This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chzz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello,i hope you're ok.
I don't want to bother you.
But you already know the matter.
I've had some trouble to place pictures, what you see is the best i succeded to do.
I think the article is finished, would you take a look, as soon as you have time?
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
The article still has lots of unreferenced information, and some non-neutral claims; those problems need fixing before it can be made live. Please let me know if I can help further, Chzz ► 01:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I am talking about present policy, where consensus already exists. I ask for informed administrative input for a simple reason. Administrators know policy, and this is not about forming a new policy by consensus, but simply of clarifying what policy is. I didn't mean to make conditions, but rather ask that interested admins do us the courtesy of making a call on what consensual policy, as formulated on the WP:NOR page, actually means, i.e. if it means what it is being construed to mean. Thanks.I only have 1 hour 20 minutes before the World Cup match, and am rushing.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi :) Wondered if you could improve my latest offering? This is just something I stumbled on and found interesting. (I didn't contribute the picture - maybe Marcus Qwertius did?? He helped me with the article.) Melba1 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the pics history, you can see it was uploaded by Burnellyow (talk·contribs) back in 2007 - but looking at their contributions, that was about the only thing that they did, so who knows if they are still around.
Unfortunately though, I'm not convinced we need a separate article, other than Nora (cat).
Unless there is other significant coverage of the composer, to show that he is a notable person (WP:GNG) - if the only references about him are in connection with the "catcerto" - then it would fail WP:BLP1E - please read that link. There is also guidance on notability of people in WP:BIO. We would require several reliable sources in which he is the subject, not the cat/catcerto. Chzz ► 03:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Chzz. I learned a lot doing this one - inserting the stub notice, categories, and so on. I appreciate what you said about the article failing WP requirements, but the story's so charming I hope it doesn't get deleted :) Melba1 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz :) I'm working to expand the article - can't seem to let go of this one! No obvious reason for this....OCD perhaps :). I searched for articles in other languages and found lots of material that's NOT about the cat. Currently trying to get a public-domain photo of the composer/conductor. Have a goooood day! Melba1 (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Kubla Khan
On 2 July, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kubla Khan, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
No protection mechanism is perfect, and he was blocked before he did much this time. I can't believe he hasn't given up. What would drive a person to edit for two years when every edit he makes is undone?—Kww(talk) 13:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, thanks for the courtesy.
My concern was that I would not obtain a hearing against a complaint, which accuses me, with 16,000 edits, of making a violation that is technically impossible (you cannot violate WP:SYNTH when you paraphrase one (propositional) sentence almost verbatim). I had nothing at all to do with the sentence which preceded mine. Few showed up, and it was closed. I hope the second request is not closed prematurally in the same way. The assertion which is stopping me from editing an article on a subject I know deeply, is an innovation in wiki policy, and I am surprised no specialist in the interpretation of wiki protocols has noticed the problem.
I'm bemused, not troubled. I foresaw the outcome, for wiki works that way, meaning wiki, in many areas, is dysfunctional. But cosi va il mondo.
I'm always impressed by Holland which, in terms of population/players produces excellence proportionally far more than any other country and manages to regularly field teams that consistently over 90 minutes plays patient, unyielding soccer of high quality. Italy, Brazil, Argentina have a greater number of individual talents per team, but are erratic as teams. Mood and the fortunes of the games make them unpredictable. No grit. I backed Ghana, knowing it would't win. I usually back losers. In sport, unlike scholarship, one is influened by the irrational. Thanks for the consideration you showed. It was much appreciated. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, the situation is not appearing to improve with Coercorash, and editors MuslimEditor and Shabiha (who has a 3-year history of disrupting the article) have arrived to support him. I'm concerned that this group, who appear to strongly identify with the subject, has no genuine interest in creating an NPOV article. I note that Coercorash created (and repeatedly recreated despite objections) a POV fork of Barelvi last November. As an example of, presumably, his intentions for Barelvi, this is not reassuring: old version of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'at.
I feel that UrduBoy and I have been, at worst, a bit curt with Coercorash due to our exasperation with seeing the exact same POV edits continually introduced on Barelvi topics, and largely by Coercorash's transparently mis-using WP terms and misquoting procedures: accusing others of vandalism for reverting, accusing others of "starting an edit war" when they don't allow him to add POV uncited material, claiming to have your agreement that UrduBoy's edits were POV, claiming that objecting to his edits are "personal attacks", etc. That aside, I feel both UrduBoy and I demonstrate patterns of neutral, constructive, footnoted editing, and have made good-faith efforts on Talk to identify why we found Coercorash's edits inappropriate, and looking for ways to address his concerns while noting that many of his desires simply are not compatible with Wikipedia's conventions.
Since your asking folks to achieve consensus, I feel that I and UB have clearly laid out our objections, asked for specific input as to what materials they find objectionable, etc. However, all we've seen from the other group is accusations of "Wahabism" that appear to be just a general term for "things we don't like." The Coercorash group appears to be fixated on removing any suggestion that their group is one of the many branches of Islam, as opposed to the "true Islam", adding material to derrogate multiple other belief systems, and removing any criticism or mention of violent acts by their group. Further, Coercorash and Muslim Editor have flat-out said that they don't consider any "non-Muslim" (in their case, non-Barelvi) resource to be credible: "We muslims have our own websites to define & defend our faith,we don't need any pegan/hindu/wahabi site." Coercorash has scaled back his use of offensive slurs and statements of dedication to opposing the "Wahabi" viewpoint on WP, but I'm not sure as to whether that's actual recognition that such is inappopriate, or whether he's just "masking" his biases while still acting on them.
At this point, I'm not seeing any near-term peaceful consensus, short of just letting Coercorash's folks write and maintain a POV version similar to what I linked above. I have created a version of Barelvi on my userspace at User:MatthewVanitas/Barelvi_draft and hope to get a really solid version up for discussion, and I've invited Coercorash to expand on his version on his own userspace. Perhaps we can take the two versions to some neutral arbitrators and pick one to become the official version? However, even after that point, how can we maintain the article without someone, once again, coming in to make mods, and then crying "edit war!" when other editors remove their unreferenced sectarian material?
