Archive 1
In the talk page for the above, [User:Nortonius|Nortonius]] states that the name should be spelt without a 'p'. He has added a note in brackets on the page to denote this.
As per the above, assuming it is correct (I wouldn't know);
Nortonius has started correcting the spelling on other pages, but that means that they are currently linking to this via a redirect.
I suspect the (recte) part could be deleted, the definition kept if there's a citation for it, and the page moved...and then links checked? -- Chzz ► 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Further info
Googling shows many sites that DO spell it with a 'p'...some are scraped from WP, but others look like they're sourced elsewhere.
Google matches are; Medeshamstede 3290 Medeshampstede 448
and [[1]] looks like a citable ref to me, from an AD664 Anglo-Saxon charter.
I suggest moving Medeshampstede to Medeshamstede, adding the citation, making a redirect from Medeshampstede, and checking links.
I would still welcome another opinion...if this is the right approach, I'm happy to do it. -- Chzz ► 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll take it over there -- Chzz ► 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Having checked WP:RM and other articles I'm confident this is an Uncontroversial proposal and therefore I will do the move and adjustments, as described, myself. Of course I will document this on the Medeshamstede talk page.-- Chzz ► 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Moved "Medeshampstede" to "Medeshamstede" and talk page
Fixed linking pages as follows;
Noted where appropriate
Done
Reply to your message. I have read over the article and made a number of modifications to the spelling and grammar. But the main problem seems to be that it lacks a lead paragraph. What had been the "lead" was actually a discussion of the name. I have created a new "name" section of that material. Someone needs to add a short summary of all the other material in the article as the real lead paragraph.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I will have a look at this over the week-end. At first glance it seems reasonable although I have a number of punctuation changes. I have left a note on the talk page of the article re looking at the English Place Name Society's work. 128.100.62.31 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
List new users: Special:Log/newusers
You can go to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates for a full list of welcome templates, or to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table for a visual gallery of welcome messages.
The standard template is ((subst:W-basic)). To use it, type this on a new user's talk page:
This will make a section titled "Welcome!" and place the welcome message under it. Be sure to place greetings on each user's talk page, not their user page. This will ensure they will receive the "You have new messages" automatic alert.
Tiptoety has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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. ((subst:if||| (({message))} ||subst=subst:)) To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!
For cookie, I appreciate it.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
You were right, I needed to clear the cache. Now I see the changes in public. AnnicaG (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)AnnicaG
forgot to thank you for the reviews
Hi Chzz, I just noticed that I forgot to thank you for reviewing pied-noir and Louvre, so I thought I'd drop by and do that. Again, I appreciate the comments and am presently working on the article. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the positioning of the covers is not the RFC issue, but it still is the source of contention as evidenced by several reverts. As the template states, the current version is not endorsed by protection, so reverting to another version at this point, even if it is the pre-dispute version, seems imprudent. If you disagree, I suggest bringing this to the attention of other administrators at the noticeboard to get some outside opinions. Nufy8 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand what you're trying to do on User:Chzz/virginkiller, but you're not supposed to have non-free images in user space. Sooner or later those album covers will have to go. You can list them, though. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course it would. But that isn't actually the case - in fact, something like 40% of Americans believe in intelligent design, according to surveys (I don't know if that's the actual figure, but it's half past midnight here and I can't be bothered to look it up). It is, of course, true that something like 95% of qualified biologists believe in evolution (again, probably not the exact figure). Both of these are accurate statements which can be sourced and which emphatically belong in the articles. But at the moment, the general approach seems to be to label ID as "pseudoscience" and as essentially religious rather than scientific. While I understand the rationale for that view (and I'm not qualified to dispute it personally, since I'm no scientist), it isn't NPOV; it's disputed by the likes of William Dembski, who describe their viewpoint as entirely scientific. The fact that the US courts have ruled that ID is pseudoscience (I'm aware of Kitzmiller v Dover) does not make it indisputable fact that it is pseudoscience, since this is still hotly disputed. At the moment, most of our evolution-ID controversy articles read like an attempt to "debunk creationist myths" rather than a neutral and balanced look at the subject. We are not here to argue a point of view (even that held by the majority of scientists), but to cover all significant points of view in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. (Sorry for this rambling response; it's late here and I need to go to bed.) WaltonOne 23:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm honoured - does this mean promotion? ;o) Do you mind if I edit grammar, e.g. capitalisations, etc.? It looks ok at first glance, but there are some things that I think ought to be changed on the basis of usage, e.g. 'Domesday' for 'domesday'... Obviously, if I do that and there's something you don't like, you can just change it back again. I think I'll leave it alone until I hear from you, though! While I'm here, I notice that all the citations are under the section heading 'See also' - shouldn't this be 'References'? I agree about it sometimes being a good thing, not to be familiar with the field, let me know what you think. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(undid indent)
