Jump to content

User talk:Chzz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Spalds (talk | contribs)
1,588 edits
m →thanks for the welcome: forgot signature
→what is this thoug: new section
Line 369: Line 369:


However, if you had read my user page, you would have learned that this account is a SPA. But, thanks anyways [[User:LDS-SPA1000|LDS-SPA1000]] ([[User talk:LDS-SPA1000|talk]]) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
However, if you had read my user page, you would have learned that this account is a SPA. But, thanks anyways [[User:LDS-SPA1000|LDS-SPA1000]] ([[User talk:LDS-SPA1000|talk]]) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

== what is this thoug ==

http://toolserver.org/~bjelleklang/pjirc/

Revision as of 17:31, 27 April 2009

พระकपासअवअ

Leave me a message
Emergency block button
Emergency block button
Emergency Wikipedia shutdown
Emergency block button
Emergency block button

DO NOT PRESS

File:326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png
ようこそ！

TomCat4680

TomCat4680 (talk · contribs) re. American football infobox

{{Talkback|TomCat4680}}

{{Talkback|TomCat4680}}

Talkback from GandalftheWise

{{tb|GandalftheWise}} (unsigned; from GandalftheWise (talk · contribs) 12:52, 21 April 2009  Done

Help User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz problem

Hi Chzz,

I'm so sorry to bothering you again but I seem to be unlucky.

If you wouldn't mind could you please have a look t article Jessicka. I think you'll see the article is sufficiently referenced.

I've tried to first discuss my problem in good faith with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here [32] and on my talk page here: [33] but he's decided to ignore me. After reading his talk page I see I'm not the only person having a problem with him.

Sadly, Hullaballoo has a reputation for trolling Wiki articles and deleting absolutely anything and everything that isn't cited to "his standards", rather than simply citing it himself, all the while continually invoking various Wikipedia policies to defend his agenda and making bad faith suggestions such as "you need to 'reread' such-and-such policy." I believe this is referred to as "gaming the system" (WP:GAME), and he is what we call a destructive, rather than constructive, editor. :(

Is there anything you can do? I'm really frustrated that my wife's article is continually vandalized by users like this. thank again, Xtian1313 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry to hear you are frustrated, however, I'd have to back the other editor on this one. I like to think of myself as an inclusionist, but I do make two exceptions. One is BLP information without good sources, the other is in regard to spam articles. I won't quote policy - you've already heard all that; instead, I'll merely give you this quotation from Jimbo;

Template:Jimboquote

*Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved on 2009-04-08.

I don't agree with everything Mr Wales says, but in this case, I'm in full accord.
The problem can be solved easily though - if you explain on the talk page what info should be added, with reliable sources, then it can be put back.
Sorry I can't offer any more concrete help, but I do think that some of your comments to the other editor were attacking him/her, rather than addressing the actual dispute; please be very careful about that. You are perfectly entitled - indeed encouraged - to vigorously argue about the pros and cons of adding/removing information; however, comments directed at other editors will not be tolerated.
I sincerely hope this helps,  Chzz  ►  18:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Everything in the article is now sourced. The sources are easy to find.

I'm frustrated that anytime I address any issue with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz they either A. Ignore me or B. deflect spouting policy.


"Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. A person with a complaint should be encouraged constantly to present problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk."

I have tried to address several subjects with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in good faith. Is ok for me to ignore this user all together?

Xtian1313 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm really sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to this; I did look at the issue, and then realised it would need a bit of my time to fully understand what has been happening - I need to look at it in more detail. Unfortunately, I've been extremely busy with other things. I promise you that, if at all possible, I will find the time to work on this ASAP.
A brief note for now - no, it's not OK to ignore them; if a user makes any kind of personal attack, then that can be dealt with. I'm not making any kind of a judgement here; just saying that policies are important, and it's vital in discussion to stick to the topic, and not discuss people - that applies to every contributor.
More soon, once again my apologies for not being able to give more time to this yet.  Chzz  ►  17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that this issue is being handles by others, so I won't step in - unless you leave me a further message here. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  01:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomcat4680

{{Talkback|TomCat4680}} TomCat4680 (talk · contribs)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


RE: Icon

Hi ChZZ, how did u get the icon for your name instead of this: El-Pabloski (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pls Reply, El-Pabloski