I understand your need to remain neutral, but it is frustrating that Coercorash has gummed up the works for days by leveling accusations and refusing to offer any neutral footnotes, or indeed even coherent arguments other than "the current version is Wahabi POV" with no further explanation. I'd appreciate any insight as to the long-term solution to get Barelvi back on track. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
MatthewVanisas, I suggest you ask for help from the Mediation Cabal. That is an informal dispute resolution process, and looking at the background to this one, I think it's a good avenue to try, in the hope of a long-term solution. I feel a bit guilty now for giving such a short answer to a well-considered, erudite question - but, I did look at what you wrote, and I think MedCab is best, so please file a request and let's see how things go from there. Best of luck, thanks for your patience. Chzz ► 00:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The page has left protection, so in the short term I'm going to see how things proceed with the other users, if we can all get on a track where we agree to allow each others' cited, NPOV changes. I am a bit skeptical, but willing to see if they'll give it a shot. I've update a few footnotes with ones from academic texts, and did some very minor re-org to test the waters, so will see how we can work on this. Out of curiousity, is there any way to revert the addition of uncited and POV material with being accused of "edit warring" as last occurred? It wasn't even that we were pushing the article in a given direction, we were just hitting "revert" on content that not only wasn't cited, but text that was misleadingly changed within cited text, giving the additions an appearance of credibility even though the source said no such thing. Is it not kosher to just hit "revert" and say "you're going to have to cite that addition if you want to add it"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I have completed my peer review, and added rather a lot of suggestions, I'm afraid. Looking at the history of the article I see that there doesn't seem to be anyone who could be regarded as, so to speak, a majority shareholder in it to whom one could turn for further editing. Large chunks of the present article have, it seems, been transferred from the userpages of a banned contributor, which makes following up "citation needed" comments a touch tricky. I make no pretence to specialist expertise on this poem, but will be happy to do what I can if no other editor is willing to take on the revision of the article with a view to GA/FA nomination. - Tim riley (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
My own involvement was just to start improving it - wikilinks and things - and to ask for a peer review, hoping it could be developed further; and yes, certainly, it has great potential for GA/FA. I am totally neutral/disinterested in the controversy; to me, it's an interesting article, and I want to make it better if I can.
I also suggested it for Did you know... and after much debate (here under 'Kubla Khan', and talk page - I stayed away from it), I see that it is now in the queue number 2, which *think* means it will appear on the main page on 2 July 06:00 GMT.
So - like 9000 other articles, I'd love to see it improved. I kinda hope to get into it myself; taking on-board your excellent peer-review comments, and using some books and things. I might try to run it through GAR or FAR myself - I'd like to, if I have the time.
P.S. I have started to go through your comments and edit the article accordingly; I am commenting in-line. Chzz ► 01:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I have read your comments on the PR page about sources, and I will make a point of seeking out some suitable references over the next few days. If JSTOR and others don't suffice online, I have a reader's ticket at the British Library, which will provide the necessary, though I don't think I'll be able to spend any time there until next Saturday. - Tim riley (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I have listed on the PR page, and repeat here, the books I've ordered for Saturday at the British Library. If there are any others that come to mind, pray let me know: Barth, J. Robert. Romanticism and Transcendence. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2003; Beer, John. Coleridge the Visionary. New York: Collier, 1962; and Yarlott, Geoffrey. Coleridge and the Abyssinian Maid. London: Methuen & Co, 1967. - Tim riley (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
hello again - in regard to Samantha Daniels page
Hi Chzz,
I have everything cited and have made all the edits you advised me to make earlier. Other people in the live chat have told me that my page is ready to be posted, but I just wanted to get a go-ahead from you. I'm just trying to be really careful so that I don't have to go through this whole process of deletion and rewriting again. Thank for your advice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Personalnylagirl/Samantha_Daniels—Preceding unsigned comment added by Personalnylagirl (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, no problem. Two tips for now;
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
And when you give a link to a Wikipedia page (as above), just put [[User:Personalnylagirl/Samantha_Daniels]] which makes: User:Personalnylagirl/Samantha_Daniels.
I have just made a few more edits to the article; please do look in the history of the page; I've explained each edit in my edit summaries, and clicking the (prev) link will show you exactly what I changed.
My assessment is, yes, we can move it to a live article. I think it is very unlikely that it would be deleted. Of course, other editors might challenge things, but that's how Wikipedia works. I do have a few remaining concerns, and it all really stems from the conflict of interest problems, etc. Examples;
In the "Internet" section, the only reference is Huff Post itself; whilst this does kinda show that Daniels works for them, it isn't really a good source to assert that she writes "Relationship Chatter" that airs on over 25 different portals online, three times a week, that she participates in web chats, etc. Without secondary sources reporting about the fact that she edits on that website, it seems promotional.
Matchbook was sold in 30 countries and was translated into three different languages - this is also only confirmed via the book website itself, and therefore also appears promotional.
