User talk:Chzz

Chzz is taking a break from Wikipedia. --  Chzz  ►  04:36, 27 July 2010
...sort-of. For a combination of Wiki?edia-related and IRL reasons, I'm not quite editing at my normal capacity. I may or may not be around. I hope that 'normal service' will be resumed, at some point in the future.  Chzz  ►  12:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are looking for a recent-ish reply, it'll be in User talk:Chzz/Archive 26 OR 27

Talk page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Current readership (09:00 UTC)

No worries

We deal with a lot more ridiculous items. We may have opposed it but we understand why you nominated it and why it is importantYour story was at least Significant news in Britain's Biology and animal lovers community. . Just look with what we are dealing with now "Death of Paul the Octopus" and last week 2010 Belgian love triangle skydiving murder trial. Do not be discouraged and stop by again soon The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am discouraged, very much so; I just realise it's pointless to go on about it. I find it incomprehensible that it is considered unimportant, in direct comparison with other ITN's that are accepted. I'm frustrated, disillusioned and disappointed. However, I'm not a DIVA, so I choose to simply step away. It's only a wiki, etc.

Thanks for the thoughts though. Chzz  ►  19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: erm. see below.  Chzz  ►  21:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Emperor of Exmoor for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Emperor of Exmoor, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Exmoor until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Simple Bob (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

More Help

Rangoon11 is doing the same with flags @ Linklaters what should be done. also at Baker & McKenzie VHarris44 (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true, VHarris44 has visited a large number of law firm articles today and deleted the list of offices (not just the flags) with no prior discussion. They have also followed me to King's College London where they have made tit-for-tat edits and left the lead of that article in a mess (I can't revert their edits there again as I will breach 3RR).Rangoon11 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

VHarris44 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked, in connection with this issue.  Chzz  ►  13:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:WikiProject North America/Recognized content

Hi, I clarified why Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:WikiProject North America/Recognized content appears blank. It's a bot request page, that will be filled in by a bot. The current contents is an invisible template, but JL-Bot (talk · contribs) is supposed to come around and place content underneath that as an automated service for Wikiprojects. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK; thanks; it's relisted now.  Chzz  ►  13:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

...and I just 'accepted it. I think AFC is inappropriate for project stuff; but still. Done. This would all be way easier if you made a user account though.  Chzz  ►  17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jediism

Hi there. User:ResidentAnthropologist persists in making erroneous and improper edit reverts at Jediism. I am reporting him to you for violating RRR rule. He has reverted my edits from that article, edits which have removed mentions of nontheism and some fictitious "Way of Shao-lin" that have no basis in fact. Please come and help, this is rather tedious. The user does not post anything on the talk page, nor do I suspect this user will do so in future.75.21.159.227 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop trying to add the same thing, and instead discuss it on Talk:Jediism, to establish a consensus. There is no rush. It takes more than one person to make an edit-war; just relax, and talk about it instead.  Chzz  ►  17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That is exactly what I have been doing--relaxing--for quite some time. Yet the reversions of improvements I make are continuing. I understand the concern about vandalism at the article, and I also forget to add edit summaries. However, I will not tolerate the continued mention of something fictitious as if it were a fact. There is no "way" of Shao-lin except Buddhist vows. Thanks for your input and help.75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so make your points on the article talk page. If you can explain good reasons for the edits, other editors will concur, and then the edit can be made without fuss; however, the constant battling on the live article is not constructive - it will just lead to the article being protected, and accounts being blocked. As long as users discuss things instead of battling, all is well - and please note, this is entirely unrelated to who is "right or wrong" - it doesn't matter. It's all about collaborative, calm discussion. If something you wish to change is disputed, by another editor, then you must not repeat the edit until there is agreement to make it; see WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISCUSS, WP:BRD, WP:NAM, etc etc.

And although it is a humerous page, it might help to read WP:WRONGVERSION.  Chzz  ►  17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. So it is preferable to allow my corrections to be reverted back to fantasy and inaccuracy? Even though I have posted, begged, pleaded on the talk page while this editor only posted today?75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)