Hi there. It's possible to customise your signature, and you can put 'code' in it to have different colours, etc. Pictures aren't allowed; hence, mine isn't an icon, it's just text characters with different colours.
You put the code in your preferences signature box, and checkmark the 'user raw signatures'; please note that it's fiddly, and easy to get it wrong, so it's best to best signing in a user sandbox area (such as User:El-Pabloski/test).
When using 'raw signatures' in your preferences, you need to manually include the links to your user and talk pages.
The code for mine is as follows;

<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background-color:darkblue; color:#FFFFFF">  Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B; background-color:yellow; border: 0px solid; "> ► </span>]]</span></small>

A simpler signature uses this;

<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Chzz|<b>Chzz</b>]] : [[User_talk:Chzz|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small>

Which displays as Chzz :  Chat 

Note that you should always include your name (or part of it), a link to your user page and talk page.
Perhaps the easiest way to learn more is simply to look at other peoples signatures, by editing the page they've signed on, and looking at the code. For an example page with several, ahem, interesting signatures, see the April 1st Request for signatureship.
For much more info on this, see Wikipedia:SIGNATURE#Customizing_your_signature.
If you need any help with it, ask here or talk to us live.
Cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like This For Example?

El-Pabloski : Chat

Nicely Done  Chzz  ►  15:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You're very helpful. Thank you. Jkjambsj (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; do not feed the trolls :-)  Chzz  ►  16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Thanks. I was not aware that there was a template for this sort of thing. I shall read through it. Thanks for pointing this out to me. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No problem :-) You can imagine how difficult it is - for example, someone trying to follow *this* conversation - when things get split across many talk pages. Often, conversations end up with bits on one users talk, bits on the other, bits on the article talk page, then bits on the ANI, etc. It gets terribly confusing.
So - some disagree, but I personally always answer wherever the question is asked - whether it be here, on my talk, like this - or on another users talk page, on an article page, etc.
Now - regarding templates - they are unbelievably powerful, and there are templates for just about anything you can think of. For example, I notice your contribs are about films; the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films has a template on their page, {{WPFILMS Sidebar}}. You could add that to your talk page or user page, and it would display like this;
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Israeli cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox
To be more flash, you could put {{hidden|Movie talk|{{WPFILMS Sidebar}}}}, which would look like this;
Movie talk
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Israeli cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox
Click on the 'show/hide' thing on the right. Note that in that 'code', {{hidden}} is a template...which calls on other templates, etc etc, like Russian dolls.
Understanding that helps understand the whole transclusion business, which is core to the mediawiki software.
I'm still learning, so good luck with that :-)  Chzz  ►  22:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City

Please re-instate the semi-protection to the article, we are about to enter the transfer season when vandalism becomes more intense. The protection was added for good reason after several attempts at adding it on a temporary basis. This issue has been monitored several times in the past. If you think it should be removed, please discuss the merits before taking action. Also note that the first edits made to the article (which is a Featured Article BTW) have been considered vandalism and been reverted (note this was not by me). Paul  Bradbury 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry, hope you're not annoyed with my action. I did see the history, but I noted that it was over a year ago; the policy in general is that semi-protection is an unfortunate last-resort, as one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit. I do understand your concerns, but if we semi-protected all articles of this type, it would be a very different type of Encyclopaedia.
I would hope, therefore, that no administrator would reinstate semi-protection without good reason - ie persistent, ip-relateed vandalism.
The page will be closely monitored, and if it becomes a problem, I'll be the first to support semi.
Please note that, for example, the 'article of the day' is never semi-protected; there has been a lot of debate over these issues, but that is the current consensus.
...and, as I write this, I see it's a moot point - as the semi-protection has been reinstated, despite no editing from any anonymous ip's, and indeed no vandalism.
This makes me very sad; a new user joined our community, and I assumed good faith; El-Pabloski (talk · contribs) wanted to edit the article but was unable to do so because of the semi-protection. They made some edits, which - it would appear- were good edits. They were reverted as vandalism - please take a look at the revert, and see how this could possibly be construed as vandalism.
I'm deeply saddened by all of this. Regards,  Chzz  ►  16:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not annoyed that you have tried to un-protect an article, my issue is that you did so without discussion at the article in question. I can understand your point of view and I agree with the principle, the problem is that Manchester City at the moment is a very high profile football team which has a lot of incorrect media speculation around it. We are also heading into transfer season when this gets worse and IP vandalism becomes unmanageable without breaking the 3RR rule. The protection was put in place after several attempts to protect the article for short periods of time, then longer periods of time, eventually leading to indefinate.
I have looked at the edits and I don't see any good edits and some that to me appear to be straight vandalism (although please note I was not the one who reverted them as such). In order my take on them is.
* Added numerous templates to the beinning of the article that were not needed, I can see how this could be construed as a new editor getting it wrong, or as vandalism given the context of the other edits below.
* swapped chairman and manager around, this is a basic easily verifyable fact not in dispute, so I can only assume vandalism here.
* factually acurate but did not enhance the article and really a semantic argument based on the fact that Manchester United is in Trafford, a suburb and not part of the city limits of Manchester, similar to Chelsea not being in London (when for all intents and purposes it is).
* Changed season link, no real problem with this one, although to me it reads better the original way.
* Changed Michael Ball link to link to incorrect person, this appears to be vandalism as it is easily checked and no reason to do it.
* Changed Kelvin Etuhu from Nigerian to English, I can understand how this may have been a good faith edit, however it is incorrect.
* Removed on loan players and replaced with the word 'son'. This is blatant vandalism.
So please help me understand which edits made you think were good edits? This is not meant to be antogonistic, this is honestly how I saw those edits and I am confused as to how you can see them as something else, I am willing to listen and even change my opinion. Sincerely Paul  Bradbury 19:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question

