User talk:Chzz/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Epstein Eagle Mascot/Crest

Chzz,

Could you please add the following Eagle mascot image to the left side of the page (opposite the school image or reverse the order if you feel it is more appropriate for school to be on the left and the Eagel mascot crest/logo on right) near the history section of The Epstein School article as well as the text below:

Epstein_Eagle_Mascot_Crest_logo_wiki.jpg‎ (164 × 170 pixels, file size: 9 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

Please add the following text to the end of the history section:

The school's mascot is the Eagle, as represented by the Epstein Eagle crest.

Thanks Clou2epstein (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Talk:The_Epstein_School#Epstein_Eagle_Mascot.2FCrest  Chzz  ►  07:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ReplyNot only is it ok...but it is prefered! Great idea. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it....so I bestow this barnstar upon you with my gratitude...:)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		message Clou2epstein (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Clou2epstein (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ksenia

Thank you very much for your help on page Ksenia Milicevic,for your time and energy and your talent. Best regards. --Jeanbarousse (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No problems at all! Wikipedia is all about helping each other out; please ask anything, at any time.

One tip - please start using the 'edit summary' every time you edit. Look at this, compared to, for example, this - notice how the edit summaries, in brackets, help us to see what was changed and why. I hope that this will demonstrate why it is important to always fill in the edit summary.

I am really, genuinely pleased to see the article improve - I wish you the very best of luck with it, and please don't hesitate to ask for help at any time.  Chzz  ►  01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

image issue

Chzz,

Someone placed a permission deletion template on the image: I thought I had given permission when I set it up to begin with...but anyway, I did send an email anyway to re-confirm. Can you please remove the template? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Celebration_of_the_Arts-bilingual_curriculum-October_2009-wiki-300px.png

Thanks,

Clou2epstein (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I will mark it as 'awaiting an email'. Please could you tell me either the email address that it was sent from, or the subject line? Then I can try to track it down. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  00:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Subject line is: permission granted

Thanks Clou2epstein (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - also - do you know which address it was sent to - was it permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?  Chzz  ►  02:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

thanks Clou2epstein (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We found the email and the permission has been duly filed, as you can now see on File:Celebration of the Arts-bilingual curriculum-October 2009-wiki-300px.png. Great, thanks!  Chzz  ►  04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Chzz...Thank you very much. Your continued assistance is greatly appreciated.

Clou2epstein (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks a lot for the 10 minutes of help. I learned a lot more then I thought, you really know what your doing!

Kasketone (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Don't be afraid to try things - be bold, and just ask for help whenever you need it. Good luck!  Chzz  ►  03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you! (Goodwriter (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Would you check my note on this talk page?

I would like to avert a problem, and I hope you can help. Basically, I foresee an edit war perhaps due to lack of familiarity with Wiki policies by the person who made deletions and very negative and unfounded assumptions. Perhaps you can put a word in? This is the talk page. Talk:David B. Rivkin Sorry I could not explain the problems more briefly, but there were 5 edits to discuss. Thanks in advance! 64.38.197.206 (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, please, get yourself a username. There are lots of benefits, it's free and easy, so create an account

Secondly, please familiarise yourself with the principle of WP:BRD - change things, and if people disagree, discuss them For example your edits to Alan Grayson on 16 Oct to were undone here, with the edit summary, You need to discuss on talk page - so, talk to the other editors; discuss it, on Talk:Alan_Grayson. Try to reach a WP:CONSENSUS, and if you have trouble. see WP:DISPUTE.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia; I assure you that negative unsourced information on biographies of living people is treated with special care.

Hope to see you soon, with a user name. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  02:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You may have misread my request

I was asking for your help to prevent an edit war or similar problem on David B. Rivkin. Another editor showed, through a series of 5 edits, that she was

unfamiliar with several important Wikipedia policies namely: the basic assumption of good faith, the guidelines for labeling an edit "minor" and the

guidelines for writing an accurate edit summary. I asked you because you had helped her out before with good results. Instead, you viewed my request as an

opportunity to educate me on Wikipedia policies I had not violated.

Would you please read the first three lines of this section again, and state whether you are willing to help by writing a short note to [[User:Dr. Susan

Hardwicke]]?

Refusal to consider my request?

