Hey Chzz,
I was wondering what I can do to not have this deleted. D021680 ( talk) 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Chzz.
So this doesn't fill the notability requirements, essentially? But I've had notable musicians and autheros write for the site as well as notable artists who've been interviewed exstensively for the site. Also, while I can't find anything in the google archives either, the site has been mentioned in notable newspapers and magazines. Both occasions, those were in print. So what can we do to make this entry legit? Please let me know and thank you for your time. D021680 ( talk) 23:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Julia Martha Thomas/archive1 and on the article itself. I've left you some comments on the FAC page. Is there any chance that you might be able to say whether or not you support the nomination? Prioryman ( talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
On 6 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The First Domino, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the writing of the English play, The First Domino, was inspired by its author's injury in a 1999 nail bomb attack in Soho? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/The First Domino.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. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 00:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your explanations. However, as I already explain, the redirection is wrong. In es:WP we don´t keep wrong rd, no matter who "cheap" could they be, because is better nothing to point to a wrong concept. As I told you before, I just came to request for the article, so write myself the stubb/article I request (because my english is not good enough) seems not to be realistic (or logic). As you did the rd and know the procedures, please be so nice to undoit. Cheers. -- Andreateletrabajo ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
'''Somebody''' is a pop singer/whatever from someplace.<ref> http://www.somenewspaper.com/somearticle </ref> They had a hit single with "something" in 2010. <ref> http://www.somechartthing.com </ref> Somebody appeared at Some Festival in 2010. <ref> http://www.somefestival.com/giglist </ref>
Discussion re closure, now moot, I think
|
---|
Hi, I don't understand why you have closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy in the way you have, it was about, if removal rights were granted, what is the policy for using that right. For example there does not appear to be consensus to support it's use in Emergencies. Mt king (edits) 01:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, my overbearing thoughts were a) if we can't trust a 'crat, who can we trust, and b) specifics (pol, guidelines) need to develop organically. "use good sense" being a good start. Chzz ► 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Formal request to reconsider your closing rationalI would like you to consider clarifying your closing rational on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy to specify address each of the four questions. I do not think the fourth of them reached consensus given it received less support than any of the others and received more opposes's than the other three combined. Mt king (edits) 03:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Just adding my mite - I think, in situations where it's a case of "Obvious close is obvious", how the close is explicitly (or not) worded isn't really relevant. Obvious close was obvious.
Pesky (
talk …
stalk!) 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't often agree with Chzz, but this close is one of the most solidly well argued, well done, and well explained closures I have seen ever in wikipedia, and I have been around for a bazillion wikiyears, been involved (not punished!) with Arbcom, hundreds of AfD as a participant, nom, and article starter, and what not. In short, I have seen every combo there is to be seen of discussions that need some sort of closing, and this one had humor, intelligence, respect for the topic and for those in the other side of the consensus, and furthermore, it set a solid basis to understand what the community is doing to anyone un-involved in the discussion looking back at it. While I am a firm believer in talking through everything, and that WP:CCC, even the topic being closed was not a big deal. This whole thread is why we all should take a deep breath, remember what we are not and be a little less self important. Just sayin'-- Cerejota ( talk) 08:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar | ||
For being willing to look at your closure again. Mt king (edits) 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
The Considerable Cowbell Barnstar | ||
For a great closing at here.-- Cerejota ( talk) 09:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks, both. c/f [5]. Chzz ► 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This has been a very unpleasant experience: trying to help improve an article which was listed on the Yorkshire Wikiproject page as a GA candidate, along with a couple of other editors, and finding almost every suggestion slapped down by an editor who considers that they WP:OWN the page. Among improvements I made which didn't get removed were changes to the use of the {{ convert}} so it no longer gave inappropriately precise conversions for approximate measurements.
The editor's attitude to other editors has been confrontational throughout.
One problem is his lack of sensitivity to language. He insisted for some time on the phrasing: "As he had never married the family estate was later taken over by the Leeds Corporation." To me, that implies that the council acquired it by some sort of compulsion, and also that this was an inevitable consequence of the man not having been married. Another editor and I both suggested variations such as "He never married and the family estate was later acquired by the Leeds Corporation" but the editor preferred his own version, repeatedly. The talk page discussion under "Rubbish" shows another case, where "Although" was inappropriate. Early versions of the politics section started "Since the boundary changes—which took effect before the 2010 General Election—Swarcliffe has been part of the Leeds East constituency, which includes Cross Gates, Whinmoor, Seacroft, Gipton, Harehills, Killingbeck, Temple Newsam, Halton Moor, Halton, Whitkirk, Colton and Austhorpe.", which suggests to me that Swarcliffe was not part of this constituency before 2010. My attempts to change this were reverted, and my attempt to discuss on the talk page ignored until an unhelpful and illogical reply ("This article is not about political areas. Leeds East has its own page, unless one works for Leeds City Council.") about 20 hours later.
