Jump to content

User talk:Chzz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clou2epstein (talk | contribs) at 22:24, 18 October 2009 (→Images: Need Input/Advice: add signature). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk: Chzz  ► 
Leave me a message
Emergency block button
Emergency block button
Emergency Wikipedia shutdown
Emergency block button
Emergency block button

DO NOT PRESS

Where has my message gone?
My talkpage is very active, so please check the archives.
Put your user name or article name into this box, and 'search'-----→
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, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

File:326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png
ようこそ！

Moozement tagged for deletion

Hi,

regarding tagging the Moozement for deletion... "I notice that you removed the 'proposed deletion', but, it still does not seem to have any independent reliable sources. Are you able to add any?" I wrote some comments on the Talk:Moozement talk page.

Since the first edit I added already few, so it now consists the following references/external links:

1) Moozement homepage - Obviously not independent. :)

2) Moozement in Quarkbase.com - profile page. Ok. Probably filled by the owners.

3) [32] Killerstartups, MoozeMent.com - Social Training Log 2009-05-28. This is the biggest "authority" in following Nordic / Baltic tehcnology startups. They did an interview and a coverage story of Moozement. If this is not independent I don't know what is?

4) [33] Artic Startup, Moozement – A Simplified Training Log For Sharing Your Activities, 2009-05-15. An article by again an independent organisation following startups in the Northern Europe.

The following ones are more individual bloggers. I'd rather leave them out, but you insisted on more references.

[34] School library association of Victoria covering the use of Moozement for physical education. [35] Moozement.com; something quite interesting [36] List of top 60 social media sports sites [37] Moozement, a social training for our sports (in Italian)

I don't understand your comment that the article doesn't consist ANY independent sources...?

best regards,

Jarno Alhonen (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

killerstartups.com doesn't look like a reliable source to me; I note the 'submit your startup' button; it looks like a site designed to allow people to promote their startup company. It really is not a claim to notability. "Posted by pbarker" with a link to another website for 'beta startups'. arcticstartup.com is very much the same sort of thing; you can pay them and be listed - that does not help pass notability requirements. And, as you rightly surmise, blogs are rarely useful. I see no evidence of the requisite "significant coverage in independent sources". On the talk page, you mention other articles - I'm fully aware that there are lots of terrible articles on Wikipedia; all we can do is try to fix that - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for an explanation of why this is not an appropriate argument for keeping a page.  Chzz  ►  21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, making statements on other articles doesn't really justify anything. That was immature, so I take that one back if I may...

To be listed on Articstartup you don't even need to pay. You can really do it yourself. The point was that they did a story and video interview on Moozement, which is of course not something they do for everyone...

To give an idea on the "trustworthiness" of Arcticstartup and their position in the Nordic market, here's a story in the biggest selling and oldest newspaper in Finland called "Helsingin sanomat" using Arcticstartup as a source in their story. http://www.hs.fi/talous/artikkeli/Jaikun+perustajat+ottivat+hatkat+Googlelta/1135250023315 The story itself is in Finnish, but you can run it through google translate if you want. This is like Wallstreet Journal referring to Techcrunch, on a smaller scale of course.

Jarno Alhonen (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, it's like a newspaper referring to a MySpace blog. They do that, but we wouldn't use the blog as a source. If you disagree, perhaps we could as on WP:RSN?  Chzz  ►  11:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images: Need Input/Advice

I would now like to add some images:

  • The school building
  • The school's Eagle crest
  • Hebrew graphic to represent bilingualism

Please let me know the following: What proceedure would you like me to follow with respect to the images? Upload them and then post a message requesting editor to add them? Clou2epstein (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. School building & Hebrew, if they are your own pictures, then yes, please upload them to commons. If they are someone elses pictures, please get them to email us permission, using the text here, filling in their name, and attaching the pics - send to photosubmissions@wikimedia.org.
Re. logo, I expect that will be copyright, but that 'fair use of a non-free image' would apply, so upload that on Wikipedia itself, using the 'upload' link on the left, choosing the appropriate options ie "logo of ...public facility", and specify the name of the article that will use it.
In all cases, once uploaded, yes, please request that they are added on Talk:The Epstein School - and leave me a note, I'll try to process it. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:

Chzz,

I have now uploaded The Epstein School building image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epstein10-09-250px-CL3.jpg

Can you add this to the page near the top right please?...to the right of the History section.

Thanks Clou2epstein (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help. I am not asking for page called Remineralization, but a redirection to Rock Dust. Except, really Rock Dust needs to be called Remineralization (different to remineralisation which exist). I could move the page myself, except I am not sure how to do this, since there is already one called Remineralisation. I know there is a disambiguation process, but I am not clear about it. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Ok, so...if there were 3 or more things with the same name, we would normally have a disambiguation page;

"XXX can refer to;

  • XXX (band)
  • XXX (book)
  • XXX (film)

When there are just two, and unlikely to be another in the forseeable future, we usually just use the 'hatnotes', ie "This article is about a book, for the film of the same name, see XXX (film).