  • Hello! I thought I might be back to participate here, but one Trusilver and one aggiebean, both in my opinion cowardly users who hide their identities because they have the technical know-how, have given me a good beating. I've just been reprimaded by Trusilver the Cabal-man like my parents never dreamt of doing. For what? Trying to participate on WikiMisery's Anna Anderson talk page. Look for yourself. Do you see personal attacks there, if my comments have not yet been erased? Do you see inappropriate entries there of any type? Yet Trusilver has the audacity to lecture me and threaten me privately, then tries tricking me, as many of you people do, into replying to him on the talk page-- so everyone can see what a schmuck I am and how I do deserve to be banned. I thought this would be therapeutic and helpful, I thought I had risen to the wiki occasion. A recent death in the family and my persistent illness moved me even more quickly to return to Wikipedia. And I have my handful of favourite pages, but I'm clearly not welcome at the page I mentioned. Is that fair? This is not anarchy! Hogwash! How about you do an official rules page about how this isn't a democratic process and isn't even a proper wiki? And please, this is for your reference, and I hope you'll find your own ways of improving things here, but do not waste my time by replying with inanities, insults or pretend-Mr. Spock-emotional rationality. Just food for thought for a stinking, unjust, bully-in-the-playground website that I hope meets its end soon. And that's no attck, personal or otherwise, that is my prayer. Now after all that you may be inclined to do me the favor I most want: BAN ME FROM THIS SITE. I cannot <<close>> my account here, so ban me. Do us all a favor, and you can tell Trusilver from me that he is one pompous ass I wouldn't hesitate to kick if it were within 50 yards of me.
Accounts are not blocked at the users own request; you can, however, exercise your right to vanish if you wish. Best regards,  Chzz  ►  18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xtian1313

{{talk back}}|User_talk:KyleJustinD

My boyfriend Matthew Eilers told me you have helped him previously on this matter.

(unsigned, KyleJustinD (talk · contribs) 04:11, 25 April 2009)

As I understand it, from looking at the talk page etc, I believe that this matter is now being dealt with by others; therefore, to avoid confusion, I won't add anything further here.
If you do require anything specific from me, please ask me again, thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your hlep. kyle KyleJustinD (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Blood of Angels

Thanks for the heads up. I did what I could (and rv what I thought was a vandal who deleted all the text), and cast my vote to Keep for what it's worth. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, no vandal--just someone who thinks that writing on Wikipedia should follow Wikipedia guidelines, rules such as no original research, no fanpraise, etc. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow, I find it hard to believe that Drmies is just being a "good Wikipedian," when s/he states that this type of music is "dull" [34] and removes (from another article for Nox Arcana) referenced statements in print [35] and removes other statements altogether rather than making any attempt to find an online source. I did a Google search for the un-ref'd statements, and good refs came up on the first page.[36]. Drmies definitely has an issue with the singer on the album, or the band, or both. Drmies is not trying to constructively edit, s/he just keeps blanking whole paragraphs. A simple "cite needed" tag would have been better. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chzz, sorry to have this out on your talk page. Ebonyskye, please don't spread lies. The first diff you refer to does not state "I think this is dull"--it merely offers a different (hypothetical) judgment (that's what "may" means in English), just as unverified as your "ethereal" and those other "descriptions" which you called "factual." The second diff does not point to statements verified by sources; every WP editor has the right to remove unverified material. The third diff, supposedly the result of your "research," does not even mention William Piotrokski--did you fail to notice that in your ethereal exuberance? I have removed the claim again. Oh, perhaps you'll indicate next time what it was that Piotrowski did for that documentary--did he direct it or did he get coffee for the director? Your game of notability by hearsay is not helping the pedia. BTW, you haven't yet thanked me for fixing the grammar of, and thus giving meaning to, that strange Billboard reference. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsectioned thx for welcome

