to help you in return. So maybe try Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, and look at Category:Computing articles needing attention or something. Even just WP:CLEANUP - anything would help.
Chzz, This is a test to see if my signature now works properly and if I've entered this response to your instruction in the right place (at the end of your reply to my question). If all this is OK, then I'll start work on your suggestions, including signing up for general cleanup work. Thanks again for your help.
Wrote: "Uzma Gamal, I am going to stop watching this discussion - because, I think we've established that the pages shouldn't be deleted. Thanks for alerting me to the discussion, and please do alert me again if there is any similar thing. Cheers," Chzz ► 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ancient Chinese Coins
So I put lots of unneccesary citations on the article like you said, which made it look stupid, and then someone said it was infringing copyright and wanted to delete it. Is Wikipedia a division of the Department for Making Simple Things Difficult which rules so much of modern life?
Hi. I sympathize, but I would argue about the citations being "unnecessary" - it is quite core to Wikipedia, and I truly hope that the article can be developed; as other folks add more information from other sources, the citations will be invaluable.
Regarding copyright - well, I am sure, as an author, you appreciate the need to protect copyright holders' rights. I'm glad you managed to sort that part out, and I'm very grateful for your contributions to the encyclopaedia.
Just...please be very very careful in citing your own work. A scholar, reading the article, will want to know where the info comes from; if they see it is from your book - that's great; but then...where did you get it from.
Thanks for that. There's probably lots of these things that I've not come across yet - simply because I've not seen a real need. Peridon (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I heard a quotation recently, which seems pertinent;
“
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven
Sorry my comment at WT:RFA wasn't intended at all to be directed towards anything you said - sorry for any confusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Not at all; that's a non-issue. No apology necessary. I understood what you meant, I think - and the only reason I added clarification was, so others reading it could see what I'd meant. Thanks though! But you'd have to try a lot harder than that if you wanted to insult me :-) Cheers, Chzz ► 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No; not my sig. I am not quite sure what the problem you were having was; maybe because <small> only applies over a single span, not a paragraph? Anyway, I'm not sure what you were trying with all those edits, but think this sorted it out; and I think the discussion is over/irrelevant there, anyway.
There is really no need for all those edits; try using 'preview'.
Also, when you write <small> on a talk page as you did here, please remember that it will actually make the post small, instead of displaying as <small>. To write something like that, either surround it with <nowiki> and </nowiki>, or use <small>, as I have here. Chzz ► 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I think it's a very interesting and useful tool. I do understand the concerns about misinterpretation re. RfA - of course, it needs analysis like anything else. But, for me - personally - it's really useful info. I'll be checking over it in more depth...I must admit, I can't remember most of those AfDs and it really is quite interesting and educational to look back over them in that way.
Thanks, I thought it was interesting to look at my own votes as well. I think it could be a useful tool if it wasn't abused, but surely there is the potential for editcountitis-like abuse. It's sad that the RfA regulars would oppose the use of a simple information gathering tool on the basis that there are a few idiots out there who might abuse it. But whatever, I tried. It's their loss. —SW—converse22:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
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.
I am not sure what you mean by 'authorized'. If you are involved with the band, you should probably not write about it; please see the policy regarding conflict of interest.
Not sure what happened here - perhaps you've used some automated tool that has done something it shouldn't have? The band is still called Capercaillie even if the bird has moved to a new title.--Michig (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear, sweet, kind, angelic, handsome Chzz, could you possibly take a wander over to may article-in-gestation and have a check over the references, citations, etc., to see that they're all looking OK for me? (And fix anything that's untidy, and drop a note on the discussion page to let me know where I went wrong and what to look out for in the rest of its construction?) Thanks in anticipation. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I've had a look, and twiddled a few things (as I'm sure you'll notice). I'm not quite sure what you wanted me to look at - and I see it is still a 'work in progess'.
Some of it, I'm not convinced is worth mentioning, as it doesn't relate to horses as such - I mean, e.g. Before the first glacial period of the current Pleistocene-Holocene Ice Age the Rhine river flowed northwards through the North Sea bed - it seems out of context.
Refs such as "British Archeology, issue 86, January 2006" would be better if the linked text was the article title - and if the author details could be added. Chzz ► 03:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You are, as always, a wonderful human bean :o). Some of the 'out of context' stuff is merely to give people an insight into the fact that the Britain they know today is vastly different from the Britain of that time - little things help to draw a picture, I think. (And, talking of pictures, this is your opportunity to fall over in admiration of my map :o) )
You're probably right about the article title thing (you are usually right about a heap of things!). I may very well go and do that with those links.
Main reason for wanting you to look at it now: so I can do a standards-check on it and then work to the better standard from now on, as opposed to having to fix the whole lot later!
The Uffington White Horse - yes, I was thinking of dredging up some stuff on the horse in religion / as a worship figure / icon, wossname, thingie ... the Uffington Horse definitely should get a mention somewhere. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, OK, cool. For general style things-to-watch-for, it'd be worth you reading all the bullet-points in User:Ealdgyth/GA_review_cheatsheet - all those things like "non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement.", "Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out as words", etc. - because it might be easier to pick up things from that, instead of trawling through MOS/style guide.
Re. the background - yes, I do understand, but I think it might be a bit too much, as it is (ie all the stuff about During the most recent glaciation... etc. You might be able to integrate it more though - by keeping it focused on the horsies - like...(IDK the actual facts, but) mentioning it in context of the horse ancestors.
And yes, great pic! My only criticism there is, it is hard to picture it in modern terms...how it fits into the locations today. But I do kinda understand.
It might be best to make it live, soonish, and then keep working on it? That way, others might chip in with more edits. Cheers, Chzz ► 08:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I could possibly tweak the pic a little by making the current coastline a bit clearer - I didn't want it to be too obtrusive, but I may have overdone the subtlety! But, that would mean having to go over it freehand-with-mouse in Photoshop (ouch!) or going over my unlabelled original again, and then re-scanning and re-labelling. Which, of course, I could do ... but I am an idle get at the best of times! I shall try to remember the other style stuff (style was never my strong point, lol!) I'm expecting a bit of input here and there from one or two others while it's still in the sandbox; I'd like to get at least something relatively decent in for each era section before it goes live, otherwise it will just really get on my nerves (you would never guess I'm a bit OCD, would you?!) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. For photoshop, did you have the labelling in a different layer? If so, you can scan back and copy just that layer over, to avoid re-doing it. (Or, at least, maybe that's a tip for future edits). You have to merge down the layers for a jpeg, but you can keep the original too. For the outline - mice are indeed awful for that sort of thing; you might want to consider a cheapo little graphics tablet (maybe £30), which make such things much nicer for freehand work. (or doodling obscene graffiti, which is pretty-much obligatory when you get one). But yes...outline or even maybe just denoting a major place or two (Manchester, London, or whatever) would help understanding.