I don't think there's anything I "really hate" about that draft! But, the way these things go, no doubt somone will disagree! Just a few (!) more thoughts:
That's really it for now - as you've suggested elsewhere, time will tell! Thanks for the comments on Sexwulf - don't worry, it was a kind offer, taken in that spirit! Some very useful stuff there, I'll sift through it properly in a bit. Did you see my (so far fairly brief) exchanges with Ron B. Thomson, here and here? A bit tricky, I hope it'll work out (hello Ron). Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder about "include": I think you need to be clear in your own mind about the relationship between the 3 wards of Eastwood, and local parish councils, e.g. are they co-terminous? Or are there some that overlap? Perhaps it's unlikely that any would overlap, but if there are any that do I think you'd be right to name them: otherwise, I think it would be best to stick to parish councils within the 3 wards. So, no "include"?
It can be a problem identifying what exactly makes a place; but the thrust of the article seems quite rightly (for all I know) to be that it's the 3 wards that make Eastwood, since the UDC became part of Broxtowe Borough, via Broxtowe District Council. I'd stick to that as a limit, unless you want to say something like "In the 19th century the residents of Eastwood were frequently subjected to elbow tickling by an eminence grise from [[Castle Perilous, Thingummy|Castle Perilous]], in the neighbouring village of Thingummy." Either way, you need to capitalise "parish"! ;o) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. What is 'Eastwood', is a very tough question, and one I fought with whilst writing the demography part. First of all, there are two "Broxtowes" - one for local gov, one for national elections. Most of Eastwood is in both, but part is not. On the local side, the 3 wards do pretty well cover what I'd call Eastwood - and what others have called Eastwood - which is why I've used the totals of them for population, etc. (I noted that other 'featured articles' are not at all so careful, and compare various older borders, wards, etc when showing population growth over long periods, e.g. altrincham - but I think that's wrong, because they're comparing apples with oranges. Their demography/population section is very misleading) Now, as regard Parish - there are many, some are tiny, and which constitute 'Eastwood', I would struggle to define. One street to the next, it can change - and whether those people in those 5 houses consider themselves in Eastwood, or Langley Mill, Beauvale, Greasley, Nuttall, New Eastwood, and others - well, you'd have to ask them! So, I think it has to stay with the slight cop-out of 'include'. (And don't even ASK about the way the borders have changed over the years!)
-- Chzz ► 05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Help w/ peer review broken template thing
((helpme)) The article is Eastwood, Nottinghamshire
There's a peer review going on
I've just spent *ages* tidying up the peer review page at Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1 - it was getting all confusing, so I moved stuff into sections to allow inline replies; put a notice explaining what I'd done, and all that.
...but foolishly, I moved the peer review notice doohicky, and I think I've stuffed up the listing on Wikipedia:Peer_review by moving the peer review template thing?
...but I don't want to loose all my careful reorganising 'coz it was tricky to make sure I did it right, keeping all comments, etc etc
Thanks in anticipation of any assistance.-- Chzz ► 09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep kicking ass. Otherwise the article is going to be longer than 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay. Yunfeng (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Were you referring to the "Reactions" paragraph? Your revision of the vandal removed it as well. Sometimes, when you revert edits with intermediate edits, they all get reverted together. But thanks.--haha169 (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the problem w/ removing the vandalism, and had an edit conflict trying to fix it!
((helpme))
How do I amend the main page/in the news - to update the death toll as per 2008 Sichuan earthquake to reflect new totals
Just thought I'd let you know, I've left a comment for you at User talk:Chzz/tree. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I saw his/her request on one of the editor assistance pages, and I was intrigued by the religious connotations of the sciatic nerve. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I just saw your response to my last comment. Thanks! If you don't mind, since you have changed the text of the nomination, I'd like to remove both my BLP comment and your response from the AfD page. I don't think they are needed for further discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I honestly thought my comment of 'alleged self-promotion' would be within remits, but on further consideration I realise it was not, and I am grateful to you for pointing that out to me.