Hi, love this chart, but can a definition of "x" be added to the caption? I suppose it must be saturation or something of that kind, but I'm not sure. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If you think something in the caption would clarify further, then please feel free to edit it, of course. Hope that answers? Chzz ► 06:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it certainly helps. Dolphin's explanation is excellent, and I guess the reference is good enough to incorporate it into the page. If I can compress it w/o mangling it I may try. Anyhow, thanks! I guess I need to be more aware of the uses of the reference desk. Wwheaton (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, thanks for your input. I am indeed just letting things roll for the time being, and I think I and UrduBoy have added some pretty unassailable footnotes, which should make it easier to claim disruptive editing if that text is removed for uncited, or cited to a partisan site or forum. We had a similar knockdown last year, which included Wiki-savvy POV pushers who were quite adept at challenging everything and citing a policy, but then refusing to substitute actual cited NPOV text, and suspiciously targeting all their objections at critcism of their group, or mention of violent acts on its behalf. I'll continue to watch and improve the article with clear references. Might get some fight on adding a cited "History" section, being that one of the POV crew's key arguments is that their group isn't a group but the true mainstream from which all others deviate, and goes right back to the 600sCE, vice being a particular movement founded in the late 1800s in India. Will keep on it, and (provided I do it in the most neutral manner to avoid canvassing accusations), I might drop into the related WikiProjects to encourage individuals to help maintain a high bar for verifiability of material in this high-emotion article, and to particularly watch for people modifying text while maintaining the original footnote, which dangerously undermines the validity of the whole citation process. Thanks again for your neutrality in the issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the reply. I have a question: where can I find information about LateX formules inserting in wiki entries? --Fabior1984 (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to start up the Mitchell's Water Monitor. Zipcodezoo has some data but it is very very slow to load.
I have started a number of articles of various "lesser-known" monitors. I need help!
Thanks!
Chzz would you be able to have a look at this please, User:IANVS has possibly violated the three-revert-rule on page Social populism and further to that I have warned him on his user talk page. If you could have a look into this, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I didn't want you to think your efforts were ignored (you created a list of editors who asked for feedback at Requests for feedback and were still active).
I've started contacting some on the list. I didn't want to contact too many at once, in case we got too much response. Not to worry, it seems. I've only contacted three, one today, and no response so far. I'll keep sending out messages, maybe something will come of it.
In the meantime, it appears a few people have joined the ranks helping, although the experience level is a little lower than I'd like. Still, free help is free help.--SPhilbrickT17:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Good stuff, Phil. If you need to spam out a lot of messages, let me know; I have User:ChzzBot for that very purpose - give it a list of users, and a template, and it 'delivers' messages. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Right now, I have a "template" but I modify it for each case - I may get tired of that, and if I settle on a single message, I'll be back.--SPhilbrickT11:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much
I had been pressing you for days to get the page protected, and you finally in the end did it.
I sorted my user talk so don't worry but will it stay yellow throughout all the archiving, would you be able to have a look at my archiving it doesn't seem to be working please???
The yellow will not go into the archives; you'd have to do that manually. I don't recommend it though; it makes it unreadable for some users, depending on their settings. Chzz ► 12:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Searching in Google news here does not show the required "significant coverage" (see WP:VRS) - without that, I'm sorry, I can't help. I suggest writing about something else instead. Chzz ► 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - I got in a muddle and posted this on your talk archive page - repeated here, with apols:
I have listed on the PR page, and repeat here, the books I've ordered for Saturday at the British Library. If there are any others that come to mind, pray let me know: Barth, J. Robert. Romanticism and Transcendence. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2003; Beer, John. Coleridge the Visionary. New York: Collier, 1962; and Yarlott, Geoffrey. Coleridge and the Abyssinian Maid. London: Methuen & Co, 1967. - Tim riley (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. 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.
Articles for Creation
I noticed that you put my article on hold on 21:54, 6 July 2010 . I'm not sure of the process though. Am I supposed to fix the issues and resubmit it or am I supposed to fix it and wait for someone to re-review it while its on hold. Thanks, 68.106.193.194 (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please provide to a link of the discussion about why this article cannot be merged. Thank you. TFD (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there.
I just saw the messages on your talk page; I was previously unaware of them. So, to be clear;
I am not an administrator.
I am not aware of any discussion about a merger.
I would not, of course, "rule out" a merger; I encourage discussion and consensus.
My only real involvement in the issue was initially, when I said it was not a valid speedy deletion candidate; however, at that time, I also said, Of course, this does not preclude any future proposed deletion or Article for deletion discussion - and that, naturally, extends to merger proposal, etc.
From that point onwards, all I have done was to suggest discussion on the talk page, encourage editors to stay calm and avoid edit-warring.
Hi Chzz,
Thanks for the post. :) There was actually a little mix-up there with a post about an anti-vandalism revert I did on an article the subsequently got deleted (Black Dada) and a slightly misplaced {{helpme}} from User:Linecar, a new editor, who I ran across very helpfully adding references to Claire Evans. I tried to explain how to format references on Linecar's talk page but I guess I wasn't too clear which is what brought on the {{helpme}}. I've posted on Linecar's talk page to (hopefully) make things clearer, although I appreciate I mostly seem to be causing confusion this evening.Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just been looking at Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers and it contains many, large copyright violations. However, I cannot easily determine which parts, etc. It would probably take me the next hour or two to remove them all. Please note the edits I have just made, removing some large chunks.
As I understand things, I cannot nominate it for deletion under G12, because I cannot determine whether all of it is copyvio. But frankly, my spending hours going through it seems a waste of time that could be better spent doing other stuff.
Therefore, would a 'norules' deletion, or stubbification, be appropriate?
If you google any bits from within it, you will find copyvio's all over the place. Please advise, thanks. Chzz ► 15:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I cut it down to stub with a note pointing to this section. This way it is removed from search indexes without losing the material that might be okay for inclusion. If you wish to work on it and need further administrative help, please feel free to contact me. Regards SoWhy17:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I agree that seems a good solution, for now. I didn't want to be quite so ruthless without a double-check. As it is in for peer-review, and looking at the author comments on it, I would imagine they might try to sort out the copyvio side, and reconstruct it. Thanks again, Chzz ► 17:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Chzz, I've used your format for Thumb on the last two drawings in the Möbius-Hückel Concept article but the actual drawings don't change.
To: Chzz
From: Howard Z
1) I've used your format for Thumb on the last two drawings in the Möbius-Hückel Concept article but the actual drawings don't change.
It isn't clear to me what is missing or incorrect.
2) Once it gets into Thumb format it may be that the pictures are too small to be visible. Those drawngs were in Thumb format earlier and
that was what got me to change to Center format. But I should look at them carefully and, perhaps, find a way to make the Thumb images
slightly larger.