Working in a sandbox is absolutely fine - different people work in different ways, but...well, it helps to get the whole 'wiki ethos' by getting it live ASAP - you can of course continue to tweak it afterwards! Also though...if several people start editing it in your userspace, you run into problems with attribution of edits. If/when you copy-paste it to the live article, you lose all record of who-did-what...which is acceptable if it is just you, but causes troubles with the "CC-BY" licence when others have contributed to the work. Merging the histories is messy (because of 'parallel edits') so you end up having to link back to the sandbox page (from the talkpage or edit summary) to show the edit history. For that reason alone, it's best to keep edits in one place (ie a live article). Chzz ► 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I might have actually saved the non-squished down version of the map, with all the layers :o) Thanks for reminding me of that (brain is subject to these sudden lapses ... must be my age ...) Can the article (when in a better state) not be 'moved' to mainspace, complete with all its accessories? Can't afford a graphics tablet without cutting out something else (and can't make a really good excuse for one, either!) Nice idea, though :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You can move an entire page from one place to another, but you cannot move a section. You can merge the history of two separate pages, but if they've both been edited over time, that doesn't work well - as it makes the history (showing 'diff' between two totally different pages) meaningless - and therefore is best avoided. Chzz ► 23:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll focus on getting at least one or two good paragraphs in as a starter in each time-span section, and then go for a whole-page (plus talk page etc.) move into mainspace when it looks a little bit less 'under construction', then. I'm hoping that Ealdgyth may be able to contribute something on the mediaeval time-spans, and Kim may knock something up on DNA links (ancient to modern) in the area, too. We will get there, and hopefully have a really decent article soon. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, sure. Sorry - I thought (when I first looked at it) that it was intended for placing into a section of an existing article (like Evolution of the horse or something). If it is going to be a brand-new article, then moving isn't such a problem.
As for my involvement in editing it, there probably isn't a great deal I can do, for now - because until the actual content exists (and has been tweaked), there's no point checking for dots and breaking-spaces and so on. But do give me a shout if you have any questions, or want me to check it again some time. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. I suppose there could be an argument made for having the hyphen, given that it was written that way in some works, such as File:Cee-Lo.IsTheSoulMachineCover.jpg - but yes, for consistency, I think I agree.
Would you like me to make that change? Or do you think it'd need discussion? (I'm happy to undo the edits I made, either way) Chzz ► 06:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, go ahead. I think the decision was to keep the hyphen, with capitals ("Cee-Lo"), for the older albums to match their graphics, but to make the main article and such things as categories under his current stage name of "Cee Lo Green". Generally the rule is to call people what they call themselves. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll note this on Talk:Cee Lo Green, and of course, if people want to change things around (e.g. make a sub-cat for the older 'Cee-Lo' ones), that's fine.
William Allen Simpson, I am sorry for any troubles caused. I'm basically working through User:Rich Farmbrough/temp19/redir and trying to make only the appropriate changes - this one, I misjudged. I hope I've cleared that one up, as best I can. Thanks for your understanding. Chzz ► 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, tricky; I did have a quick look, but didn't actually find anything definitive. We really need to check on the name of the painting, not the book; spelling was all a bit optional back then, and quite variable. I'll try to investigate myself, somehow. The name in the folio linked in s:The Tragedy of Cymbeline does indeed say "posthumus" (or, technically, poſthumus) (check the link). Anyway - yep; I will add it to things-to-inveſtigate. Cheerſ, Chzz ► 02:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
We do have WikiPrincesses for a reason. I suppose he would be a WikiPrince, actually. But, anyways, we don't require that people edit articles in mainspace. And giving people awards isn't treating it like a social network, otherwise we wouldn't have the idea of Barnstars at all. SilverserenC08:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Nonetheless, a few editors seem to have taken the compliments seriously, finding out it is a fake probably has the opposite effect as being given a barnstar.AerobicFox (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Andrea Elizabeth Michaels contributed by CMcKibben Up for deletion
Chzz:
I hope you can give me guidance. You gave me a generous amount of time as I developed the article named above. On March 10th, I discovered it had been deleted, and I contacted Ron Ritzman who deleted if after discussion. I was not aware as I had been out of the office. I contacted Mr. Ritzman and made a case against deletion, and he reinstated the article for further discussion and told me to plead my case on the article deletion discussion page. I did so on the same day, March 10th. I've heard nothing since then.
Would you have time to quickly check out what I did on the deletion discussion page and let me know if there is anything further that I need to do? I can't get a response from anyone. I'm sure they must be considering my case, but I was wondering if there is any thing more that I can do.
Hi. I can see why it was closed as 'delete' - it was listed for a week of discussion, and the only two people who discussed it (other than the nominator) had said it did not pass notability requirements. I think, personally, it just-about does pass them (which is why I moved it in the first place) - and I've now commented in the AfD discussion.
I suggest that you just continue to monitor the AfD, and if possible try to address concerns raised - such as, excessive information from primary sources, which one person noted.
Please remember though - in the 'worst case', if it is decided that the article is not currently suitable for inclusion - it can be restored to user-space and developed further later - and there is no deadline on Wikipedia.
The major difficulty you face is due to the conflict of interest, which is always very challenging. I really do strongly recommend you edit other articles - regardless of whether this is 'kept' or 'deleted' at this stage. That will give you wider experience of Wikipedia, which would help with developing this one. You should re-read WP:BFAQ and WP:BESTCOI.
Even very experienced editors struggle with the difficulty of conflict-of-interest; personally, I totally avoid editing any article about anything I have a connection with. It is so hard to remain detached from the subject, and there is a danger of feeling like we own the article - which, of course, we do not.
Our objective can only be to provide the best, well-referenced, neutral and Encyclopaedic information - and sometimes that means deleting as well as adding things.
I'll make some suggestions on things you could look at, on your own user talk page.
Chzz:
You are always so helpful. Thank you so much for your response and for commenting in the AfD discussion. I will e-read the sections you suggest and try to make further contributions. Thanks again!Cmckibben (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It will be because of SysOp - more specifically, because SysOp has the (reupload-shared) right. So you'd have to test it with a non-adminaccount. But, it'd have to be a (confirmed) or 'auto-confirmed' account to allow upload.