hi thanks alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eveboo900 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks man! -wicker1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicker1 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleting article on me?

hello chzz, coming to you because you helpd me earlier. i asked my boyfriend if he could delete the article on here written about me so he asked a few friends and they said they didn't think he could, and to ask you. honestly i thought this article done on me by a few other people was cool awhile back but as i look more into everything that's happened lately, it does look like one bad apple really does spoil the bunch. when i say lately, i don't mean all the normal/necessary edits done to the article like that done by cleantime recently. i mean the unnecessary edits by revolving ips and usernames from day one. anyway...i thought it was neat but its becoming nonsense & really silly. i have done a few things in my life but dont feel like what ive done has been all that noteworthy nor do i have the need or want for everything i do to be on wikipedia/all over the net. i do try hard to do good in my life only because i want to help others, not to have myself propped up or have others do so. i especially do not have any sort of desire to be lumped into a category with people who shamelessly promote their every move in life on here. it seems quite obvious that many people do this and i don't want anything to do with a gaggle of very minor internet "celebs" & fame junkies. it seems like most of them haven't really done anything special, interesting, or noteworthy in their lives. in my opinion, it's kind of pathetic.

thanks for your help earlier, you were the most willing to help answer questions and i do appreciate it. can i remove the kyle justin/kyle hamm article or does someone else have to? thank you, kyle KyleJustinD (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i suppose a different option would be to have it all redirected to the article on my band skeleteen. i dont really mind that there's an article on the band. either way as long as the personal article is gone. kyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleJustinD (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I assume you're talking about the article Kyle Justin. Well, if you want to nominate it for deletion, you could - see instructions in WP:AFD. I suspect, however, that such a nomination would fail; the article asserts notability, and has reasonable references. Therefore, I think that it won't be deleted. Just because it's about you doesn't mean you have the right to demand that it is removed; see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there are any specific facts that are incorrect, etc, and you can provide reliable sources to them, then feel free to make such suggestions on the article's discussion page (Talk:Kyle Justin).
Articles don't get removed for no reason - and a user requesting their removal, without any policy reasons, it not a sufficient justification.
Hope that makes sense? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cat tree

Thanks for your response. When I expand the cat tree, I see this: 

[+] United States government attribution templates
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the World Factbook
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Federal Standard 1037C
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from MIL-STD-188
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the United States National Library of Medicine
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Library of Congress Country Studies
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the United States Department of State Background Notes
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the USGS Geographic Names Information System
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Air Force Historical Research Agency
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Naval Vessel Register
[×] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the United States Library of Congress Country Studies
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from United States Marine Corps
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Naval Historical Center
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the National Park Service
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the National Institute of Standards and Technology

which is not alphabetical order. This is the same in both FF3 and IE6.

What I'd like to see is this: 

[+] United States government attribution templates
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from MIL-STD-188
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Air Force Historical Research Agency
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Federal Standard 1037C
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Library of Congress Country Studies
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the National Institute of Standards and Technology
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the National Park Service
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Naval Historical Center
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Naval Vessel Register
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the United States Department of State Background Notes
[×] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the United States Library of Congress Country Studies
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the United States National Library of Medicine
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the USGS Geographic Names Information System
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the World Factbook
[+] Wikipedia articles incorporating text from United States Marine Corps

Thanks —G716 <T·C> 22:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; yes, I see what you mean. I've just spent a few hours looking into this - as I say, I'm not expert in the complexities of categorization. I've looked on mediawiki, and elsewhere; I've concluded, probably there is no simple answer. The only pages I see that manage to present such a format have manually put the cats in alpha order.

I think that the problem is the way the whole hierarchy thing works; you can view a tree of the example we've discussed using this tool. It's not a 'level' structure, so I think the question is more complex than it would appear.