3) Chzz, I did check the "preferences" page and see that I have put "Hez" into the signature box. I see also that I
checked the box just below that. It was not clear to me from the wording whether checked or unchecked was the way to get the four tildes to give my name as Hez.
When you have a moment, do respond.
Best wishes,
The four tildes here should give (Hez)
Hez 15:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)
1. You have to put 'thumb' in lower-case; you used a capital 'T' which confused it. See this edit.
Example oneExample two
2. If absolutely necessary you can force the size. Two examples here, are as follows;
The reason we try to avoid that is...users can choose the size of thumbnails in their preferences. Some people will read your article on e.g. a mobile phone, or an ipod, or whatever - so, mostly, we want them to have a choice about the image sizes. However, if it is absolutely necessary, you can 'force the size' like that.
Dear Chzz - I left a message on my page thanking you for the welcome, but I'll do so here as well. Starting to learn the new Wiki language -- just figured out that I need four tildas to time stamp, not the three I've been using up to now -- I'll figure it out. Thanks again. Robertmharris (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good; part of my reason for replying here is to demo how this works.
Wikipedia has quite a steep learning curve for new editors, and can seem quite baffling at first. Fortunately, once you get the hang of the basics, things start to 'click'. I hope I can help you a bit with that process.
I am replying here, directly below your comment, which helps keep things in one place. I've indented this response with a single colon : at the beginning of each paragraph. If you reply again below, you should put two colons at the start of each paragraph - thus forming a 'threaded' conversation.
Also note that, whilst it's good to reply underneath and keep the discussion in one place, I also put a very brief note on your user talk page, to let you know that I'd replied - which means you'd see the 'you have new messages' alert.
That's quite a brief explanation / demo of a fairly complex topic, so if it doesn't make sense, and you need clarification, just ask.
Hi, Chzz. Noticed you made a few improvements to the Alliance Data page I manage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllianceData). Thanks for helping out! If you have any other suggestions for me on how I can make the page better, please let me know. I'll add more content soon, and your input is always appreciated. Again, thank you! GarveyGirl (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is in fairly good shape. By far the best thing you can do to improve things is, edit some other articles - and I'm not saying that in some 'holier-than-thou' sense (about the COI), but, it would help your case in the future - avoid you being labelled as a single-purpose account. In addition, you'd no doubt meet/chat with other Wikipedians that way, and they might be able to help with the AllianceData page - which is great, because it means outsiders, more independence. So...dive in and edit anything you like.
The only suggestion I do have, for now, is - do you have any pictures that could be added? Maybe one or two pics of an AllianceData building, or something showing them 'in action'. It must be copyright-free - or released under an appropriate licence, allowing anyone to use the pic for any purpose. But if that can be managed, a couple of pics might brighten up the article.
I suggest being very careful adding to it; to avoid anything remotely like 'spam'. If there are some independent news-stories about the company, that'd be good - but not press-release stuff, and nothing that is non-neutral. Plain facts.
Oh - and can you add some wikilinks from some other articles to that one, so it is not an orphan? Maybe an appropriate, referenced sentence in J. C. Penney and Limited Brands or something?
Hovering won't show ALT text, usually; depending on your browser config. You can probably RIGHT-click, choose 'properties' and see the 'alternate text' as 'Example alt text'.
Users who need it (blind users, etc) will no doubt have their browsers set to read it out by default; it is explained more in Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.
The link was useful, ta. I'd still like to know what causes text to occasionally appear when one hovers the mouse over a picture (not necessarily on WP articles). Would you what this is called, & whether there's a WP link that would help me?
It's a bit beyond me to fix them personally. I wonder if you'd have time to either show me how to fix them (or do it & I'll see what you've done), &/or is there an approved mechanism by which I can bring it to WP's attention? Cheers, --Trafford09 (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Some versions of Internet Explorer display alt text when you move the mouse over images, but that is actually against the HTML standards. Alt text is instead of images - alternative.
The text that appears when you hover is called mouseover text, used for tooltips.
You can make them in wiki code like this - <span title="Hello trafford09">[[#|Hover your mouse over this]]</span>.
I don't see any red reference errors on the end of that page. Maybe it was some temporary glitch in a template or something. But, in general, I suggest using a {{helpme}} for that sort of problem. Cheers, Chzz ► 11:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra links. I'll read them now.
Oh - the HelpMe worked well - User:AJCham spotted & corrected the errors.
He was puzzled that they showed up only on Firefox. He thought they should have shown up on IE8 too. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, I saw that; actually, I'm not really convinced there was an error, I wonder if it was just a caching thing; but no matter, as it is 'fixed', there's no point worrying about it. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
WikiLove
Joe Gazz84 has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chololately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Regarding the article John Rinne, which you recently created:
In the future, please "clean up" an article, to basic compliance with the manual of style. The subject should be bolded, and the lead sentence should look (something) like this: "John Rinne is/was a person from place." While WP is a work in progress, let's at least make our articles look like articles. So, I ask you to please clean up AfCs before publishing them. Regards, —mono(how's my driving?)19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In the future, please don't template the regulars, and instead of criticising, actually fix the article. Please read WP:IMPERFECT. The article is perfectly 'acceptable' - ie it is supported by appropriate references, as I wrote on the talk page. It is not a 'speedy deletion' candidate. Like all 6,950,100 articles, it can of course be improved. I made a note to look at the article later today (after the football game). You are doubtless unaware that I a) spoke to two other editors about this, and we jointly plan to improve it ASAP, b) I posted a request on WP:FEED to get further input.
next step on the changes to the meditation page, plzz help
Hey Chzz,
I have begun to create the page which we talked about proposing changes to be made in the lede of Meditation. I am almost done but there are two references which do not refer directly to The Church's position on meditation but are another Christian's viewpoints. There are also three references that are from The Vatican giving their position on the matter. Should I then delete the first two references which are not directly from The Vatican, or would I have to leave them and somehow work them in to a final statement involving a more broad range of Christian viewpoints?