Hi , on "Bupenda Meitei" , i did that , i mean removing the orphan tag after discussing quite at length in your IRC chat with Peter Corti,the user too. Plz help me how shall i proceed with the article , m new here.Kellystick (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to take the initiative to submit a request for adminship for you. You have made more much valued edits than I can count and if you accept the nomination you are a sure sysop. Gabesta449edits♦chat02:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oopssies, I now understand that you have had a past nomination for administrator but was unsuccessful but this does not waiver my opinion. You are a constructive editor and have grown since your last bid for administrator. Please do not let your past experiences with sysops get in the way of your nomination and I will guarantee you that you will become an administrator. I will now go ahead and nominate you for a second time for sysopship. Cheers and hop to see you moping up the admin backlogs soon. Gabesta449edits♦chat05:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I am thinking about possibly doing it - and quite a few other people have asked me to - including quite recently, in this thread. But I haven't quite decided yet; so I want to wait until I am ready (myself). I do appreciate the thought though. Chzz ► 08:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to accept the nomination. You already have two support votes even before you accept and to more persons who are willing to co-nominate you, see here and here for verificationGabesta449edits♦chat19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you go for it. But I also suggest that you not spend time dithering here. In the wise words of Yoda "Do, or do not. There is no try". Good film series, that. Lots of good advice contained in it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Thanks (all) for the kind words, and I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, but,
In the above - I did say, "I haven't quite decided yet; so I want to wait until I am ready (myself)". What I mean is...I am thinking it over. If I am to run, I'd want to spend some time digging through my contribs for good examples, thinking carefully about the nom statement and questions.
I've been thinking about maybe doing this for a long time - but usually I get distracted by doing other things.
I promise you - and the others watching this - that I absolutely will consider this further, as soon as I can - within days or weeks, not months. However, for right-now, I am not ready to accept.
Sincere apologies for any hassle that may cause, and I do, absolutely, appreciate the intentions and the positive wishes.
Please feel free to poke me again in a week or two if I've done nothing further, but note: (at this current time) I have not yet decided if I want to do RfA.
Thanks for understanding, and again, sincere apologies if I was not clear enough. Chzz ► 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Post ec-addendum @Anthony Bradbury - Absolutely; I don't want to mess anyone around. If it is best, feel free to move or delete the nom statement; I know people get all antsy when these things sit around (although I don't quite understand why). Chzz ► 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Chzzz, my apologies for not being forthcoming in my offer of a review; regretfully I have been very busy in real life, and recent discussion over a current RFA with an arbitrator has incensed me to the point of considering retiring this account to be honest. As long as you can be clear and communicative over the SOCK issue at your last RFA I'd suggest you run - be open and forthright with questions but let supporters challenge weak opposes would be my advice. Certainly clear the "sock" issue in your nomination acceptance however. I've given up on the edit conflicts now so if this doesn't work I'll just post it on my talk. Pedro : Chat 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If you are not ready to accept your nomination then fine I am totally alright with that but as you said to come back in a week or two and I will. Ill give you two weeks to gather your thoughts and think about your nomination and what your going to do when become a sysop and such but int he words of the terminator "Ill be back" :) Gabesta449edits♦chat23:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Not the kind of discussion I usually get into, but here's my take on it:
You'd be excellent; IMHO you're an incredible person and there's no way you'd abuse the position.
If you don't actually want it yet, then it wouldn't feel right for you. Go with your gut feeling after your thinking time. Whatever you do has to be right for you, not just popular with everyone else. You can always come back to the idea later. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
(1) Very kind, thanks. (2) Yes; I think that is exactly correct - and that's what I'll do. I'll think about it a bit more - but I will let these good people above know, within a couple of weeks. Chzz ► 10:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Category renaming
I see that you fixed the issue with the category edit I made this morning. In general, though, it is not desirable to rename a category by adding a {{category redirect}} template to the top of it; it is much cleaner, although somewhat more tedious, to use the {{cfr-speedy}} process and let a bot do it correctly. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest the same thing. You appear to be renaming numerous category one by one rather than use the recommendend and less-time-consuming process of speedy renames for the categories. Please add the template R'n'B provided to these categories, and a bot will handle everything in a cleaner, more efficient manner. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion - however, sometimes I quite like the tedium of changing the names manually - it makes a refreshing change from the other types of editing that I do. I can't see any particular harm in renaming the article cats myself, instead of the bot doing it. Also, it allows for manual checking, and looking and subcats and other concerns.
I had redirected the former just before I created the latter - because it was easier to make it via the redirect link. There was a less than 2 minute gap between my redirecting it at 11:21 UTC [5] and creating the new cat at 11:23 UTC [6], during which the edit was reverted [7].
Unless there is a particularly compelling reason for using the bot method, I think I would rather continue by hand. Please let me know if that is of concern. Chzz ► 20:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
For one, the changes are being done out of process. You are making changes that may well be uncontroversial, but users of the category and the wiki-community in general should be notified and made aware of the proposed changes via the speedy rename process per WP:CFDS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware that, in the event of a simple correction to spelling/format of the name (as above), there was a necessity to hold any discussion. I will check the policies and guidelines. Chzz ► 23:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
ie - do you think I should try to help 'fix' those, and the 500 or so more (assuming I check them with greater care), or shall I just stop entirely? Please note, I don't mind at all; I was trying to help out, as someone asked me about the list in User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp19/redir and I thought I'd try to assist with it. Chzz ► 06:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Because everyone knows how to deal with category renaming and if they don't they should leave well enough alone, right? What happened to BOLDness, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and R'n'B? Your messages just left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Killiondude (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering how you knew the criteria for speedy renaming when you said you didn't know the policy. I definitely don't want to discourage you from doing anything. I do think anything beyond a punctuation or spelling error should be listed on the speedy rename or a full CFD, such as Category:Melanie Chisholm albums. While the article is named Melanie Chisholm, all her albums are recorded under Melanie C – you may not get any objection at all, but I think it would be a courtesy to do this. Finally, if you're going to rename the categories, could you please add any DEFAULTSORT as necessary (e.g. Explorers Club, The or Morse, Steve). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I know the policies - it can come down to interpretation of C1A though - e.g. for DJ Clue -> DJ Clue? (just example) - as to whether it is a 'simple typographical' thing, or if it is a case where a band name differs from the person-name. And of course it is complicated by bands changing and displaying names differently on different albums - sometimes it is pretty impossible to tell if the 'correct' name is something like "Ch$$ Big Band" or "ChZZ BigBand" or whatever - and often the album articles are not consistent. Nor are the artist websites or the physical record covers.
But yes - point taken. I'll hit only the obvious cases.