I also am a staunch advocate of human privacy rights.
I would like the article to be removed, because it is subject to such POV-pushing and advertizement. I thought that NOTABLE might result in its removal; whether he is notable or not is of no consequence to me. I do honestly believe he isn't notable, but it was a means to an end.
If it is removed for whatever reasons, then great.
Alternatively, if an NPOV article could be stabilized, great.
Both would be beneficial to the encyclopaedia, therefore a 'good thing'.
To be brutally honest, your proposal is nothing short of POV promotion, which makes it asinine and a non-starter. Merger of the PRC page with China will create an inherently biased China page, which degrades Wikipedia in general as a neutral source. Your proposal is not only damaging to China-related articles, but to Wikipedia as a whole. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Name | Topics covered |
---|---|
China | Geography of China (no actual text, but links to its counterparts at the Taiwan and PRC article), the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", the constituent entities that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan), cultures and customs |
China (Historical) | A bowdlerized history of China, including its successive dynasties (with links to the history section of each of the dynasties), areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) with a cutoff point at the end of the Qing Dynasty. |
People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China as it stands today (no change whatsoever) |
Republic of China (1912) | ROC as it existed before it retreated to Taiwan |
Republic of China (1949) | ROC after its retreat to Taiwan (aka: Taiwanese Government) |
I hope you can comment on this, and tell me what you think. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you seem to be policing everything I do in Wikipedia (which is great because you obviously know much more about it and have much more experience than I do) I wanted to ask you about the Ken Wood (manufacturer) entry. I had some photos of him in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s hosted on sharenow.com in the external links section. But sharenow.com went through a radical change since then and all the links went dead, so all I would have to do is edit the link for each photo. My question to you is about your use of the word 'unecessary'. If I put them all back, are you just going to take them all off again? I think it's rare to have photos of the different stages of a person's life in Wikipedia - but I did see it here: Mussorgsky in the gallery section. Also, I think a picture of Mr Wood in the main section rather than a picture of the machine he manufactured (which appears in the entry on his company anyway) would be more appropriate, don't you? This entry is still classed as a stub - when does it lose that status? Johnalexwood (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
((helpme))
See above query re. Ken Wood - I removed external links to images hosted on 'share now' - see [2]. I think it's not a suitable use of external linking, to just show pictures of a person, because the file sharing site does not state the copyright status of the pictures, and because it shows advertising. I don't know detailed policy on this, and would welcome any help answering the users query above. -- Chzz ► 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, I noticed you moved John Tudor to John Tudor (baseball player) in order to put a dab page at John Tudor. I just thought I'd let you know that it would be OK to leave the baseball player as is, and just use John Tudor (disambiguation) for the dab page. You could use ((otherpeople)) to make a hatnote on the baseball player to point out the others. Peter May works that way. It's entirely up to you of course, but it would avoid the need to fix all the old links. Nonetheless, thanks for fixing all the old links! --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the Peer Review for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A point of contention has arisen due to the usage of the word flagship as an adjective for the Chapel Hill campus. Carolina has been referred to and appropriately sourced as the flagship of the UNC system in the past, and appears on the pages of such articles as the University of Michigan, a featured article. I am curious as to why you ascertain that flagship is a POV term. Thanks for your time. Fletch81 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Kc shake booty single.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cartell cd.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, I noticed that you recently prodded the article artificial sunlight. I'm not sure if you knew, but that article is coming up soon in our Wikipedia Spotlight queue (two weeks from now), and Dendodge just contested the prod. I agree that the article currently doesn't have much info, but I do think it has potential, and hopefully the Spotlight collaboration will help it come along and be a bigger, more informative article. Just thought I'd let you know about that. :) --JamieS93 16:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've just posted another reply re Sexwulf, here. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Me again - I've just responded to your latest comments on Sexwulf (gratefully received!) here, and you'll see I've already commented on the Eastwood draft again, here! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
...And again! Another edit of the Sexwulf sandbox here, incorporating almost all of your suggestions - or anyway I think reflecting just about all of them. See what you think. I do like comments like 'What does "d." stand for?" - I try to explain stuff as well as I can, but I'm sure I'm less likely to even think of stuff that I take for granted! Any thoughts on my comments for Eastwood, here? I try to suggest my "IMHO" through things like "...?" at the end of a suggestion. ;o) Nortonius (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