I am only writing this additional piece because it seems you have misunderstood more than one thing, so I am trying to clarify with more details. I believe you may be refusing to consider my request because you have looked back at my edit history and mistakenly determined that I added a POV tag to a different article two weeks ago without stating reasons on the talk page. First, I will note that perhaps that is something anyone can do --- you did something very similar yourself recently, and you are applying for admin. status.

Secondly, it is not even true. I did not add a POV tag without stating the reasons on teh talk page. Here is a copy of the talk page entry:

POV

Grayson's congressional career is notable for more than his "want you to die" comment, and his co-sponsorship of a bill that will give the treasury secretary "extraordinary power". There is also more to his health care policy debate than the "die" comment, his one time the use of the word "Holocaust", and his opponents' reactions.

Reliably sourced information about Grayson's other accomplishments and activities has been massively, and sometimes repeatedly deleted. What is left is essentially, a Republican response to just a couple of Grayson's actions.

The article is not balanced, and is not compliant with BLP or NPOV. 64.38.198.61 (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You may not agree with that statement, but it certainly gives notice of POV and bias issues and provides justification for the POV tag. One hour later, the POV tag was deleted with the incorrect reason given:

Revision as of 22:59, 16 October 2009 (view source) Scientus (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 320295937 by 64.38.198.61 (talk) You need to discuss on talk page)

The diffs are here for your reference: [1] [2]

64.38.198.61 (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that, on David B. Rivkin, Dr. Susan Hardwicke (talk · contribs) added some information, and then you removed it, and explained why on Talk:David B. Rivkin. That's absolutely fine. I've added a short, polite note on their talk page - ie User talk:Dr. Susan Hardwicke - asking them to please look at your comments on Talk:David B. Rivkin. I hope that helps?  Chzz  ►  10:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Artis the Spoonman

Hi Chzz.

I have been told that if I want to make the article better, it needs to have plenty of reliable sources. User:Drmies says that United-Mutations is not a reliable source. Are you able to tell me which of the sources I have used in the article are reliable sources? Thank you again.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I know about WP:RS.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

First point - please start to fill in the Edit summary, every time you edit. If you look at the history of the article here, you will see why.

The existing references are these (updated 1 Nov);

• 1. "Interview with Artis" - I'm not sure what is being cited here; at the end of that interview, it says, "Real Change News" - so was this interview published in "Real Change News"? I checked with Google, but couldn't find that actual interview (here) - the question is, how can it be verified? If it was published, and is somehow available in some archives (not necessarily online), that will be fine. The important thing is, to give enough details of what is being cited. The URL given, at tribe.net, is actually just a 'convenience link' - ie you are not citing the blog post there, but instead you are (I think) citing something published in "Real Change News", and for convenience, you link to a copy online. If "Real Change News" is copyrighted, then that convenience link should be removed - but if you can provide full details of the actual publication cited, such as publication/date/publisher/title/author etc, then it will become verifiable. In that case, readers that cannot actually get access to the publication will assume good faith, ie that the facts it cites are indeed covered by the source - or, they can check for themselves.

• 2. Same as 1, really - if this was published in that paper, it's fine - but it would be helpful if you could provide more details, such as the page number, author of the article (if given), publisher and location - from checking their site, I think that the latter two are "Astorian Budget Publishing, Astoria, Oregon". It looks like the online version isn't available to non-subscribers, but again, that's fine - I would imagine that the newspaper would in theory be obtainable, hence it's verifiable.

• 3. united-mutations.com - no, this doesn't look like an appropriate reliable source, because the information seems to have been posted on a blog, which are rarely acceptable (unless the author of the blog is a respected professional journalist or somesuch - see Wikipedia:SPS#cite_note-5 - Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.)

• 4. Morning Edition - this will be very hard to verify, I think. It is always difficult to 'cite' broadcasts, whether they are on radio or TV - the problem, again, is verifiability. If the website provided archived shows, then it might be OK - but this is from 1994. So, unless there is another (reliable) source which reproduces the interview (and does not infringe copyright), then this bit won't stand up to verification.

• 5. Virginian-Pilot - again, looks OK in theory; I couldn't find the article in their archives [3], but that's OK - please add any further info to the ref, if possible.

• 6. New York Times, yes, of course, great source - and it says at the end, A version of this review appeared in print. Perfect.

• 7. Billboard - the URL given is just to the 'root' of the website, and when I searched, I couldn't find the char positions of that track - I looked under 'Soundgarden' too, but couldn't see the track listed. Thus, this one needs a better source.