Killiondude, I never said that Chzz should not rename categories, I just suggested a better way of doing it. For one thing, if you "rename" a category by creating a redirect, you will leave articles in the "wrong" category for up to seven days, because the bot waits that long to make sure the redirect is not vandalism or controversial. Using the {{cfr-speedy}} template actually results in a quicker rename, and also allows other editors to see what is being done, just in case there is a mistake or a controversy. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually no, because as I'm redirecting, I am also editing the articles to change the cat - immediately. For example, I redirected Category:Valentin Elizalde albums to Category:Valentín Elizalde albums, and within a couple of minutes, edited the cat member article Vencedor changing the cat there [8]. In that case, there was only one album, but in other cases I've changed all of them (either using AWB, or "by hand"). In the case of quite trivial changes such as that one, is that "ok"? Chzz ► 01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm going to remove your post on the page declining the request and the notice on the user's page, with your OK. I made a mistake and did not indicate the article was accepted, leading you to believe he was recreating an existing article. It was my first time reviewing and posting an AFC article, so I forgot to redirect the page to the main space to indicate acception. Again, my apologies for the confusion. MobileSnail00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear colleagues,
I am a journalist with twenty years experience in the profession. I tried to write an article about a writer and painter Aleksandar Obradovic on Wikipedia, and met with a problem that administrators demanded the additional, credible data sources from me. Imagine ... You possess six of his books and in each of them is his biography, his books are listed on the National Library of Germany (the link I mentioned), the U.S. Library of Congress, the Open Library, the catalog of the National Library of Serbia, you, personally, conducted two interviews with him on the radio, you listened an interview with him on Radio Free Europe, you have read dozens of articles about him, you know that one of his books is used as a textbook at the Philosophical Faculty in Belgrade, you found the same book in the Italian Encyclopedia of Aesthetics (This link I mentioned), the author is on the list of members of the Association of Writers of Serbia , you have, at your home, the Catalog of artists of the Academy of Nations , you were on two exhibitions of his paintings in Munich and then you sit down and you write an article , which administrators consider insufficiently persuasive . Imagine that you are in my position.
Thank you for your attention
Nobelovac (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The user who is making these comments on Strat's talk page is trolling me because I asked them to change that enormous sig. They were making minor edits to my signatures at first, but they've apparently escalated to stalking. ANI is dead right now, so I'm not even going to bother, but just thought I'd let you know. SwarmX09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should just stop for a bit, and have a cup of tea or something? And explain it at your leisure? but edit-warring isn't going to help. Chzz ► 10:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for detailed instructions on writing an article in Wikipedia. I would be glad if you read my new article and tell me your opinion about it. I hope I have satisfied all the conditions necessary for its publication.
Yours sincerely
Nobelovac (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Links to archives and my sig
Thanks for those notes! And thank you for pointing that out about the Unicode characters in my sig; it was my expectation, years ago when I added it, that it wouldn't show up for many people, but I have always been content to let the rest of the world catch up to me. ;^) If I recall correctly, the free DejaVu fonts are one of the ones that contains those glyphs, if you want to be able to see them. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩01:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah; like I said, I'm content to let people fix their own computers or I suppose that they'll eventually upgrade to an operating system that has a more complete set of fonts. But thanks for the suggestion, though! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩01:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. I have recently (along with other editors) been working through your list of files that need to be renamed. I was wondering, to help streamline the list, make it more managable, and to notify other editors on some of the slightly unclear cases. For example, all deleted files would be removed from the list, as well as ones which had been renamed. Notes could be left next to files which are missing a description, and let others know what steps have been taken to contact the uploader (either by talk or email, this would help prevent multiple emails regarding the same issue). Sorry if I haven't explained my idea very well, thanks for your time :) Acather96 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll re-run the query, which will produce a new list - without any deleted entries - ASAP (within a day, I'd hope). I'll let you know.
I've now created that updated list - User:Chzz/dsc0311. Feel free to do anything you like with that page - make it a table for comments, or add instructions, or whatever. And if you need me to do something, just ask. Cheers, Chzz ► 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, I respect your work as an editor, but that canvassing e-mail you just sent to all en-wiki adminsambassadors, regardless of their involvement in the issue, was really not necessary or appropriate... rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Eh? Did I send an email to en-wiki admins? If I did, I didn't mean to. Please, double-check that, and show me? Chzzlive.co,uk I don't think I did, actually? I sent an email to the ambassadors - maybe you mistook that one?
And what was it CANVASS about? I mean... I imagine this is related to My76Strat (talk·contribs) who - after recent RfA - has announced retirement. So what am I influencing here? Chzz ►
I suspect, Rjanag, that you've just made a mistake in checking which list you are reading, in email? If so...sure, no problem, we all make mistakes, Chzz ► 06:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, the e-mail was to all ambassadors, not to all admins; I was mistaken in the first message. But it still seems like canvass-y spam that is not relevant to many ambassadors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Phew. Thanks, Rjanag. I hate to think I could be canvassing. Simple point-of-fact here is, this user says 'retired'. I think, personally, that is a loss to Wikipedia. I think it a specific loss to the ambassador programme, which that user contributed to. I do not see how 'CANVASS' applies. 'DIVA', sure, it happens to the best of us. But all I intended with that mail was, to provide a little moral support - hoping to keep a user who has done much good. Please, in that light, tell me honestly - was my email inappropriate (in your opinion)? Chzz ► 07:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I do, but it's nothing to make a big deal or worry about. I just don't think you should send e-mails like that in the future. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Aloha Chzz,
A month ago you (along with a few other admins) were kind to help guide me through a sockpuppet investigation which concluded with the finding that myself and several others are not in fact sockpuppets.
A perplexing blog post was written last week here, and the author seems to have misinterpreted the results of the sockpuppet investigation. In their defense, it probably is challenging for those not familiar with Wikipedia to interpret pages within the WP community! This blog post is somewhat focused on my coworker User:MBMadmirer, but it also (again, mistakenly) insinuates that I am somehow in the wrong. This is confusing, as I have never edited articles related to the subject matter that this blog regularly critiques. The blog post suggests that Wikipedia admins "banned" the users in question as "unethical sock puppets", referring to my account (along with accounts which belong to others) as "dummy accounts" and "one of many fake accounts". This contradicts the actual findings of Wikipedia Admins (as discussed in this ANI). In fact no bans are in place. As my long-term contribution history shows, I see it as of utmost importance to follow Wikipedia's WP:COI guidelines to the tee, and have been diligent about exercising care in advancing the aims of Wikipedia above all else.
Lastly, the inaccuracies in the blog post have spread to other sites, prompting misinformed readers to form editing brigades (as shown in comment} on reddit.
I was hoping that you could take a look at the two most recent edits made by this IP editor (one to an article, and the other to User Talk:MBMadmirer). Both are not in line with Wikipedia policy and consist of incorrect information. The sources cited do not meet the reliable sources criteria. I would normally make such clear reversions myself, but since I have a close connection with both the userpage (coworker) and the New Media Strategies article (I am employed by them), I'd prefer to merely make you aware of these inconsistencies so that you can evaluate them as an objective observer.