The editor's response to questions raised on the talk page was variously silence, "Read the rules", implications that I had COI by working for the council or the labour party, and archiving the entire talk page. He later accused me on my talk page of being "destructive, and hav[ing] no interest in co-operative work. ". I considered reporting him for 3 reverts (3? how many?) last night but couldn't face the hassle of the procedure. He has reverted many, many edits by me and by other editors who have tried to improve the article, and has shown a very uncollaborative approach. PamD ( talk) 22:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If the other editor's various comments about the GA process are correct, then it seems to be a "heads-up" to avoid going anywhere near an article whose main editor has nominated it for GA - to hold off from trying to help in any way - because the criteria are so rigid and inflexible and the convenience of the reader comes way down the list of priorities. Rather sad, but something to take away from this. I hadn't realised the extent to which the GA process is a closed world of GA experts, into which normal editors are not encouraged to venture. But maybe this is just the impression from one editor's attitude. I noinated a modest article I had created a few years ago, had useful discussions with GA assessor, improved it, and it passed. It's now being held up to be mocked: as far as I can see Leeds Country Way still meets the GA criteria, but perhaps there are super-criteria behind the scenes which are only known to the in-crowd! PamD ( talk) 07:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
PamD, having now looked at things in more detail;
I sincerely hope that will get us back on-track. Please let me know if I overstep the mark, or any other comments on my facilitation. I have not disregarded the other editor's confrontational/unproductive/uncivil comments; at the moment, I'm saying 'please stop', but if that fails, I'll pursue it. Thanks for your cooperation, Chzz ► 12:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
First, glad to see you back contributing again.
You single-handedly manage the help desk at times.
I have a question. I know you set up the Feedback page organization, and frankly, I don't fully understand how it works, except that it works quite well (OK, we can't get enough help, but the mechanics of the page are working nicely)
How, I note that Wikipedia:Feedback#Mekhis_Qandakeba, from late June and early July, seems "stuck". It shows up on the current day page every day. Any thoughts?-- SPhilbrick T 12:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ STOP! ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ *** PLEASE DO NOT ADD REQUESTS ON THIS PAGE ***
It has already been oversighted, before which DMacks and I had RevDel'ed the two edits. :) Reaper Eternal ( talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Its one da kids put up a blog bou wats happnin rite now. In that page wichis blocked to edit u shud put under causes about the girl that got beat up.
http://apoliticallyconcerned.blogspot.com/2011/08/fun-fact-not-being-mentioned-about.html
she was attacked by one of em with a baton after protestin bout da Star who got murderd. It was wat started the first riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedcatchen ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Help Most thankful. Please excuse english. Want «archive» You understand examples other page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiang_Kai-shek/Archive_1 -- 108.14.202.122 ( talk) 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
保持良好的工作 ! 108.14.202.122 ( talk) 17:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Chzz,
Permission is granted to ref the website - it is a neat story - Alaska wilderness-built company . . . . What should I do to get of the delete list?
Thank you, Ellen Emowrer18 ( talk) 17:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This case is not worse than that one? This applies to nominate? 187.116.55.122 ( talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help here - the result seems to have gone from one extreme to the other as he seems to have "taken his bat home", while three editors gently tweak the article to improve it. I was surprised to find a couple of actual mis-copied figures in it - a death date out by 5 years and some muddled demographic figures. Perhaps it's the difference between music and geog - possibly also music editors go more for flourishes of language and geography editors for clear statements of facts ("bus timetables"). Thanks also for comments on Leeds Country Way! I had checked the External Links recently (and removed a dead one) but forgot to check the refs, and have updated a couple now. Might get round to generally improving it some time, though it's not easy to see how much "broad scope" is appropriate for the topic. Thanks again, Pam D 15:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
In the contribution I included information stating notable awards that Creaxion won as an agency. The agency continues to do work in Atlanta that is notable, which is why I thought the article was warranted. Anything else I can do to see it created? ( Zanedharris ( talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
How does BLP1E apply to a dead person?-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That deserves a considered response; there is "stuff I want to say". For now, please understand a) I don't have time to formulate such a response, b) I don't particularly care what happens in that specific case (re. that article); I've lodged my objection in the AfD, but it does look like consensus will keep it. If you'd like me to simply strike my opposition (in the interests of progress there, and per WP:FUCK) then I will do so; let me know. Regardless - I do intend to try and explain my deeper thoughts here surrounding the wider issue (viz. the policies and our actions in similar cases, not this one), and will try to do so ASAP. I apologize that my oppose in that specific AfD does not make my reasoning clear - and further apols that I have not elaborated upon it here, either, yet; I will, when I have the time. Best, Chzz ► 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
this thread might be of interest to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion has started at the above linked page regarding the methods of implementation; one of the keys will be working on AfC. As you're the most active editor I can think of there, your input would be greatly appreciated. We haven't made this a hugely visible discussion yet, but if you know any other AfC regulars please also notify them of this. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 21:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in Kinetic Sculpture Race. I appreciate you removing the awards List from Baltimore. But I have a question. How could we include the idea of what the awards are given for without the list? The idea Tom-of-Baltimore had (and maybe didn't accomplish very well) is to show that they are both serious and wacky. Again thank you for your interest here. We still have that conflict of interest person User:Ebenezercore adding his name to the article but I am sure he will get tired of it eventually. I did what you said and put it on Conflict of Interest, but no one has done anything. With best wishes, A reasonably New Editor Ellin Beltz ( talk) 01:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
please writ makka instead of Macca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.80.153 ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 14 July 2011
I appreciate your helpful input today. Certainly some food for thought.