makeswell (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Answered on IRC, as "If your proposed sentence is specific to just The Church, then just use the appropriate ref to support that claim. You can always move the other refs onto the talk page for their possible use at a later date." Chzz ► 19:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully it won't devolve into an edit war, but if it does I think WP:LAMEST should embrace it as one of its own. A couple of editors seem to have the strange notion that redirecting the term to something which has no connection to the phrase makes more sense than redirecting it to something which children might not want to see. Maybe directing them more firmly to WP:CENSOR will help. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]11:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I submitted an article on Arnold Doren which you may have reviewed. It was declined. There were no comments. Therefore, I have no idea what to fix. I am new to Wikipedia. This is my first article. If you can help, I would greatly appreciate it. Cherl Harrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherl Harrison (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help with my first article. I learned a lot going through the process with you. If other editors are even half as helpful, I should be in good shape going forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbya12 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Keninuk
I have this message which is totally without any logic as I own the picture that I am trying to add to the article!!!!
Thank you for uploading File:Kanwar Jasjit Singh of Kapurthala.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN DO. I OWN THE DARN PICTURE AND THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT PROBLEM HERE. THIS IS TOTALLY LUDECOROUS!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keninuk (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
On July 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frankliniella tritici, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Chzz, it seems that there is a last(?) item which appears in Google which is embarrassing.
It goes back to December and is said to be archived. Somehow the Archives seem to be in
Google. Curiously, it says that I have been deleted.
I don't know if it can be removed or hidden but I hate to see me mentioned that way publicly.
You must be getting weary of this type of problem, but you have been a real help.
"Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Howard E. Zimmerman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for deletion | Requests | 2009
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
________________________________________
The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete --Barras talk 21:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC).
[change] Howard E. Zimmerman
Howard E. Zimmerman (edit • talk • history • links • watch • logs • delete)
Purplebackpack89 (talk) has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:
We don't put CVs on this or any other Wikipedia's mainspace
Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.
[change] Discussion
This request is due to close seven days after it was filed; that is on approx. Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:20 pm, although it may be closed more quickly due to WP:SNOW.
________________________________________
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2009/Howard_E._Zimmerman"
Category: Requests for deletion that succeeded"
Hez (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to give notoriety to the page and also address the other issues brought up for the denial. It is a community pool that has quite a history in our community. People really have a hard time finding it on the web because the name of the pool is different to the vernacular that people use, hence making it hard to find on the web. I thought that if I built a page on the pool and the added in the pool history later that we could add this link to our community webpage. I'm not trying to promote the pool, but I'd like to give people an idea of the history of the pool and its importance to the community.
Hi there. It was not me who declined that one, actually; I just blanked the page, because it has some email address or phone numbers or something. You can see in the page history] - Robert Skyhawk (talk·contribs) put it 'on hold', then CuteMice (talk·contribs) changed it to 'declined'.
As I cannot see the deleted information, it is hard to advise - but, the main thing is, you would need to show that it is notable - see WP:VRS. If there is not enough coverage in the media, then it will not be an appropriate topic for Wikipedia; you could, perhaps, try a different website. Best of luck, Chzz ► 00:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Added pic of a Terraplane emblem, also found another source and added some facts. I think the article might be ready for the "refimprove|date=July 2010" box to be removed. Can stubs be nominated for "DYK"s?...I'm sure there's probably something in this little stubby article that would qualify for an interesting fact...
Sonia has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Mono has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for the help. I hesitated asking help on that in view of all the help
you have given. But I do appreciate your assistance.
Actually, I think that December item referred my very intial attempts to put
something on Wikipedia and it was under a name with my middle initial and was
unrelated to any of the present items.
Chzz, I've done a fair amount of work on that Möbius-Hückel article. I did follow
your advice on getting the thumb format for images.
Greetings, Coercorash is back again and has made massive changes to the recently-stabilised article Barelvi. His edits remove a substantial number of citations, replace academic citations with ones from sectarian religious sites or mentions of fatwas with no links or context. He has removed the template {{Barelvi}} with {{Sunni}}, again implying his sect's exclusive claim to "true" Sunni Islam. He also continues to label any of his sect's opponents as "Wahabbi" regardless of actual affiliation (similar to an America Democrat referring to any Republican opponents as "Nazis"), and to use the slur Qadian versus the academic term Ahmadiyya to refer to a competing sect which faces great discrimination in South Asia. Fundamentally, despite our lengthy Discussion and attempts to mediate, he simply makes sweeping changes. His recent edit summary is helpful in displaying his contempt for academic sources, and belief that he is "defending" his sect from imagined coordinated attacks by his ideological enemies, as opposed to simply neutral editors:
Reverting to more neutral version,removing.peganish claims and wahabi PoV.Restoring ahle sunnah template and neutrality tags removed by non-neutral editors like User:MatthewVanitas and User:Urduboy.See WP:NPOV to learn more about neutral
As a further example of the bad faith with which this mutually-supporting crew operates, note the following exchange which was removed[1] from User_talk:Ahmad_Shah_Bukhari once the two established off-Wiki contact:
Brother Sorry for late reply I'm here to Fire bck at Najdis Deobandis, Jews who're trying to ruin our articles :) I'm more than willing to help you but first of all we need to work on Barelvi Article theres so much blasphemy in that article done by Najdis, Deobandis, Jews, Christians we need it correct and clear it from all those Jahanamis :) (removed) is my email add me and i'll talk to you there :)
Ahmad Shah Bukhari (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Locked again. But still gets back to the previous issue: how can we press forward on improving the article when it'll be locked whenever an editor, and in this case one who blatantly announces his POV and contempt for other religions and sects, feels like reverting the article and screaming "edit war"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Chzz, I just thought it was high time I dropped by and checked in with you. I saw you left a message on my talk page early last year, but not until long after the event. Then I left a message on your talk page, but it was a bit of a drunken rant, so I reverted myself! Anyway, I'm around, but mostly keeping my head below the parapet these days, owing to a WP burn-out a couple of years ago. I don't even do live chat any more. On WP, I'd say I keep an eye out for vandalism and silliness via my watchlist more than anything, while keeping the other eye out for things either easy to fix or blatantly in need of fixing; but I've seen how busy you've become here though, and I'm very impressed - well done! Hope you and yours are ok in themselves, is the main thing. Nortonius (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Lovely to hear from you!