Warm Regards, Jeff Bedford 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw the SPI you filed, just thought I'd drop by to explain what I know. There's apparently an arbitration case surrounding this user's use of sockpuppets- I don't even know if Amalthea is aware of the current situation, but the status of the sanctions is pretty much undefined at the moment. The result is that the user's socking openly and (until now) non-disruptively. The situation has been more or less ignored for the past few weeks. I contacted an arb and hopefully they'll get a solid decision worked out soon. The point is that this is a really strange and unusual situation, so let's let the committee deal with it for now. SwarmX12:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmph. Thanks, Swarm, for letting me know. I just...well, I just did the usual (with warning, reporting, etc). If there are other things going on then...well, OK. I didn't know, of course. Cheers, thanks for being so open about it all. Chzz ► 12:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we should still handle everything else the typical way; we still need some immediate intervention regarding the disruption. The SPI was declined, so I just wanted to let you know not to worry about the socking issue for now. Sorry if the purpose of the information seemed unclear.
*Sigh*...here I am, just trying to encourage Strat and I thought I'd drop a newbie a helpful hint about signatures on the side. Before you know it Strat's poll, of all things, is being trolled, and arbcom's involved. What the hell is my major malfunction? SwarmX13:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Blocks help a bit too. Hopefully this done for good. This was a huge distraction. However, now let me tell you what I intended to awhile back. I'm very impressed by your response to Strat's retirement. Really- I expected this to be another, for lack of a better term, tragic fallen user that went with little notice. The poll: brilliant. I wouldn't have thought of it myself, but it's just a fantastic idea. Much respect for doing that. Makes me not regain faith in the community, too. I know Strat's your friend but thank you for doing this from me all the same. Regards, SwarmX13:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Followup: they were unblocked, but it looks like everyone is on the same page, now. If you see any further disruption, please do let Amalthea know, they've become familiar with the situation and have come to the realization that Gold Hat was being disruptive. I'll be taking a break but I'm sure Amalthea will be help with any future issues regarding this user. SwarmX14:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd already done all that; that's why I thought there wasn't enough on policy stuff and other debates. I tend to go by all-round experience, you know - like you have, for example. --Kudpung (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, it was just a quick thought - I should've known you'd already done that, really, to be honest. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Whilst investigating, I came across this personal attack. I immediately removed it, and gave that editor an "Only warning" [10]. Personal attacks are not tolerated.
I will try to monitor the situation; please let me know if there is anything further I can do.
'Evening Chzz (or perhaps 'Afternoon for you). I just wanted to see if you had received my e-mail. No rush of course, as time is a finite resource for us all. Simply wanted to ensure that it was sent to the correct address. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on all the accolades I've been seeing about you. I couldn't agree more; you are just the best when it comes to giving great advice and being helpful.
Sooo, I have a question for you. After discussion, the powers that be nominated to "Keep" my article on Andrea Elizabeth Michaels. (Thank you for your help). But it is going to need some work with regard to resolving the conflict of interest perception that editors/contributors saw in the first place. My question: is there another contributor, who is well-established in the Wikipedia community, that I could approach to edit this piece so that all trace of "conflict of interest" could be removed? I mean, is that done? Or is that an absolute no-no?
In the meantime, I am working on another entry for the late Robert Jani who is considered the "father of special events." It's my goal to create a number of articles in the "event production" category, even though there isn't one really established. (Martha Stewart started out as a caterer in the events industry; she used to be a keynote speaker at some of the industry events I attended - this was early in her career.) Anyway, I digress. My point is simply that I'd like to create an entire category that seems to be missing from Wikipedia so that I can link all of the participants together.
I noticed your adminship nomination back in your archives and I must agree with them, you are an experienced editor and I definitely think you should run for adminship. You are an awesome candidate and have much experience on Wikipedia. Please discuss the topic. Even though you said you'd think about I would take some serious consideration of the topic and if you do agree I would definitely be the nominator or co-nominator (If that Gabriele449 character doesn't get to me first) Cheers :D SunCountryGuy 0122:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
SunCountryGuy01, why are you pretending you are a different user from Gabriele449? Clearly your account was renamed from Gabriele449 to SunCountryGuy01 a few days ago. This is almost a violation of WP:SOCK in that you are trying to influence Chzz to run with feigned extra support. Eagles24/7(C)22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes and now you have just ruined the surprise. I know the guidelines and I was obviously going to reveal this and if you would have checked therchives I said I was going to be back and here I am
Chzz - have you decided if you want to run for administrator. Please answer on my talk page because it seems thinks cant stay private, Cheers. SunCountryGuy 0123:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
For now, I'll say "no" to doing RfA. I said I would consider it - and I have. I might do it one day, but not today. I'd want to do it when I am ready, and right now, I'm not. I will continue to keep the idea in the background; I already made some start on gathering a few links to things I've done, for example I found some of the barnstars in my archive, and put them all onto a page User:Chzz/bs - normally I don't bother with such stuff, but I figure for RfA, that sort of thing might be worth putting on my user page (in some shorter form). I only mention that as an example - to show I haven't just ignored the idea.
But I don't want to spend too much time on all this, right now; nor do I want to run RfA before I'm ready.
So...I might do it soon, or I might not; I'm not sure - but I don't want to mess people around.
Various people have suggested it; so rather than keep discussing the possibilities...for now, I'll just say
Thanks very much, but I don't want to do RfA right now.
'Allo darlin'! Could you possibly take a wander over the Horse History sandbox and just check that I'm still on track and it's not getting untidy? I think I'm doing OK with it so far (it's not far off ready for moving into mainspace), but some nice reassurance and a bit of tidying around the corners if necessary would be much appreciated :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
---
I had a look, made some tweaks - which I hope you'll think OK; if they're not, of course just undo them. I really think you need to clarify about those first horse species (re your <--comments-->); I spent a while looking, and found out about one species, but not two. I suggest you do further digging - try Google Scholar, on terms such as "Pakefield horse species" - which gives [11] - and similar searching. But to be honest, it might need offline research.
For web-based refs, please try to add info and clarify them. For example,
...uncovering of a chariot-racing arena at Colchester in Essex.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%26+heritage/time/roman/art25464|title=Roman Chariot-Racing Arena Is First To Be Unearthed In Britain}}</ref>
...should be something like,
...uncovering of a chariot-racing arena at Colchester in Essex.<ref>{{citation
|title=Roman Chariot-Racing Arena Is First To Be Unearthed In Britain
|author=David Prudames
|date=5 January 2005
|publisher=[[Culture24]]
| accessdate = 2011-03-20
| url = http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%26+heritage/time/roman/art25464
}}</ref>
...if you see what I mean. Add details to the web refs.