• 8. Request - If it was published, it's fine as a source, but the URL linked says, "Reprinted without permission" - which isn't good. Remember it's just a convenience link, and if there is not a good, official non-copyright version on the internet, then don't link to it.

• 9 Allmusic.com - whether this constitutes a 'reliable source' is a matter of debate, and I can't find clear guidance - for example, see here. I would suggest that your usage, where you make the source clear in the text itself, is appropriate. You could always check on WP:RSN.

• 11. IMDB is often unreliable, and it's better to cite another source if you have one. I looked, and couldn't find anything. Is he actually credited in the movie itself? In that case, I think that you could cite the movie (giving details of it, and specifying that it is in the 'end credits' for example), and perhaps leaving the IMDB as a convenience link.

• 12. and 13. Both look like good, newspaper sources.

So - overall, it's shaping up very well. I suggest putting in for a peer review. Best of luck with it all.  Chzz  ►  18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Zer01: The art and technology network

Hi Chzz,

Thanks for your help on the article Zer01: The art and technology network. I will try to make it more neutral. Will it stay there in the process or be deleted? Any idea of how long can an article stay on wikipedia if it's in the process of improving itself?

Thanks, manasmom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manasmom (talk • contribs) 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re. ZER01: The Art and Technology Network

The article is not currently marked for deletion. There are three ways that an article could be deleted;

• Speedy deletion - articles which are clearly unsutiable may be deleted immediately. This is only used in clear cases. The article, as it is, might fit the category Unambiguous advertising or promotion - Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.. If tagged as such, and if an administrator agreed, it would be deleted instantly.

• Proposed deletion - if someone considers that the article does not meet requirements, they can propose that it is deleted; if this tag remains in place for 7 days without anyone removing it, it can be deleted. Anyone can remove such a tag, but users are encouraged not to remove the tag unless they fix the issues addressed.

• Deletion discussions - in this case, the article is discussed by any Wikipedians for 7 days, and the decision on whether to delete it or not is based on consensus and policy/guidelines, such as the notability guideline.

For information on this, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please note that the above is just "for your information" - at the time of writing, the article has not been nominated for any of these.

I recommend that, first, you go through the article and remove anything that is clearly not neutral, for example;

Zero1, the Art and Technology Network is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization dedicated to inspiring culture at the edge of art and technology. The organization convenes artists and technologists, presents their collaborative efforts, sponsors artistic initiatives, and exhibits the resulting work to the public. ZER01 is the producer of 01SJ Biennial, a showcase for international groundbreaking installations, interactive performances and new cinema.

I would also suggest removing the list of 'aims', and the bulk of the 'history', if it cannot be referenced to reliable sources.

This will of course result in a much shorter article, but then, if possible, you could add back facts from genuinely independent reliable sources, such as newspapers, published magazines, news websites, or other verifiable references.

I hope that this helps; please ask if you need more help at any time. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  06:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of my comments from another user's talk page

You removed the COI notice I placed on CatchyJ's talk page, in the guise of "archiving" it, about an hour after I placed it there. The notice was legitimate; the user in question has an edit history that consists almost entirely of restoring, despite objections from multiple longtime editors, promotional content originally added by an SPA claiming to represent the article subject. Your unexplained action appears to be completely inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The new user asked for my help, asking if it was OK to remove a notice if they thought that it was an incorrect claim. I suggested that, although of course they are free to edit their own talk page in any way, the better 'solution' would be to add a response, and then move it into an archive, rather than deleting it. I therefore guided them through 'how to respond', which they did. I added an archive, and archived the comment.

The user has only made 33 edits in total, so I was assuming good faith and helping them the best way I knew how. I 'explained my actions' in the edit summaries [4].