(undid indent)
Well I'm relieved you had some useful software to help you, anyway - again, thanks for a wonderful effort. I've updated the image's description to show where it came from, but I suspect the 'licence' template is the wrong one. Never mind, I think it's covered, anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I'm beginning to feel like I'm really bothering you over this Sexwulf business - but I do appreciate your input, and you and Ealdgyth are the only people who have answered my calls! The price you pay for being helpful, I suppose... Anyway, I've just done another edit at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox, and it's my final attempt at clarifying Sexwulf's possible identity, before throwing in the towel. So, I'd be very grateful if you'd have one last look at it: if you and Ealdgyth still see OR - Ealdgyth has said pretty much the same as you, understandably - then I'll give up all thought of it, and post the revision without it. But obviously I'll want to keep mention of the factual error itself. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
D'you know, I hadn't spotted that 'short wikt' link before, so thanks - I could go bonkers with it, if left unrestrained! Tantalising, though, a little edit like that, & no comment on the text! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
<unindent>
Simple answer: you can get on without any software; we could then discuss this more easily. If you go to [3] and fill in a nickname (e.g. Nortonius) and in the 'channel' box put in chzz, you should be chatting to me (if you do this in the near future, anyway) -- Chzz ► 10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I fugered it out the box was up for deleteion. Sorry to bother you. Samurai Cerberus (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with that up-for-deletion user box issue on my user page. Appreciated. Manxruler (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The Spotlight Newsletter Issue I (May 2008) | |
The articles this month were:
|
We improved:
|
| |
| |
Current article: Suggested articles | |
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
Hope you remember me! Well, the polyclonal response article has been greatly overhauled. It was failed in the initial GA nomination, but I have made a few changes. Now, I believe the forte of the article is its intelligibility to the uninitiated readers. I'd like to invite you to the discussion. Since you are unrelated to the field, you might be able to judge with quite greater clarity if the article makes better sense now, and what else could be done.
Thanks in advance.
Regards.
—KetanPanchaltaLK 13:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for viewing the LaTraia Jones page, the college football coach from Mississippi Valley State University. Yes, it's a stubby article, isn't it? I'm sure that as we keep expanding the article, it will grow and accumulate more links and references.
As a part of Wikipedia's college football project, head coaches (past and present) of notable colleges are considered notable. You can read about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject College Football/Notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. LegalBeagle (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, I don't think it marks pages as patrolled once they've been speedied. I've gone through and speedied pages, reloaded the page, and none of them were marked as patrolled. I'm actually glad you mentioned it, as I think I will start doing it from now on, just to save other patrollers time. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not tagged any articles, I'm the admin that's deleting them. –– Lid(Talk) 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I declined the speedy deletion as I do not see the nonsense aspect. In fact, it looks like it might make a decent article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Chzz
Cheers for your understanding (and prompt!) response.
I'd already read the 'notable' requirements and thought my subject qualified. I 'spose there's nothing for it but to provide some links and leave the decision in your hands!
Thanks again.
No Problem - One minor tweak to your tweak. Harry Dresden is a Wizard not the author (Jim Butcher is the author).
--SirGeek CSP (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Chzz.
I recently tried to resubmit a appropriately cited (to my mind) version of what was already in place, and was unable to - I understand this is becasue the article is being 'considered' or something similar.
Will the consideration of whether to delete or not be able to take into accout my unsubmitted citations?
(many) Thanks (again).
IrregularWikiContributor (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There are additional deleted contributions that proved problematic. Particularly, the user created two hoax articles in an attempt to spam a myspace page, and the second of these followed a final warning by several minutes - enough time that the user would have seen the new messages bar and been aware that they had indeed been warned. The fact that additional contribs over the last year spammed the same myspace page was also a factor. I'll note also that indefinite is not -- Chzz ► 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)intended, in this case, to be infinite; if thre is an unblock request and a reasonable intent to edit productively, I am not opposed to an unblock in and on itself. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 10:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
<unindent> Thank you for your candor.