And clearly, right now, there's a few bits that need work before it goes live - some 'notes' are in the text, and it isn't finished. And it needs a lede - but that is probably best done last, because it is a summary of the whole thing.
You are, as always, wonderful :o) Thanks so much. It hadn't occurred to me to put more info into the cite web stuff, but I shall try to remember it for future. The lede thing is haunting my dreams; I have used the rationalisation of doing it last for the reasons you've pointed out, but I suspect that 50% of my not having done it yet is just plain procrastination, lol! Offline research is difficult for me atm coz of 'real life' issues; I may possibly be able to contact authors of whichever bit of paper it was I found the ref to two species in, and ask if they can elaborate (and point me to a cite-able source). Bit busy at the mo! So my input may be a little sporadic, but I shall do as close to my best as i can manage, lol!
You're actually right to forget the lede until after the rest is done. The lede shouldn't have any new info, and should be a balanced summary - therefore, it's quite easy, really - once the article is more-or-less complete. My technique is this: Read every paragraph, and pick out just one or two key-words from each sentence (note them down). Then try to construct sentences from what you get. That way, you end up with good balance - and the length should be about right, too. Oh, and you need one key sentence at the start - but worry about that later.
So, 5-minute example (not to be taken too literally): "Middle Pleistocene" - earliest, 700,000 BC. "Late Pleistocene" - Europe, land bridge, migration. evidence - teeth, art. --> so, lede: "There is evidence of horses in Britain since the Pleistocene epoch, over 700,000 years ago. Migration was possible via the land bridge to Europe; bones, teeth and artwork have been discovered."
Not worrying, really (far more important things to fret about in real life!) Your comment "and the length should be about right, too" made me laugh. That is just sooooooooooooooo important ...... ;oP ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The 'two species of horse' is in this bit: "This wide range of habitats and plant food supported a rich fauna of herbivorous mammals, including voles and mice, the European common hamster, beaver, extinct giant beaver (Trogontherium cuvieri), wild boar, fallow deer, roe deer, three species of extinct giant deer ("Irish elk"), a giant moose (Cervalces latifrons), an extinct bison, two species of horse, an extinct rhino..." (in this: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba86/feat1.shtml) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Woowoooooooo! I'm so kewl :o) ! I have tracked down a way of contacting Tony Stuart (who wrote that bit; he's on the research staff at University of Durham). So I've sent a message asking if he can point us to a cite-able source for exactly which two species they were. Am I good, or what?! ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey TPC, I've been here what, five years? Leads STILL give me hives and so do those dreadful citation templates, which is why I try ever so hard to get other people to do them for me. LOL! However, I think it's easier for a person to write the lead to someone else's article than it is for their own, so when you are about ready for prime time in the sandbox, give me a heads up and I'll volunteer to do the lead for you. However, if you want a comparison, one example of an article where I got it all the way to GA quality almost all by myself (other than help with a new style of citation template another editor wanted to experiment with), and where I don't even think I botched the lead was Sheila Varian. Montanabw(talk)01:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Great idea (getting others to help write the lede) - thanks. It's always useful to get other people, with fresh eyes, to look at articles. Thanks. and if you ever struggle with cite stuff, do ask me - I can usually fix those Chzz ► 06:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Montana me darlin', you're more than welcome to write as much as you want, lol! After all, it's not allowed to be mydog toy article, is it?! And you are a darned kewl word-crafter :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, that would be the blighter, lol! I have just made myself chuckle by thinking back over what I said earlier .... you know the one about 'just getting a couple of decent paragraphs into each section before we move it....'? That one? hahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! I kinda got carried away :o) No surprises there ... like the Wolfcub thing says, "they are bold and determined, and once they get their teeth into something they can be reluctant to let go." It will get moved. Probably pretty soon. But it's still my bone at the minute, and I want to chew all the meat off it before anyone other than a selected few elite pack members are allowed to play with it, too ;o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure :-) Just...when it does go live, please try not to be too upset when people make a casserole from it. Just sayin' Chzz ► 10:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I will haunt them. Vilely and horribly. And if they make too much of a mess, I suppose it might be possible to get it protected? Or semi-protected? Or summat like that? ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Not that bad, thank Gawd! I currently have a mere 69 ... but I haven't finished writing yet! It's just when one has to start scrolling through them that I begin to wonder ..... ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Heh; well-spotted! Regarding that nom...being as you're here, can I just mention that - if it is going to be accepted, it'd be best done soonish. I don't want to nag about it (ie push too hard), however the event itself happens in about five and a bit hours (in the UK - moonrise). Chzz ► 12:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Still a little time on the east coast of the US. Moonrise here is 7:44 PM EDT, add 5 hours and it would be all the way to the International Date Line. So it has a little more time, but you are right, not much. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 13:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
On 19 March 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Moon, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hey Chzz, I just wanted to pop in and say hi. I used to be MacMed but I lost my password and had to start a new account to get involved again D: haha. I remember that you helped me get started way back when and supported me in my RFA so I just wanted to say hi, and that I look forward to working with you again :) Cdepatie (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Pardon my stalking, but isn't there some rule against creating a second account when you can't recover the first? You might want to try to go about reclaiming the first one and abandon this one, but not sure how you'd go about that. Otherwise you could be considered as a new and inexperienced editor, not a former adminship candidate. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the stalk Cyclone, and I did manage to figure out my old email and get my account back :) joy haha. Thanks again MacMedtalkstalk00:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, CycloneGU: that isn't quite the rule, no. If you've lost an old account, and can't recover it via email, there's nothing you can to except create a new one. Nothing wrong with that. See WP:Multiple Accounts under "Compromised accounts". Also, note "Clean start under a new name" there - usually it is best to inform people of the old account (on your user page/talk page), but that isn't absolutely essential either, because we have WP:CLEANSTART. Remember, the important point is, Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block. There are legit reasons for creating another account - and losing access to an old one is one example. Don't be too quick to shout "Sock!". Cheers, Chzz ► 02:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Check. I know there are legit. reasons, but seeing as I don't expect to ever need a second account (unless mine gets hacked or something, perse), it's not something I usually read. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, I appreciate many things you have done to strengthen me at a point of need. I have observed in some reply regarding your connections to Japan and the emotional toll of such apprehensions. With the deepest appreciation I acknowledge how difficult things can be, and that you committed time and concern towards me is profound. You should know that I have meditated on prayer for the beloved Japanese people. Knowing the extra significance of your connections there, and divided emotions, I have meditated in like manner, but to also imagine you, and your needs, and the unrelenting peace and comfort you deserve. Because I know the faithful and true words, I also know with expectation, this gift will manifest, giving power to your resolve. I hope you avail yourself to the full measure, upon seeing its approach. I did want to say these things. My76Strat (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's good that we've made a decent job of the article, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. That's been hard work; especially when it happened, and I was getting e.g. 14 edit-conflicts in a row, as it was updated every minute. And then - unbelievably - it was vandalised. That was annoying. And then there were stupid debates about whether we could say that there were 1,200 or 1,800 'confirmed dead' because sources varied...well, what does 'confirmed dead' mean anyway? Right now, it says 8,649 deaths. But we all know that there are 15,000 dead in Miyagi prefecture alone - so...well, I don't know how we answer that difficulty. Also, I hope we could maybe learn things from the way we dealt with the quake on-wiki; I mentioned that here. I wonder who could drive such an initiative - I'm sure it would be worthwhile. Anyway...nice to see you back around, but I hope you manage enough of a true break. m:Wikistress is a good page. Take care, and thanks again. Chzz ► 09:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
Happy First Day of Spring!