 Chzz  ►  16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your advice was misguided, and your willingness to assume the user's good faith in the face of much conflicting evidence was misplaced. Note, for example, that the user had already removed Dismas's entirely appropriate warnings from the talk page without explanation. Rather than a "newbie" user, I think it's much more likely that we're dealing with a publicist who's skilled enough to, at first glance, carry off an impersonation of a disinterested user. But it's really remarkable that someone who claimed to have written a "thesis" about Basil using the resources of a major library somehow can't write a Wikipedia article with few references beyond IMDB, Basil's website, and Basil's publicist's website. Indeed, if you look over the publicist site bio of Basil, it looks like everything the user has added comes from that site -- sometimes verbatim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

IRC

Hi. I just found IRC (I'd always wondered what it was). I joined. Then somebody said "Hi Fainites" (it was you). Then I couldn't find anyway of of replying! I couldn't type anything anywhere. How does it work? Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I did 'see' you there. You just type 'hello' or whatever. There's a line on the bottom to type things. Hope to see you again soon (here is the link). Cheers!  Chzz  ►  18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

It's about time you ran for adminship!  Btilm  21:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support :-)  Chzz  ►  15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		With sincere gratitude, I hereby award you The Helping Hand Barnstar for your hard work on user:chzz/help/refs resources and dedication to helping new wikipedians contribute the right way. Darkbluesun (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My archive logo

Idk, lol I just took it from another user page. --Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Well, I recognized it - and, yep, it was the logo of the Justified Ancients of Mu Mu, who you may not have heard of - but you might know them as KLF, who were quite a big acid-house band - perhaps best remembered because they burned one million pounds (for real), back in 1994.  Chzz  ►  08:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dhali Bari‎

Hey Chzz,

I was wondering if you might take a look at Dhali Bari‎ for me. I've prodded it, as I can't find an appropriate CSD criterion for a geographical location. I have concerns about the listing of peoples names with their address for obvious reasons. Any ideas what to do? AfD seems wrong. Blank it? File something at AN/I? Your advices would be gratefully received, Sahib. ;) Crafty (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, inappropriate personal info, and certainly fails WP:NOTDIR. Probably PROD will be fine - I added a mention of NOTDIR, and removed the list of names. It might, possibly fall into a CSD category, but I don't see any real problem with just letting the PROD run on that one. Geographic places do have a certain degree of 'inherent notability', and I guess it might be theoretically possible to make an article from it - hence not CSD. Hope this is all OK, cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I was more concerned about the privacy stuff. Ta fanx. Crafty (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

GFDL and copyvios

Hi Chzz. I noticed that you recently removed a copyvio tag from the Atlantic partnership article because sourcewatch.org is a copyleft site. However, GFDL-only text can no longer be used on Wikipedia since the switch to dual licensing on June 16 (see Wikipedia:Licensing update). Just thought I'd let you know so that you don't make the same mistake in the future. Also, good luck with the RfA! :) Regards, Theleftorium 14:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On Talk:Atlantic partnership, the creator stated

Information taken from Atlantic Partnership.org and posted to Wikipedia and SourceWatch

- and, note their edit summary in [5],

Created Page from SourceWatch page also made by this uer [sic]

- hence I thought CSD was inappropriate, because we might be able to obtain permission from the copyright holder. I read in Wikipedia:Copyright_violations that;

if the contributor is the copyright holder of the text, then even if it is published elsewhere under different terms, they have the right to post it here under CC-BY-SA and GFDL – the text may still be unsuitable for Wikipedia for another reason, but it is not a copyright violation. They may donate the material through the procedures described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

.

If it's G4 anyway, then it's a moot point (was it under a different name?) - but I'm interested to know what you think, for future reference. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I just wanted to let you know about the GFDL-thing because of your edit summary. Copyright holders are allowed to post their material here, but only if they make a note at the site of the original publication permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA license (see WP:IOWN). If you come across any more pages like this where ownership is asserted, blank them with {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}} and list them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Theleftorium 15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Good afternoon,

I wanted to thank you for your explanation of how to set up a talk page archive. Your help is greatly appreciated! I would also be interested in learning how to configure automatic archiving for messages more than 90 days old. If you could point me in the right direction, that would be great. (Wikipedia's search engine is usually pretty good at finding regular articles, but it doesn't seem to work nearly as well for finding Wikipedia help pages.)

Thanks again! –BMRR (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)  Done

Thanks once again for your help! –BMRR (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

can you add new comments to fgamily guy as it went through a copy-edit.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing

So if anyone can edt, why are there 'editors' who override contributor. So why are their different editor statuses? One of the people editing Fruitarian responds as if he is the decider about what can and cannot be put at that article. Zanze123 (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no editors who can override edits, except in the case of administrators, who can protect articles to stop an edit war.

Anyone can add to an article, and anyone can remove it - in either case, the editors should follow the policies - the information should be verifiable and neutral. If there is a disagreement, then the users should discuss their opinions on the discussion page of the article, and try to reach a consensus. If there are difficulties in agreeing, there are lots of dispute-resolution methods available.