I understand the burnout issue, only too well; I've had two extensive breaks from Wikipedia myself. But, yes, I am pretty active now. I get involved in all kinds of different things, and I almost always manage to enjoy it, or at least just shrug and sigh a bit at silliness, and move onwards.
And yes, I am very well, thank you, and I hope you are too. Working with you back in the day, on Medeshamstede, Sexwulf etc was a pleasure, and certainly a key factor in my decision to get more involved with the project. So if you ever need some bits and pieces doing, please feel free to ask. And if you do decide to enter the IRC fray — you're more than welcome to visit my own channel, which is entirely divorced from all drama. So, all the best, keep on peverelling, but beware the Ballmer Peak! Chzz ► 23:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, and yes, back in the day we got quite a lot done, and to be honest I was dead chuffed with the help you gave me, etc. The rant, btw, was about the trolls and other creatures of the night that had driven both of us away from WP with their drama, since you mention it! With me, it was someone persistently treating me like a moron over a tiny edit I wanted to make to Peterborough, plus the direct abuse and obtuseness I encountered when trying to drag "Canute" out of the 19th century, to "Cnut" - that proposed move failed, but someone else succeeded with it while I was "away", and now it's "Cnut the Great" - cool! Then when I came back, I saw some of the dramas you'd been through. My rant was fair comment, I thought, when I read it sober the next day, but expressed in rather strong terms, hence the revert...
Cool that you remembered the verb 'to peverel'! My peverelling days are all but over, though occasionally a synapse will activate, and I'll go looking stuff up. The Reculver article has been having that effect on me lately - does that make me weird?! I may yet pop into your drama-free IRC zone, but I'm a bit reclusive these days; and I may well ask for some help now and then, as you've obviously progressed waaay beyond my lowly skills - that, or your patience threshold has gone from strength to strength, while mine is all but gone! GAWD knows how you keep up with all the stuff you do here! Pip pip! Nortonius (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
minideli
Sorry to bother you in your real life - but just looked at the amusing add you made to the deletion of the word minideli - if you note the word is unlike all others : Mini Deli you may appreciate that my use of it since the mid 90's as minideli as one word is seperate than the other 160 plus that the internet and buisness now uses.Also when I registered the name - there were no other minideli names out there...things have changed.
Just don't be so smug and full of yourself because you can Lord over peoples property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.22.171 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The only guess we can come up with is, that you are perhaps talking about an article called Minideli which was made, and quickly deleted, back in April 2008. It was made by Russellmiles (talk·contribs), and the deletion was proposed by Chasecarter (talk·contribs) - did you somehow get to my page because of the 'Ch' in that name, perhaps? Neither of those two users have been active since 2008. Chzz ► 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Users having ZERO knowledge on the subjects trying to ruin articles
Hello
I see (User:MatthewVanitas) is complaining and crying like hell about an article of which he has zero knowledge i've been trying to complete that artcile but he has constantly been trying to impose his own will on that article he has removed all the comments from tha talk page of that article as well without any justification i'd like you to have a look and the previous version of the talk page which had most of the users criticising about the biased & personal POV of people like (User:MatthewVanitas) and some other with whom he already have off wiki connection because i've never seen him interacting with them on wikipedia they only come up with a mutually agreed upon amendment in the article which show that he's only trying to keep everyone else who has the knowledge on the subject from editing the article, i've never been a editor for wikipedia but upon seeing that article which was being manipulated in the hands of people like (User:MatthewVanitas) and others who have no relevence with the subject an example i'd like to give is there are some particular terms in the article like Mukhtar Kul how do you expect someone to provide reference for this word who doesn't even know what does it means ? but (User:MatthewVanitas) has been googling the words and where ever he finds the word he put it in the referenece which is not in line with wikipedia guidelines :) one can't put whatever they see fit in articles to support their own POV wikipedia is a collaborativley edited platform and i'm sure wikipedia is not (User:MatthewVanitas)'s property and everyone has the right to edit where necessary and to provide a better perception of the information contained in it.(User:MatthewVanitas) on one hand is complaining asking to protect the article to every moderator present on wikipedia whereas on the other hand he double crossing me on my talk page as if he's willing to work with me on that article which clearly shows his intent.
I expect from you a just and fair resolution to this problem Thanks :) (Ahmad Shah Bukhari (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
Actually, it is easier to work on articles when you do not know too much about them - it means you need to find the facts in reliable sources, and avoids the problems with neutrality that you are speaking about.
If there are any specific parts of the article that you think are incorrect, please make suggestions on the talk page. However - and this is very important - you must calmly discuss the content of the article and not the person (as you have done above). Please, read WP:CIVIL. Thanks, Chzz ► 19:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to do a DYK for this article (the subject is chock-full of good stuff) but think the dead links should probably be fixed first. Unfortunately am having a hard time finding the lexis-nexis sourced stuff... I am researching now to see if I can scare up the original material, also am going to try to contact the author (B. Vance) since he writes (or used to write) in auto magazines in the early 2000s.