So, you consider 2 relatively mild incidents of vandalism within 1 calender year to constitute persistant vandelism and/or spamming (as in WP:BLOCKED ? -- Chzz ► 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As you can tell, I had a change of heart. The original speedy was a knee jerk reaction to the nature of the subject matter. LittleOldMe (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Just seemed a sensible redirect to me and as you rightly pointed out there was nothing in the article as it stood that wasn't in the main one. Cheers! Pedro : Chat 12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I might not have blocked that user indefinitely, but the fact is that on top of the repeatedly recreating deleted articles thing, the username is an apparently random and confusing string of characters, as PMDrive noted in his AIV report (sorry, no diff, I don't have time to look it up right now). That by itself is not a reason for a block anymore, but per common practice at UAA a borderline username plus bad behavior gets you a block. Yes, I think they were trying to contribute something, but they just got off to too bad a start. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
All for now, more to come... Later! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jules rimet.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the ((GFDL-self)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Trixt (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
((helpme))
Re. above; it's cc aatrib; I said so, I gave the attrib. What else do I do? Chzz ► 02:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not upload images of Goatse until (if ever) there is a consensus for an image to be included in the article. If you do so again, you will be blocked. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean the one for Liberamente? Itzjustdrama (drama?) 02:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted to point out that Chad Larson is quite a real person, and even though there are no links or historical information, everything is accurate. I don't see why it should be deleted. Would you please consider this? Thanks : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbrendanium13 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Chzz,
Thank you! And I apologize for the faux-paws, as you've noticed, I'm a bit new here. :/
Kingbrendanium13 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. What exactly do you feel needs to be cleaned up about this page? I appreciate that it has little in the way of an introduction for people who aren't familiar with the subject matter, but if you take a look at some other pharmacology stubs then you will see that the format of the page is quite consistent with standard practice. Furthermore it seems somewhat unnecessary to split the content into sections under subheadings when there is only 7 lines of material. This page is a stub, for other people to add content to later, and I don't see what was wrong with how it looked without those tags on, the pharm-stub tag should be sufficient to attract the attention of a suitably qualified contributor at some point. However if you have constructive suggestions for how it could be improved then I'll be happy to make some changes.Meodipt (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. I noticed from your edits that obscure pharmacology articles aren't really the area you specialise in! I've asked one of the pharmacology wikiproject admins to take a look at the page anyway, so he can reword it a bit to make it easier for a general audience to understand if he feels that would be appropriate.Meodipt (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been busy! I'm sort of around for chat, if you want to catch up on it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again !
Is this how I send messages ?
other ?'s
1) Ok I can remove the Czech translations .. ? all ( 95%) the history is in Czech so how can one verify if they can not see the translation ?
2) you ? resources .. did you check them .. their are 100 of pages that confirm my notes.. try Google search z Vlašime
3) what should I do to address -
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since June 2008.
It may be confusing or unclear for some readers. Tagged since June 2008.
It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Tagged since June 2008.
It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Tagged since June 2008.
thanks ! .. tj@jankovsky.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlasime (talk • contribs) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again!
Yes, it's fine to leave messages here - but please remember to 'sign' your posts by putting in ~~~~ at the end.
I will try to answer your questions.
You can cite references to foreign language sites - that's fine. So you don't need to include all the text. If a reader wants to check the citation, it's up to them to get it translated.
I questioned the references - they need to be listed, so that everything you say is backed up with reference links. I shouldn't need to google to check facts; the article should include references that verify all the facts.
So - removing the non-English text, and giving references to sources, will solve the 'It needs sources or references' and 'It may be confusing or unclear for some readers'.
The 'It may need to be wikified' means that some of the key words in the article should be wikilinked to other articles, where it is sensible to do so.
'general cleanup' just means tidying up extra spaces, spelling, grammar and that kind of thing.
So - if you can remove the non-English, and cite sources using <ref>, that will fix most of the problems.
I hope this helps,
I will try to help more if I can,
Hello ... and thanks for the reply ! I will try to make the changes you recomend .. tjVlasime (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Why there is an expand tag at the top of the article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello .. I think I cleaned up the pages .. are they Ok ? thanks again ! .. tj Vlasime (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope I don't get blocked for that, but administrators have now found out that I am a sockpuppet of bsbroy and an indefinate block is likely to proceed. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi again!