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2011! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to there talk page with a friendly message.
Your user page was unreadable by anons just now - some internal Mediawiki error apparently. I edited it and reverted myself, which fixed the problem. Just wanted to explain the motivation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably coincidental (twice), but previously, via #wikimedia-tech;
20 Mar 10:08 I reported similar errors on another wiki (Ukranian, uk) (via IRC), "sorry servers overloaded" - accessing http://uk.wiki.x.io/wiki
Brian_S said that was re. pool counters, but I didn't hear any more. It started working again after 10 minutes
18 Mar 08:24 I reported that accessing User talk:WereSpielChequers was giving "Sorry, the servers are overloaded at the moment" "Too many users are trying to view this page. Please wait a while before you try to access this page again." "* Error connecting to pool counter server: Connection timed out"
Nobody discussed that (no response) - it worked on retry
Oh well. I don't really understand what it is about, but never mind. Just some "weird bug", which is probably best ignored. Cheers, Chzz ► 05:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The "pool counter" is something added in the latest version of Mediawiki to try to prevent the site from getting overloaded if a lot of people view the same page at the same time. But your user page is probably not that popular. One of the developers was looking into the bug yesterday after I filed it. The code for the pool counters is pretty new, and so they are still finding all the corner cases where it doesn't work as expected. Your user page is apparently complicated enough to trigger some flaw in the code. You don't need to do anything about it, the developers will fix the code once they diagnose the exact problem. I just wanted you to know why I was making odd edits to your user page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - interesting. The page is a little odd, in the transclusions. But anyway - yep; let me know if I can do anything. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
block 2518437 targeting Solomanno1 blocked by The wub for infinity starting at 2011-03-21T20:53:02Z because Vandalism Flags: NOCREATE AUTOBLOCK ALLOWUSERTALK Chzz ► 10:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you often nominate other's work for DYK? It never occured to me to do it but it seems like a fantastic way to support and encorage newbies. Take care, J04n(talk page)13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do; I'm sure I have nominated hundreds. In particular, whenever I 'accept' an article for creation - usually, by tweaking the format a bit, and moving it to a live article - if it is long enough, I submit it to DYK.
The actual process of submitting a DYK nom, and fielding questions, is pretty complicated stuff for a new user. However, getting their first work featured on the main page can be a huge boost to them.
If I've accepted it as being a valid article - ie decent refs - then, if it is long enough, why not? Cheers, Chzz ► 13:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I must say that this is the best way to encourage new users that I have ever come across, you certainly deserve this:
The Articles for Creation barnstar
For taking the submissions of new editors and working to get them on the mainpage. I can think of no better way to encourage new productive users. Keep up the fine work, you are contributing to the future of Wikipedia more than you know. J04n(talk page)14:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I always encourage others to submit DYKs, too. It is, admittedly, fiddly to make the nom template and think of a hook, but... especially having done it a few times, it can be done in minutes. And that is the whole purpose of DYK - to show our newest articles. So, yes, absolutely. Great stuff! Thanks again, Chzz ► 14:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm mega-busy, so it might be a day or two before I can read it (and assess quality). I'd guess, maybe it'd be B. I'm sure it could be GA. But (without looking at it) I'd suggest moving it live - it's always best, really; let others hack at it. Best, Chzz ► 11:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
And someone has already decided it is B-class [16] - fantastic. I suggest you submit it to Did you know... - which is for new articles. You'll have to think up an interesting tag-line, regarding a fact that is well-referenced in the article. If accepted (which it surely will be), it'll appear on the main page for a while :-) Chzz ► 14:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That was User:KimvdLinde - wonderful lady! Particularly as I've been a real thorn in her rear on some of the genetic history stuff! Don't know if you've come across Kim in your wanderings - check out her t'riffic user page :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
0xC00L (since you said I should pick something c00L...)
AlienSpaceTrout
WP.AverageJoe (but that might cause problems too, with WP in it)
WP.AYBABTU.is.not.a.policy (which is true but may still be seen as an irritating name, and linking the policy part to contribs would be utterly disruptive.)
#9 is way too 'noisy' for usage on WP --- sounds like a gaming clan callsign, not like a serious WP contributor.
#2 (my fave, along with #8) may be too long, esp. if I need to link to my talk/contribs via my callsign. Might be ok if I could use my user ID for that.
#4 and #6 sound too WP:BITEy. A reply might look like biting because of it, even if the reply itself is in a neutral tone.
#10... well I don't see any prob in there. The software should handle all users "xxxx.Zero.Zero.Zero.One" just fine, whether xxxx=User or not. After all, "user." is not "user:". But since someone replied to me that it could cause problems, I'll take it as given.
So what remains is #1, #3, and #7. If you think there's good reason to avoid one of these too, please say so on my talk page, along with the reason I've missed.
PS --- Is there a way to check what names have been taken already? I'd google them, but google itself seems to take good names[citation needed]. ;-) - (User.0.0.0.1) 12:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
---
You can look at the enwiki user list in Special:ListUsers, putting a name in the box "Display users starting at:" but, the better way to check is using http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php because that looks for users on other wikipedias. If a user has the same name on another wikipedia, then if it isn't really old with very few contribs, it is best avoided. (The actual specific rules are a bit complicated; if there was a specific case, you'd be best asking).
2 is OK, but rather long. A note about that: you will inevitibly end up typing out your user-nbame thousands of times. You might also make templates. For example, when people forget to sign, I can just type {{subst:User:Chzz/s}} (which puts the content of User:chzz/s in place of that, when I save). But {{subst:FiveSyllablesFirst.SevenSyllablesAreNext.AndFinallyFive/s}} isn't so good.