I looked over the DYK? Template talk, it all looks like gobbledy-gook to me, but I am willing to give it a go after I resolve the research issues. I feel like this article is "the little engine that could", y'know? Shearonink (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chzz. Don't know if User:Johnny2k managed to catch you on IRC after you got back from shops, or whether you noticed his earlier messages there on ##ch (which he joined), but if not, his Qn. is at User Talk:Johnny2#kmyisamchk warnings: Safe to ignore?. I wonder if you'd be able to help him? I mentioned him the other day, if you recall. Apparently he wants to mirror en-wp. I hope that's allowed. Trafford09 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Next time you nominate an article for DYK, you might want to check to make sure someone else hasn't already nominated the same article. I removed your nomination of SteelPath since someone else had already nominated it the previous day, with an almost idential hook. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Chzz. Considering what has been discussed at the Social populism article's talkpage, What WP:AfD policies would you recommend me to support my bid for deleting the article? Without any compromise, of course. Thank you in advance. --IANVS (talk | cont) 03:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a topic area that I know a great deal about, but from my own understanding of the issues raised on the talk, I would think it is "fixable", rather than requiring deletion. I'm in no way sure of that, and if you'd like to take it to AfD, I hope you'd get more of a discussion.
I can understand your concern - that it may not be clearly defined, or contradictory - and I agree that it needs sorting out; I just have the feeling that it could be rectified, if some expert(s) in the area were able to provide further referenced details. Maybe worth asking on some project pages, perhaps, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics to get more opinions?
Thank you very much, Chzz. I'll take the debate to the WikiProject, I guess it would be the better option. Look, the problem is not merely a difficult definition. The problem is that the concept does not exist as Thehelpinghand is trying to use it. He is mixing up multiple contraditory definitions of "Populism" and sorting them out with a new name and zero coherence. But I'll talk about this there, then. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I do take your point, but I lack the knowledge to answer it. Another idea: try reference desk (as well) - it is the kind of thing that someone haunting that arena might just know. Chzz ► 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Why do you find PRODding redirects to be a waste of time? They barely get any traffic (besides the 13 or so views they got from me alone) and have almost no connexion to the respective article they're targeting.
I find it curious that you deleted D77t but left D78t alone.
Did you see the comments on my talkpage as well as Mono's talk page? Did you read and respond to our questions?
I didn't propose deletion for anything; I removed the proposed deletion - de-prodded a few - because I thought they did seem reasonable, and I thought there removal was a waste of time, because;
Deleted articles remain on the Wikimedia servers, so there is no 'space-saving'.
I did not notice any comments directed at me on the talk pages you mentioned, nor (until this message) did I know I was supposed to; I just had a quick look, but don't see anything I need to reply to there at the moment. Let me know if that is incorrect.
Crint Eastwood - For example, In Japanese, there is no letter 'L'; it is, instead, represented by phoenetic Katakana beginning with an 'R'-sound. "Clint" is pronounced "Crint". I believe the same is true for some other languages. So misspellings where R and L are transposed does occur, so there is at least some justification for that specific redirect. There are over 1000 Google hits for that specific misspelling.[2] Note, this does not justify creating 9000 new ones, it is just a reason why bothering to delete it is pointless.
D77t - a reasonably common way of representing very long words is with the number of letters and the initial/terminal letters- such as P45. I'm sure I've heard of others (which are actually letter-num-num-letter), but can't remember them right now, and seeking them out would waste more time. As to why it had 77 and 78, I don't know - probably it can be spelt two ways.
My comment about it being a 'waste of time' is not a criticism, but instead, I am looking at the most productive way we can all spend out time, trying to make Wikipedia better. I want to avoid you - and others - wasting time that could be better spent.
Yourself, myself, and other users have now spent a bit of our time looking into these, and nothing has been gained from it (with the possible exception of the disambig page Bouchee, nice work by Bridgeplayer (talk·contribs)). Note, PROD is not too bad - it only takes a very short amount of your time, and a very short amount of an admins time to review them - although that can add up. 'Redirects for discussion' is a lot more 'costly' in time, if you understand me, as lots of people will (hopefully) read such discussions.
The total time spent probably now exceeds a couple of hours, and in that time, we could have written a whole new article, or considerably improved some existing ones. Or helped new users, or...well, thousands of things, all of which would have improved Wikipedia more than this discussion.
I'm sure you are as keen as I am, to improve the project, so please take my comments as a suggestion - that we can be more productive if we do not worry about deleting trivial redirects. Thanks, Chzz ► 15:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
They might be cheap; nonetheless I'm still considering deletion of the redirects. And some of them meet a criteria for deletion. I didn't go around looking for the redirects; I found one of them here (you might want to comment on the discussion I pointed out) and then looked at the blocked user's talkpage which basically says he's been creating controversial redirects such as Fûck and his contributions page, which was dedicated to the creation of redirects. Also, I pointed out to you the ongoing discussions on both mine and Mono's talkpage about the reasoning behind such redirects and why they meet the criteria for deletion (if not necessarily speedy).
I recognize the validity of Bouchee now, and as such it has turned into a DAB page. But Crint Eastwood is probably the same as Jejus; they're both inflammatory redirects and have racial connotations on the pronunciation of some characters, and one is a BLP, while the other can be religiously discriminatory. The edit summary from Jejus for example had previously attacked Asians for being unable to pronounce the letter 's' correctly. I would suggest that you delete those. I don't believe that we could simply delete D78t without deleting D77t; that doesn't seem to make sense. And the article contains 79 letters, so your point seems moot (the creator of the redirect probably miscounted). And whether this activity of mine is productive or not can be disputed; I'll leave your opinion to your discretion.