The only problem is, we have to decide which of the two should be the 'primary topic'. In this case, I have no idea; what do you think? The choices are as follows;

  • Option 1
  • Rename Remineralisation to Remineralisation (chemistry) (or whatever is appropriate)
  • Rename Rockdust to Remineralisation
  • Add hatnotes to both
  • Option 2
  • Option 3 (disambig)
  • Rename Remineralisation to Remineralisation (chemistry) (or whatever is appropriate)
  • Rename Rockdust to "Reminerlisation (X)" (or whatever is appropriate)
  • Create a disambiguation page called "Reminerlisation" which lists the two articles

For more advice on it, see WP:DISAMBIG.

You can pretty much decide for yourself which is the best approach, per WP:BOLD and indeed WP:BRD - ie, best to just do it, and if anyone complains, they can change it back and discuss.  Chzz  ►  16:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image on title

Hey, chzz! I noticed that you managed to get your signature picture in the user talk title. How do you do that? BTW, please tell me when you are going to request for an administrator. Thank you.  Btilm  05:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the header...to be perfectly frank, it is a real hack, and shouldn't work at all; in fact, I believe a mediawiki bug fix is likely to stop it working soon...so there's not much point getting into it.
Re. administrator...thanks. A few people have been asking me to do so, and I am thinking about it. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary evidence.

Question.... Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism#Criticisms Morris Krok is cited with reference 22, and this is treated as a secondary source and thus acceptable, but in reality, it is really Tom Billings opinion on what he believes or wishes to maintain Morris Krok actually told him. It's 3rd party evidence. He can say that Krok said anything that he likes. How can Wikipedia be a reliable source when sources cited and accepted as secondary are really third party? [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

If Krok is the primary source, and Billings is the third party, who is the intermediate party?  Chzz  ►  18:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Who is the intermediate party? And maybe one of the editors of that article is Mr Billings? [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Without evidence to the contrary, we assume good faith on the part of Mr. Billings and the truthfulness of his recollections. If there is evidence that contradicts his statements, then that is another matter - and such evidence could either be in the form of a similarly reliable-looking source, or in the form of an article discussing the disparate views on the subject. In this case, we must maintain balance - and my favorite essay covers this topic very nicely, so please read WP:TIGER. Hope it helps, cheers!  Chzz  ►  02:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'good faith' adequate for an encyclopedia. Mr Billings documents at his website how he is a failed fruitarian. That is hardly an objective secondary source! The evidence which contradicts his statements is at Morris Krok at Wiki in quotes. The point is, Krok wrote books advocating a fruitarian diet. The idea that he then refuted it - anyone could say that about anything. One could say Hitler wrote Mein Kampf but according to a personal conversation between him and you, it was all a fairytale and he didn't mean it really. Why should that constitute secondary evidence in good faith? It seems to me that Wiki is full of references which have no basis. Billings website is no different than a blog. I'd like to read your essay on balance, but meantime, where is the balance at the fruitarian article, where the only 2 famous fruitarians documented are a Neo Nazi White Supremacist, and Ghandi, who was not fruitarian but ate dairy. This article is biased towards those who are against a fruit diet. The citation (24) is a personal website for Tom Billings who makes a claim that Morris Krok, who wrote books on fruitarianism did not actually endorse the diet. This is just Billings claim and not a reliable source. Editors who do not understand the dynamics of, or believe in the possibility of a fruitarian diet are not in a position to fairly edit this article. Citing the list of famous fruitarians as being an example of the diet being unviable is a weak claim. Hippocrates, Socrates, Pythagoras, Seneca, Plutarco and others in history were allegedly fruitarian as testament by their writings and nobody can prove to the contrary. Jesus (John) was also fruitarian but many translations of the bible have changed this. It is impossible to prove anything for sure in history, therefore one can neither make a claim nor not make it. Yet the editors at Wiki accept Billings claim at face value which thus warps the neutrality of the article. I find that wholly unacceptable as I know fruitarians personally, who do not eat nuts or seeds, or any other foods, except fruits both sweet and non-sweet, and some do not even eat fat rich fruits like olives and avocados. For every famous person who is it is asserted was fruitarian, it can equally be claimed they were not. So a famous person is not a reliable way to guage the viability of this diet or the credibility. The book Fruitarianism by Anne Osborne (Fruitgod 2009), states that the author has been a strict fruitarian for 17 years, and there will be many other examples, but not everyone has who is fruitarian is famous or has written a book. In any case, Billings has never written a book, and has a vested interest in other diets such as Paleo Diet which includes raw meat, even though man first existed in the preceding epoch, the warm Pleistocene, and thus was a fruitarian before he became a hunter gatherer in the Paleolithic. See the book The Wisdom Of The Bones. It can be proven by didactic, deductive and inductive logic. Therefore this article should be edited more fairly to take account of the situation. I got an email from Krok which clearly showed he believed in the fruitarian diet, even if just as an ideal. Besides which he wrote many articles and books favoring this diet, so where it the wiki article. It does not exist. There's probably more balance at the George W. Bush article than at this one. Also, the citation about Ben Klassen. Again nobody can prove the neo-nazi really was fruitarian (or indeed that anyone else is), and the source seems rather dubious to me. Can you look in to this, for the sake of objectivity. Mr Balanced Editor. Factions have an interest in ensuring that fruitarian diet is not promoted, so they can sell more non-fruitarian foods and products through their businesses. If it was established that one could live just on fruit that would not be possible. Essie Honiball in her famous book I Live On Fruit, lived just on fruit. Thanks. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]