Thanks for doing all that work to clean the articles. I'l like to help a little if I can; I think the English needs a bit of work, but I need to check a few things before I can help;
I agree I need to do more work ! .. but that was my first pass and had to make / delete information plus learn the system.
If you can answer these questions, I'd be happy to improve the English in the articles.
(1) re. z Vlašime - Is this a 'family name'? Which 'area' does it come from - I know that areas have changed so much in that part of the world; is it from the Carolingian Empire perhaps?
z Vlašime is both a family name and a title ie Lord / Baron of Vlasim. Vlasim is also a city in Czech Republic that was founded by my family in the year 1303.
The family is one of the oldest in Europe with history going back to the late 700's. Over the years are several sub-families each having own name / title and Coat of Arms. The first COA's is the Black Eagle .. that of Kaiser Charlemagne .. same COA's as many Royalty in Europe.
(2) Re. the references - which language are they in?
99 % of the history is in Czech and also German or old Latin .. that was the reason I was going to document in both Czech and English so that one could easily verify. But there are 100's of documents on the family. The history and names from the late 1200's to date are well known.
(3) Jan Očko z Vlašime, Paul z Vlasime and Vanek z Jenstejna - do you have dates for when they were born and died?
Jan born 1298 - died 1380 was the first Cardinal of Prague, Paul about 1305 - 1375 and Vanek about 1380-1446
(4) Jan Očko z Vlašime - in the title of the page, the last 'e' does not have an accent mark, but within the article it's spelt Jan Očko z Vlašimě - which is correct?
Očko z Vlašime is the best listing .. but you will also find the name listed as z Vlasimi, z Wlassimie, von Vlasim, von Wlaschim .. sometimes with and without accent marks.
thanks again ! Vlasime (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply
OK, well, I hope my edits are useful. I know that I might not be getting the text quite right, but I hope the way I've edited will help you to see how to improve this, and the other articles. Please do change and correct any of the parts I've put in.
Regarding the above;
1. I've added the information, and put in a link to Vlašim. You might also wish to edit that article, and add a note about the foundation with a link back to your own article.
Also, I think the information about Kaiser Charlemagne is interesting, and it would be good to add that to the section about 'coat of arms'.
2. OK - the only reason I asked was, I wanted to make sure I was correct in putting (Czech) on the end of the citations. If links aren't in English, it's necessary to put the language on the end. But note that it's perfectly OK to cite references that are in foreign languages - and not at all necessary to include any of your translation work in the article itself.
3. OK, I've just added the dates to Jan Očko z Vlašime, and I wikilinked to Czechs and Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor. Again, I hope this gives you an example of how to improve the other articles for yourself. (Perhaps you could add dates on Paul z Vlasime and Vanek z Jenstejna).
4. OK, I changed the spelling in bold, on the page, to "Jan Očko z Vlašime" because it should be the same as the article name. I asked because, if the article name was wrong, it would need a 'move' to rename the article itself - but in this case, that's not necessary. You could certainly add information about other variant spellings to the article itself.
I hope all of this is useful;
Regards,
Hello again ! ..
I have image of Coat of Arms that I would like to add to the z Vlasime article .. how do I do it ? .. I've tried but have not been able .. these programs are very hard to use and understand !
Thanks again for the changes you made .. they look Ok to me ! Vlasime (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok .. I did that and have the two COA's uploaded under user vlasime .. but how do I move them from there to the z Vlasime article ?Vlasime (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Regards, -- Chzz ► 03:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to your post, on my talk page. Unschool (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it wrong to compliment an attractive photograph? I think that's a really striking grasshopper. Is talking about the aesthetics of pix considered a waste of Wikipedia space? Just curious. jengod (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally started an ARC article, but it needs A LOT of work. Please take a gander. Thanks.