I hope that this helps explain a little.  Chzz  ►  09:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that editors do not respond, when they have no case. So there is no discussion, and that way, they avoid the difficulty of reaching any agreement. Zanze123 (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the note. I wish I could be more active, and would loved to have nominated you. I voiced my opinion. Best of luck.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hi. I'm very concerned about some of your edits to the article 2009 Thekkady boat disaster, which do not seem to comply with copyright policy. Policy forbids reuse of previously published text without verification of permission unless that text has been verified to be free. While we may use limited quotations, clearly marked, in accordance with WP:NFC, we must otherwise put all of our contributions into original language which we are legally entitled to license on Wikipedia. I see that in this edit, you both closely paraphrased and directly duplicated text from [6]. Almost the entire first paragraph has been duplicated, including the legitimately used quote but also the text that follows it and much of the text that precedes it. With this edit, you infringed on [7] with minimal alterations. Compare, for example, "Their bodies were taken to the primary health centre at Kumaly and later flown to Chennai" to the source's "The bodies of Aishwarya and Senthilkumari were taken to the primary health centre at Kumaly and later flown to Chennai." You've omitted their names, but otherwise your text is identical save for altering the word "the" to "their." With this edit, you introduced text very close to [8]. Again, compare your "The head of the forensic scientists’ team, K Mohanan, said that a clear picture would only emerge after detailed examinations, planned for Monday." with the source's "K Mohanan, head of the forensic scientists’ team, said a clear picture would emerge only after detailed examinations that would probably be carried out on Monday." These are very minimal alterations. Word-for-word duplication is not the limit of copyright infringement. When you write something in your own words, you really do have to write it from scratch: new language, new structure. Only very occasionally is language so devoid of creativity that it can be safely reused. (And, believe me, I know what a pain it is to find a new way to say something; I've spent a lot of time at that.)

There were other passages from those edits and elsewhere in the article which I've addressed and some concerns I addressed within Lydia Foy. (There is more in that article that would be of concern, but US court judgments are public domain and I believe that UK judgments are as well. I'll have to check on that.)

I think it's important to address this to make sure that material is written completely in your own words in the future and also to see if we can figure out if there are other articles that are likely to be of concern to which you've already contributed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Further copyright concerns

Hi. With respect to Braille Institute of America, you'll need to verify if you have permission to reproduce text from [9]. The process for doing so is at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. I have not double-checked for extensiveness, but an automated checker I use picked up quite a few phrases copied directly from the official site. You can see examples at Talk:Braille Institute of America. In addition to verifying permission for the aph text, I think there's likely to be quite a bit more material in that article that will need work. I've blanked it for now. And I am, of course, still watching your page in case you need help with the verification process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if this is even your article. You don't attribute anyone else, but it seems to have been pasted from here. If so, this is (of course) an entirely different copyright problem, one related to reuse. Our license requires that we give credit to content contributors even when moving text around within Wikipedia. That's the main reason why cut and paste moves such as this seem to be are undesirable. Another reason is exemplified by the other concern: without verification, this text is a copyright problem, and if you are not the original creator, you're not likely to be in position to verify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and notified User:BasicallyGood of the copyright issues in Braille Institute of America, since it seems certainly to have been his. It seems that you may need to provide attribution for a few other braille-related articles (unless I can figure out where they came from and can do a history merge). You also also copied text into Braille#Literacy that I believe may have been authored by BasicallyGood. If I'm right, you can take care of that one through the relatively simple procedure of {{copied}} and edit summary attribution. If you need help with that, please let me know.

I've also removed some problem text from William Windsor (goat). I'm very sorry that this problem wasn't uncovered and addressed sooner, at a less tense time. You are so scrupulous about citing your sources in articles that I really can't believe you've intentionally infringed on anyone. I believe you're operating in full good faith. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. When there is more than one article involved, I generally prefer to discuss these things on user talk, because these conversations are not of general interest to other readers and because I clean quite a few articles, and I can't watch them all. :) With respect to Lydia Foy, I wonder if perhaps you are not correctly remembering some of the language from your sources. Take, for example, this: "As a sign of love to her mother she took her name Annice as her second name" was copied directly from [10]. A few other hits from that text: [11], [12], [13]. Also, compare your sentence: "The Irish Supreme Court returned Foy's case to the High Court in 2005 to consider the issues raised by the European decisions." to "The Supreme Court returned the case to the High Court in 2005 to deal with issues raised by the European decisions" from [14]. You've altered only a few words here. You stated at my talk page that you believed this article to have been sufficiently paraphrased. If you still feel you've sufficiently paraphrased given these examples, we may value from additional review, because I do not. Rewriting completely requires entirely altering language and syntax.