I think, perhaps, it would be worth asking your question in Wikipedia talk:Categorization - I note that that is an active page, and would hope someone there might have more information.
I'm sorry I couldn't help more directly; good luck, please let me know if I can help any more, or indeed, if you get an answer. Best,  Chzz  ►  00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The headline is self explanatory. I remember setting that preference today, but i must have misread what it does. I thought that it would actually be sort-of like an addon for my browser. Again, thanks --Danitnt (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retracted (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for the introductory message. I'm just getting the hang of this but hopefully I'll be editing lots of articles with new sources in no time! --Markojohnson (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmune

hi chzz,

i just started out and want to get on the right note..

i was wondering if you could help elaborate on the "Non-notable; passing mentions in articles but no reliable source to assert notability. Was unable to locate any significant ghits"

are there links i should remove or add? and what are ghits? your assistance would be appreciated! thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramkri (talk • contribs) 07:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In order to assert notability, the article would need significant coverage in reliable sources, such as national newspaper articles. The guidelines on notability are in WP:N; WP:RS explains about reliable sources, and WP:V explains verifiability.
Sorry about the use of the abbreviation 'ghits', I meant Google Hits. I checked google news search, and couldn't find any significant coverage.
Also, as I mentioned, please read the business faq. Various guidelines on these matters strongly recommend that a company employee should not create an article on the company; there are alternative ways to proceed, as detailed in that guide. Another good essay on the topic is WP:BESTCOI.
Hope this is of some help; good luck,  Chzz  ►  07:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

got it. will dig for national level coverage. i have made edits to the site now, made it way simpler. would this suffice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramkri (talk • contribs) 07:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through the policies, which explain why it is strongly recommended that you don't work on the article. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with  Chzz  ►  07:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) at the end.[reply]
The best thing to do would be, follow the ideas and suggestions in the 'welcome' message. This includes learning more about editing, and getting involved in the project by working in other areas, to gain experience of the way things works, before considering creating an article.
Hope this helps,  Chzz  ►  07:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NSDAP Wiki article

Hi, hope you receive this message Chzz, I am a new member here yes this is true. I signed up and modified the NSDAP article and added the reference to the originally written NSDAP articles that have been translated to English for non German. It seems that English is the most popular language to use in the world with more Chinese speaking it than their own languages. I don't know about it being Eurosceptic, I don't think the NSDAP would be offended at the time unless someone opposed it. This is real resourceful research not regurgitated stuff you usually get on the Internet, it came from Germany. I doubt you will be able to do research on the same level so therefore be able to conveniently pass it off as not even being original work of the NSDAP, isn't that a lot easier to do?. Shame... Did you not try contacting Greg at the website? He may be able to help with that and tell you if he is either pro or anti EU. I don't know what being pro or anti EU has to do for a writing requirement on a NSDAP piece. If you like you can ask me if I am pro or anti EU. Personally though I like to learn history before we do anything, not the versions that are rewritten over time but the actual dirt of the era otherwise it is just a fictional half truth tales at best. Just because the NSDAP wrote these documents does not mean we have to be Eurosceptic or anti EU in anyway nor does it mean we have to be a neo nazi to like any of it. I think we can both agree the EU has harmonised laws and rules for all of Europe that do work well.

Will you be attempting any research on the authenticity of these documents?

I appreciate the message though and could do with some help or pointers. Thanks

P.S. I know I may have truncated the Wiki article format by accident, not deliberately so. I think that these documents deserve an independent article in their own right so that this may be avoided in the future, I am sure the wiki writers would strongly oppose this though and move it into some fictional or conspiracy theorist section. Also if this talk back is in the wrong place please show me where it is meant to be.

I wrote this in UK - International English and not U.S. English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfree (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about this edit, which was reverted here? It wasn't me that reverted it; all I did was to leave you a 'welcome to wikipedia' message on your talk page.  Chzz  ►  15:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain of Time GA and A-Class

This user helped promote Fountain of Time to good article status.

Thank you for taking the time to help me improve this article to WP:GA and WP:MILHIST A-Class status as I prepare it for WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, tyvm. Keep me updated, anything I can do, etc. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the welcome

However, if you had read my user page, you would have learned that this account is a SPA. But, thanks anyways LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is this thoug

http://toolserver.org/~bjelleklang/pjirc/

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz&oldid=286475550"