List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates

Hello, Chzz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Celestra (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPOONS!

Hi there Chzz. Thank you for your suggestion but Wikiproject Cutlery's scope apparently covers

"articles about knives, knife making, bladed weapons, and their use." I'm not interested in knives. I'm interested in spoons.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. You didn't write that whole comment at the top of my page. It was two comments, one by you and one by another editor. But yes, I like spoons.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to help Wikipedia. But if there is no Wikiproject for spoons or something similar, then my dreams of being the Spoon Wikipedian are ruined. =(--Spoon Maniac (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem - Wikipedia:WikiProject Cutlery is a Wikipedia page, like any other - so you can edit it. I suggest that you are WP:BOLD, and add spoons to its scope - according to Wiktionary, "cutlery" is "A collective ensemble of eating and serving utensils such as knives, forks and spoons". Therefore, please go ahead and just edit the project page to incorporate these noble implements.

You should follow that up with a note on their project talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cutlery. You can, of course, also drop a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink.

Previously, with your help request, we did indeed have an Edit conflict, as we were both responding at the same time - which always causes confusion.

Once again, best of luck - and please ask for help whenever you need it.  Chzz  ►  01:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing Patrick Warburton as The Tick... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh. Thanks Chzz. I'll have to come back later but maybe spoons SHOULD be part of Wikiproject Cutlery.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited Wikipedia:WikiProject Cutlery. See "Goals" and "Scope" at the top. Is it all right like that or do I have do get such a change approved first?--Spoon Maniac (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:SPOONS as a shortcut?--Spoon Maniac (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re. editing the project page - no, you don't need any special approval; the basic principle of Bold-Revert-Discuss applies here - ie, make bold changes, and then if someone disagrees, they can undo your edits. At that stage, you just talk to them about it and come to an agreement.
As I said before, it would be courteous to add a section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cutlery - just 'create a new section', and explain your ideas.
Re. the shortcut - yes, you could make a redirect, on the same basis (BRD), from either WP:SPOONS or WP:SPOON or both; I don't see why not. See the link redirect if you need help with it. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done it. Wikipedia:SPOON and Wikipedia:Spoons. Can you take a look? Cheers.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, works for me!  Chzz  ►  02:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your support Chzz, you've been great. While I know a lot about editing already-made articles, I'm still new to the other stuff like "being bold". Can I rely on you as a friend in future if I have any problems?--Spoon Maniac (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Drop in and say hello with this!  Chzz  ►  02:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuate the dancefloor

y did u delete the Mime Controversy on Evacuate the dancefloor. In the video she does mime and it has caused controversy--Joshy 66 (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. Evacuate the Dancefloor [38] [39] - I removed some negative unreferenced WP:BLP info, that's all; Joshy 66 (talk · contribs) now indefinitely blocked, vandal only.  Chzz  ►  10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Butcher

--JBAxis (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Who do you think you are coming in and deleting ALL that I've done on behalf of Jon Butcher?! Especially without giving me (or Jon) the opportunity to earnestly correct what you may think is wrong? I am in DIRECT and 1st hand communication with him and you come in and delete my work that Jon Butcher himself approved! I strongly encourage you to UNDO what you've done in the next 24 hrs or further action will be taken.--JBAxis (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inky using my Grey Towers pic

Thanks! I'm flattered. Yes, it should be linked but actually, I think, it's now multilicensed so that's not necessary. Even if it is, there's enough credit there for me not to stand on ceremony.

I'll just put a link in from the image page on commons under, say, "other information". Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz&oldid=320682852"