4 is fine, and is not taken. [19] (I don't think anyone would mistake that as BITE)
5,6 I wouldn't advise WP:anything, because it will cause confusion.
7 is OK; not easy to remember, but OK. It's not taken. [20]
8 is definitely taken (nice idea, but others got there first) [21]
9 I would avoid, because of the connotations (ie Lolicon)
10 retains some of the problems previously discussed. It's less likely to break templates, but still remains confusing.
So - given that list, I'd choose from One.Zero, 0xC00L, and AlienSpaceTrout. (Noting that FiveSyllablesFirst.SevenSyllablesAreNext.AndFinallyFive and Yhnctsmyt are perfectly 'acceptable', but I wouldn't recommend them).
Personal choice (if I had to choose from those three), I'd probably go for One.Zero, although AlienSpaceTrout is quite nice too. I don't think I'd choose 0xC00L because of the possible confusion between zero and the letter O.
Usually, we'd refer to them as "user names", not "callsigns", by the way.
#2: (we need a{{woot_look_at_the_size_of_that_thing}} template) yes it IS long, but I could copy-paste it when I need it. But if others are going to type my name, I don't want to hurt them with a name that long. So #2 is out.
#3: no "Ohs vs zeros" issue if you know that 0x123456789ABCDEF is the way to write hexadecimal numbers in C++. So there are no "ohs" in it. The average user might be challenged tho, so #3 is out too.
#4: one of my faves then, and I'd join the Wikipedia:WHACK! club then.
#7: The initials of "You have no chance to survive make your time" - hard to remember for a non-AYBABTUist [is that a religion?] tho.
#8: would make have made for lots of hilarious lines when others try to refer to "me." XD
#9: was assembled with LOL, Leet and homophony with Lolita in mind.Really unsuitable for WP , I agree. Clean fit to the clan department, along with the word "callsign."
PS--- I would avoid all names starting with LOL on serious sites.
3 - hex - yes; you know that, I know that - but others don't. There's only 10 types of people in this world; those who understand binary, and those that do not :-) But note, I did say this one was "OK" - just, I would not pick it. But it's your choice!
Similarly, I understood the haiku reference, the cats reference, and the l33t. But lots of people wouldn't.
I hoped that you knew that already (haiku, CATS, hex, leet, etc), I wrote above comments for both you and other readers who might have trouble at seeing the intended meaning... as seemingly gibberish usernames (like #7) can cause trouble with admins, sometimes with good reason. For example, someone told me to use the alias of 'Kari Hunt'. Better luck next time bro... I know a spoonerism[original research?] when I see one, so I didn't even put her on my list.
OTOH, I didn't know 'Lolicon' before you provided the link. I thought it was a very small LOLcat. :facepalm:
I hate to be the fly in the ointment but this seems like the definition of SYNTH. It's a shame the original author hasn't checked in, perhaps go in another direction with the hook? Something with the poets perhaps? J04n(talk page)00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I suggested another alt: ... that artist Will Henry Stevens was inspired for his subject matter by writers Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Walt Whitman?
The "mentorship process" section lays out approximately what will be expected of you as a mentor. If you'd like, you can also volunteer to be the coordinating online ambassador for a class or two.
Please add yourself to the top of the list of available mentors, and note the number of students you think you'd like to mentor next term (it doesn't have to be a final answer, this is just to help with matching students and mentors once the students start getting active) and if you'd like to take on the coordination role for any classes note that as well: Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Mentors
(Don't add yourself to the lower "Additional online ambassadors section; that's for ambassadors-in-training and ambassadors who are already mentoring all the the students they want to take on.)
To coordinate between Online Ambassadors and Campus Ambassadors, we've been using a Google Group as a mailing list. It's not required, but almost all the ambassadors are on it. Would you like me to subscribe you? Email me with your email address if so.
You can also check out the first two ambassador newsletters, which have more detail about what's going on right now. You'll get future editions delivered to your talk page.
If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup.
Hi Chzz. You may also be interested in some work that Snottywong and I have been doing over the last few weeks: User:Snottywong/Patrollers. The idea is to identify enthusiastic patrollers who may still be unsure of how to interpret WP:CSD and WP:NPP and offer them some help. --Kudpung (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi - yes, interesting, thanks. I don't know if there's anything much I can do with it, right now; but, nevertheless, yes - it's interesting. Cheers, Chzz ► 18:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you think of a few good candidates to round up for input into this one? Seems as though this, or something very simialr, could be such a good idea, but it's stalling for lack of TLC and attention. Thought you might be able to resuscitate it a bit - I don't know enough people yet to help this idea along. Seems to me that you'd probably know some good candidates for helping this to evolve into a damned good tool-wossname-thingie. Pesky (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Nonononono! I see you haven't quite woken up yet, lol! It was the Town Sheriff idea I was talking about! How about getting the a little less blood into the caffeine-stream, m'dear, lol! Good morning! Pesky (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry - I totally misunderstood; I thought you linked that as referring to getting help for the horse article. Bah; probably 'coz I was paying more attention to the Grand Prix on telly.
There have been hundreds of discussions about similar "unbundling" of admin rights, and specific admin-type roles; I've read pages and pages of discussions about it, but I don't think it will happen. The simplest argument against it being, "if you want to do admin things, why not become an admin?" - so, the real problem is the state of RfA. And that is something extensively discussed on WT:RfA and its archives, PEREN, various RfC's - and currently the 9001st discussion is taking place on User talk:Jimbo_Wales - and I've already said what I think there. Chzz ► 07:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I get your point - but I think there may well be people out (t)here who'd be happy just to Sheriff a page or two, but would really, really not want to become a full-blown admin. Pesky (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
But they can do that right now, without any proposal. All that would be left from that would be, giving them a badge. I don't see the point in that.
Almost every day, I "warn" users, tell them they may be blocked, and indeed get 'em blocked or get pages deleted, or protected, or whatever else. I manage all that without special flags - I just make a request to those with special buttons. Chzz ► 09:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I must be suffering from caffeine deficiency myself, lol! And having read the RfA talk thing, I added a bit. Pesky (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, I saw that you endorsed my prod for this article so I wanted to let you know that I had to take it to AfD now. Regards, De728631 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with archiving my talk page. Much appreciated. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed I found Template:Archives which works for me. Cheers. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
Not done) and a reason on some that should not be done, that would be wonderfully helpful.
Done
live.co,uk I don't think I did, actually? I sent an email to the ambassadors - maybe you mistook that one?
Hello! Your submission of Will Henry Stevens at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! J04n(talk page) 00:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