--Mak Allen (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to chat more about that, I'll gladly go to IRC & give you my IM ID again, in case you lost it - just so's you know I'm not being anti-social! Leave a message on my talk page if you want. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. Sorry about that- my mistake. I will remove it. Cheers Northmetpit (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What did I do? 69lolz4 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
First off, thankis for your hard work CSD tagging. However, can you please be more careful and make sure you are not tagging good articles that have been vandalized as CSD material such as you did here. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find enough content for 1 or 2 paragraphs and I don't know how to merge or what main article to merge to. So it will have to be deleted, which template should I use Template:Db-a1 or Template:Db-g7. Also why is'nt there an Attribution Template for Smith's Bible Dictionary which in the public domain? Kathleen.wright5 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, thanks for putting up the tag. I'd just slapped something up in response to a request from some of my notes - but of course as you made me realise, they're a bit unkempt for general viewing and needed some better explanation. All the best, Wikidea 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Songs or albums or recordings or other creative works cant be deleted via speedy as non notable, per WP:CSD#A7/.DGG (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Re. They'll Know We Are Christians - if that was the article - twinkle, under 'unremarkable band', it says "Article is about a band, singer, musician or musical ensemble that does not asset the importance or significance of the subject". That looks appropriate to me. In WP:CSD it says "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." - again, that seems appropriate. Please explain why you don't think it is? -- Chzz ► 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't help, no, but don't worry about it. I'm gonna stop checking any new pages. I get different answers from different admins; everyone has their own ideas about what the criteria represent - so I give up on it.
Thanks for your time, -- Chzz ► 04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your intentions, but I've decided; I don't want to contribute further to WP. I'm sick and tired of the administrative bullshit. No fault of yours, I know.
Cheers,
My last sig > -- Chzz ► 05:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder about the Lúcio Cardoso page. I have now made a first attempt to expand it and I hope you like it. Yours, Eve.b.i (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I will be working more on the page over the next few days. If you do not mind, I will let you know when I think it is ready for another look. Thanks again for your help! 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you. I will change the reference template I use to add new data. You didn't make a mistake, at that time the language was still officially called Serbo-Croatian. I do have a question for you: how can I save a page onto my user page? I created an article which is likely going to be deleted, but I would like to keep it as a sub-page or something like that. Thanks again. PajaBG (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully Chzz will forgive me if I step in here, as the questions are piling up...? Chzz has signed off as a WP editor, as per the preceding section "Songs" (q.v.; note also that Chzz has, unusually, been inactive since the early hours of this morning). Personally, I hope for a change of heart.
I can't comment on the questions that have been added here today, except to suggest that PajaBG clicks on the following link, makes the required edit, and then saves the page (thus creating a personal Sandbox): User:PajaBG/Sandbox (done). Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I improved the article a bit so that it wouldn't be deleted. Tell me about it later.
I'm flattered you like my design, but could you at least show some originality and choose a different colour scheme and symbol please! I've been using the same theme for the last two years ever since I became a Wikipedia:Administrator, so it's a bit of a personal trademark. = P -- Netsnipe ► 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Galonga (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
this is my 1 cent contribution to the possible deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kviar
problem is the company is brazilian, and therefore not known by the administrators (understandably)
however, some of the sources cited (FOLHA DE SÂO PAULO for example) are VERY known newspapers in Brazil
that means that the company DOES have notability
I´d suggest just editing maybe some parts like "At the end of 2007 the company opened its first physical store and started a franchise system", which is kinda pointless
well, there you go: hope it was useful :)
As I said on the discussion-page of this articles, there are mechanisms to verify the article. In my opinion these are sufficient, and I do not see why there should be more references. By the way, the proposal-for-deletion-tag was already removed at May 5th, so I do not understand why you sent me your message at June 3rd.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I am happy to inform that the article has been promoted to the GA status. By the way, I have renamed it as Polyclonal B cell response as I thought that sounded more appropriate.
Thanks for the support, suggestions, effort and interest.
Bye. Take care.
—KetanPanchaltaLK 08:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
I award you for the support, suggestions in promoting Polyclonal B cell response to the good article-status, and providing valuable guidance in using IRC. Enjoy! —KetanPanchaltaLK 11:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
A tag has been placed on Image:Gregg doyell.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the ((non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in)) tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Gregg doyell.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Melesse (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Please review Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company, I cleaned it today and removed your article issues tags. Hopefully I answered your questions. Best O Fortuna (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you voted a while ago in favour of some mention of Glitch City in the Pokemon Red/Blue article. Unfortunately, despite admin saying a Glitch section would be ok, the main editor of the page is turning it into a war, constantly deleting it despite sources and Pokemon-culture relevance. If you have an interest in keeping this kind of interesting information in wikipedia, please come over to Pokemone Red and Blue and help get the small Glitches section reinstated. Regards, MKULTRA333 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)