If you look at the foundation edit for William Windsor (goat) you may better see some of the concerns. Looking at BBC, it said, "Billy was not a mascot but a ranking member of the regiment." You said, "is not a mascot, but a ranking member of the regiment." The BBC said, "seen service overseas, met royalty and led every battalion parade." You said, "he has served overseas, met royalty, and led every battalion parade." The BBC said, "Soldiers from the battalion lined the route from his pen to the trailer as he left the camp for the last time." You said, "Soldiers from the battalion lined the route from his pen to the trailer as he left the camp for the last time." There are plenty of other examples from that source and others, but I run the risk of violating NFC myself if I document them all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the first example, then, which was it the verbatim quote;

• "As a sign of love to her mother she took her name Annice as her second name."

Instead of removal, what would be an appropriate was to paraphrase that without it being too close? How about;

• "As a sign of love to her mother she took her Mothers name, Annice as her second name, as a sign of her love"

Presumably that is still too close? Could you perhaps illustrate what would and would not be acceptable, in that specific case? If we change the phrase 'sign of love' to 'affection', or 'in tribute to' or something, are we then not introducing our point-of-view, and/or performing original research? (Oh, BTW, thx for the revert)  Chzz  ►  12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: the revert, no problem. Some strange random wikicide, evidently. :)

I run into it a lot that people wind up sticking too close to the language for fear of original research. That's a common concern. And as I said above, I know it can be a real pain to rewrite text, but as long as the facts are the same, it's still verifiable, even if the language is completely different.

What's protected by copyright law is the creativity in a work. The most obvious manifestation of that is language choice, but that's not the limit of it, which is why even translating from another language (which alters every word) is still a copyright infringement. The structure of the piece is also protected--the order and organization of sentences, for instance--the syntax. The creative selection of which facts to stack in what way.

Sometimes, you lose details in paraphrasing. That's unavoidable, I'm afraid. :/ We may not need to speculate on Foy's motives. The facts kind of speak for themselves.

Usually, what I do is boil it down to the unprotected facts. (Facts: Annice was her mother's name. She incorporated it.) Then I try to find a new way to put it. Depending on the text I've already got, I might say, "Foy legally changed her Christian names in November 1993, adopting as her second name the name of her mother." (Only I'd say "middle", because I'm American. :)) The name has already been introduced in the article, so I would not regard it as essential, but it can easily be added: "her mother, Annice." After I craft a sentence, I compare.

Some of good paraphrasing requires a gut check. One issue you always have to keep in mind is the amount of taking from a particular source. US copyright law considers the substantiality of material involved (though that is not simply a matter of size, but weighted by importance both to the original work and the new one). Now, I'm not saying that if you're only taking one sentence from a source you can copy it. :) (Wikipedia's rules are pretty clear on how we use non-free text.) We should try to do a good paraphrase of any material we use, unless we're quoting. But if you are heavily relying on a source, you must use extra care in paraphrasing from it to avoid "substantial similarity".

Hopefully I've answered your question well enough. My train of thought has been multiply interrupted, due to its being the weekend and Halloween. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely grateful for you taking the trouble to explain so clearly - fantastic. I noted your edit here, which is a great illustration of how it can be done. I hope to try and work in a similar manner on the other problems we have discussed - although my train has also been diverted considerably, due to the issues raised in the RfA.

Happy holidays, and I look forward to working with you further. With sincere gratitude,  Chzz  ►  10:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

George Bacchus & Sons

Hey there; I noticed that somebody asked you at your RfA why there were so many edits to the George Bacchus & Sons article. Since your sandbox was moved over, all the unrelated revs came with it. I split the histories just now, so all the revisions are where they belong. Now the Bacchus & Sons article only has edits that relate to the development of the article, and your User:Chzz/test page has all other sandbox-related edits in its history. :) Just letting you know, cheers, JamieS93 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep - thanks for that; spot-on. I've also described it in the RfA. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations

Hello Chzz, do you think that the inline citations on Ksenia Milicevic page are a litle better? Thanks again.Best regards--Jeanbarousse (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's much better; great work. I just removed the tag, which was the {{nofootnotes|date=October 2009}} part, with this edit - you could actually have removed that yourself, because you had addressed the specific issue. There is a danger that someone might put a {{refimprove}} on it, ie;

That's because there are still lots of facts that lack a source - for example, Both parents, (mother born in U.S.A, father in Montenegro), were Partisans engaged in guerrilla campaigns during the Second World War - and various other parts in the 'life' section, several of the exhibitions, and all the museums listed.