Ummm... that's just CSD, one part of the process. To quote myself from above addressed to Chzz: "Also, I pointed out to you the ongoing discussions on both mine and Mono's talkpage about the reasoning behind such redirects and why they might meet the criteria for deletion (if not necessarily speedy)." And G5 states: "Creations by (a) banned or blocked user(s)." :| TelCoNaSpVe :|17:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been invited to share some thoughts. The default position on redirects is that they should be kept. There is no advantage in deleting a harmless redirect; deletion takes more server load than just allowing them to remain, and if just one person has found it useful then it has justified its existence. Being considered 'useless' or 'implausible' is not a basis for deletion; it also needs to meet the criteria for deletion. The reason why we distinguish long-standing typos from those recently created is that established redirects are likely to have been picked up by the mirrors. Deleting harmless redirects put s red links in the external sites for no benefit. Also, redirects are neutral - see WP:RNEUTRAL. They are not articles, and not subject to the same controls as articles; they are simply navigation aids. Before nominating a redirect, the first question that should be addressed is; what harm is it causing? If this cannot be answered positively then there is no point in taking it further. The second question is; is there an alternative target? If there is, then the redirect can simply be boldly retargeted without need for a deletion discussion. Too many redirects are brought to RFD without proper prior research. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I understand the nature of redirects better now. Thanks for your input Bridgeplayer. I didn't know about WP:RNEUTRAL, and I'd probably continue without it if not for your comments. There's one thing I must contest though, and that is that the uselessness or implausibility of a redirect may subject it to deletion, like that of [D78t] was (and this should be applied by extension to D77t; these things seem to go hand-in-hand). :| TelCoNaSpVe :|17:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the point. What harm is D77t doing? As far as I can see, deleting it is not going to make Wikipedia better.
I suspect the word can be spelled a few ways, as I explained previously - and I would think one way would be with 77 letters between the D and the t. But, this is really, really just a waste of time.
The others you queried are covered by RNEUTRAL. With regards to an offensive edit-summary, that specific issue would be dealt with via a suppression request.
Did you really read my rationale for D77t? "There's one thing I must contest though, and that is that the uselessness or implausibility of a redirect may subject it to deletion, like that of [D78t] was (and this should be applied by extension to D77t; these things seem to go hand-in-hand)." Reposted for your benefit. I don't consider this a waste of time. In fact, according to the {{prod}} template: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." and we're currently on the explainin part. And how do you submit a suppression request to an already deleted redirect? :| TelCoNaSpVe :|18:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
only articles, lists, and disambiguation pages may be deleted using the Proposed deletion process - not redirects. WP:PROD (policy). Chzz ► 21:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Suppressing a revision of a page that has already been deleted is currently impossible because (A) as the page has been deleted I cannot access the revision and thus provide the full url according to the oversight page that you pointed out, and (B) I cannot reveal my email to anyone, under any circumstances. Did you really read my rationale for D77t? "There's one thing I must contest though, and that is that the uselessness or implausibility of a redirect may subject it to deletion, like that of [D78t] was (and this should be applied by extension to D77t; these things seem to go hand-in-hand)." Reposted for your benefit. :| TelCoNaSpVe :|01:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough; I wanted an outsider's opinion on the matter before a large chunk of this section was archived, even though he has little to no background knowledge whatsoever. Plus I thought it would be better to have another admin comment on this. But you're right; he has limited involvement in the matter, which only consists of deleting a few pages (e.g. here). :| TelCoNaSpVe :|11:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes no one needs to inform me on my talk page of any more redirects for deletion, I just happened to decline many speedy deletes and did delete a couple of the noms like d78t which was wrong and left D77t which was valid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
...when in walked the last person you expected to see, Audrey. Got back early from selling her pins. Night night - I'm off to bed now you busy bee! Nortonius (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Delirium Tremens band page
Dear Chzz
Hello! I'm the rather doddery creator of the Delirium Tremens band page which you recently marked up for speedy deletion. I think you did this because I linked something to the wrong thing? This is not entirely surprising as this was my first article and it took me a DAY to get the hang of the codes, because im not very technological, so I do hope I havent done something terribly wrong.
Would you mind letting me know how I should correct the article so it is not a candidate for deletion, before it goes live on the wikipedia site (I dont think it is yet)?
I have put the submission 'on hold', so if you can resolve the troubles, please do so, and request a further review.
After a while, the status might be changed from 'on hold' to 'declined', but that doesn't matter; we don't delete things (without very good reasons) - so you could resubmit it at any time in the future, if appropriate reliable sources could be found to verify all of the facts, in an appropriate, neutral article.
I will certainly try to check back, and if notability can be shown through RS, that would be great. I would, however, suggest you concern yourself more with WP:GNG and WP:V than MOSFILM. Chzz ► 16:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Well... the two go hand in hand, as a poorly presented article will almost always get a negative response. I see this particular AFD as quite interesting, in that we essentially have one film... an award-winning 2007 version and an award-wining 2010 re-edit. I'd almost think it better to move the article to its original name and include facts about it being re-edited, re-named, and re-released in a "History" or "Release" section of a Forgiveness (2007 film) article. Looking at it as one film under two versions, I see the cumulative awards and coverage of one film with two different releases as squeeking past WP:NF. And whether we have a review and awards as Forgiveness or reviews and awards as Esther's Diary... it is the same film being reviewed and awarded... just under different edits and lengths... almost as if one were the original and the second the "director's cut".
And I invite you to take a visit to this work-in-progress: User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Forgiveness (2008 film)... where notability for the first version, Forgiveness, is shaping up through sources quite nicely. And unlike the author of Esther's Diary, I dislike all that fluff about "Characters" or "Narrative and imagery" unless it can be sourced away from the production company, and I like even less bits that try to add a notability by puffing on about what the actors might have done previously. I will be adding information of the re-edit, but in a far less boastful and more encyclopdic manner. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.08:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
That looks OK, in principle. The quotes from "Jewish Journal" are a bit too long, I think, that could be trimmed. I think 'recognition' and 'Award and nominations' could be merged, remove any unreferenced awards, and written in prose instead of a bulleted list (which currently duplicates info). And then, I would think, a one- or two-sentence section about the version released as Esther's Diary, instead of a separate article. Chzz ► 09:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Check it now. I incorporated many of your excellent suggestions. I think it may be best if I am BOLD and simply apply my new changes to the current article, and suggest it then be moved to the film's earlier (and more sourcable) title, as I think my version is more encyclopedic and not spammy. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that 'filmweb' is a reliable source, and I am not sure of the others. Articles need to show significant coverage in independentreliable sources - for example, newspaper articles. See WP:VRS. Chzz ► 08:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