The reason for this requirement is best illustrated by example - supposing another editor were to change the above quoted text to say their parents they were not partisans in the Battle of the Neretva, but instead participated on the 'other side'. Anyone reviewing such an amendment would have no way to verify which was correct. The critical thing is verifiability - ie, that there should be a means for the reader to 'check the facts', by pursuing the independent, reliable sources stated. These sources do not necessarily have to be online - they could be published on paper, in books, newspapers, etc. It is also worth noting that they do not have to be in English, and that in the case of the museum exhibitions, a primary source such as the museum website showing that Milicevic's work is there, would be satisfactory.

This issue is even more critical in biographies of living persons, due to the legality involved. Unsourced negative information is removed, without discussion -but any unsourced facts might be removed. The applicable policy stated that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed" and that "any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article". Editors are encouraged to try and fix things always, and thus we would hope that they would attempt to add a source before removing it - however, the debate over whether unsourced info should be marked with a tag such as {{fact}} (producing ), rather than just removed, and how long it should remain is very much a matter of opinion, and generates lots of debate.

I hope this helps, and I wish you every success in future editing.  Chzz  ►  11:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:龗

Can you explain in far more thorough detail what the connection is between you and User:龗? I've raised this as a question at your RfA as well. Thanks. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to pay attention with an open mind if you have a good explanation, but as the checkuser stands this really doesn't look good. Please communicate. Durova³⁵¹ 03:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What's up?

Hey, how are you doing with all of this drama going on? Hope it isn't to much stress. I just logged on maybe a few hours ago, so I didn't hear the whole story, but I've got a good summery of what's going on. Cheers, Cubs197 ^(talk) 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for your support in this. Yes, it has caused considerable stress - which is why I didn't respond immediately; I decided to 'step away from the keyboard' for a short time. I'm doing my best to be open and honest, and have addressed the allegations 'head-on' on the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Chzz. As you know, the reason why I didn't go through RfA before was largely because I hate this kind of drama and politics. If nothing else, it is an "experience" - I now know what it feels like to be accused of such things. Not a pleasant experience, but, as a wise philosopher once said, That which does not kill us makes us stronger [15].

Thanks for your concern; it means a lot.  Chzz  ►  12:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think really the best thing you could do is to ask the other individual to disclose his or her prior account to a checkuser. It's tough to be in this position; the site has had its share of vote stacking sockfarms in the past. Nobody wants to err again--either on the side of too much generosity or of too much suspicion. Durova³⁵¹ 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand; I'm working on that, but of course there are privacy issues - so I am discussing the whole matter with rlevse, via email. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  14:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

While you were out:

Oh my, chzz.

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz/Archive
2. WP:BN#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz (Moved from Talk:RfA)

A summary of what has happened is:

• 龗 has been blocked indefinitely.
• Fish4Trees has been blocked indefinitely.
• Your RfA has been extended by two days by MBisanz.
• I'm confused.

I wish you all the best, whatever the case is here. You're a great (even if sometimes a little quirky) editor who I'm confident has, when editing, the goal only to improve the encyclopedia. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 04:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much feel the same way. It is very unfortunate when an editor like this implodes at RfA, and I think I echo a great many of your initial supporters when I say that while you should not be given the mop right now, you should most certainly stick around and try again down road (at least a year). I think most people trust you intelligence, but you need to do quite a lot to restore the community's trust. Hiberniantears (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Please consider withdrawing your Rfa for the good of the project to spare us additional days of turmoil. Thanks for the many good things you have done. In hopes you can get past this, suck it up, stick around and move into a promising future here, Jusdafax 18:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing your RfA

Would you be willing to close your RfA early, or do you want it to run the full allotted time including the extension? -- Avi (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Rlvese, I have closed your RfA as withdrawn. Thank you, and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)