Will be in touch.
Christopher M. Becker www.christopherbeckeronline.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBeckerUSA ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey! Thank you for bringing that glaring talk issue into the picture. I believe I have fixed the problem, (with the title as well,) and if you have any more issues, ideas, or comments... I need all the help I can get.
P.S. Does Anyone ever press your boom button? I was sorely tempted, but refrained, barely. Majestic Pyre My Speech Bubble 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The section seems to have been archived. I'm not sure how to get it back. 218.186.12.10 ( talk) 00:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the pointless barnstar! Would you mind listing it on the Barnstars page? I hope the reason for giving a Pointless Barnstar is for any reason that doesn't merit a barnstar with points. Pine talk 07:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the pointless barnstar! Would you mind listing it on the Barnstars page? I hope the reason for giving a Pointless Barnstar is for any reason that doesn't merit a barnstar with points. Pine talk 07:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The Pointless Barnstar | ||
I award you this barnstar for allowing public use of this barnstar! Pine talk 10:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Chzz; I've noticed that you're one of the most helpful Wikipedians, whereas I have been criticised for being blunt. There's an editor Uksnapper ( talk · contribs) who has been around for 5 years, but only has about 30 edits. This editor seems to be somewhat annoyed that most, if not all, of his edits have been reverted or amended out of all recognition, particularly those to Swan Shopping Centre. As far as I can see, they've all been violations of at least one or more of WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. I'd like to help him but am afraid that I wouldn't word it in the most appropriate manner.
Do you think you could offer him some help please? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ Talkback|WP:HD|Split template does not generate a response}} Done Chzz ► 16:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to have your opinion if you have the time. Lately, I've been thinking a lack of Wikipedia:Etiquette is a reason why people don't stick around here. I recently started a thread at ANI over someone's behavior, a type I thought could chase away good contributors (or editors with a chance of being good) but there wasn't much interest with my concerns. To me, the tread suggests vicious personal attacks are OK if others think it is directed at a likely COI editor. Is that a reasonable interpretation? And can you double-check me to make sure I didn't bite this person? Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 16:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Oooh, good spot. Must have been a typo. Fixed now :) - Jarry1250 Weasel? Discuss. 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for working on the usurp issue. The cloak has now been granted. My biggest issue at the moment is the usurp request on Commons. Pine talk 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Following your message I attempted to work on the references. It doesn't look right. Could you have a look at it and tell me what I did wrong or what I haven't done. Thanx. Wolfeton ( talk) 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Until his retirement in 2002, he continued in his role as News Corporation's Executive Vice President of Human Resources. He left the company exactly 50 years from the day he started on the Sydney ''Daily Mirror'' as a 15-year-old apprentice.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.printweek.com/news/426773/Wapping-dispute-boss-retires/|title=Wapping dispute boss retires|publisher=[[Printweek]]|date=18 January 2002}}</ref>
O'Neill likes sausages.<ref>Who's Who (in Britain) 2001-2011, A and C Black, London</ref>
I worked on compiling sources in the Reference section but they don't look right. Could you have a look at that page and tell me what do I need to do. Thanx. Wolfeton ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC).
When you moved the external links section on the William Lipscomb page it wound up between references 78 and 79. Oops. Please fix. It is not proper for me to edit this page. jslipscomb ( talk) 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. Looks good. jslipscomb ( talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You'll have a lot more fun if you click on Random article. Drmies ( talk) 02:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
"Move external links per MOS:SECTIONS"--you go and move those sections, Chzz. No one can do it quite like you. Drmies ( talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
Please have a look at Wikipedia:Help desk#Problems with two references in article. Thank you very much. -- Peoplefromarizona ( talk) 09:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you saw my private message on-IRC, so apologies if you're already aware of it. I would like to talk to you about the issues you observed in #wikipedia-en-help, if you don't mind.1 (Even if 123Hedgehog456's proposal does not bring any change in the management of IRC, I think improving the help channel is something that can and should be worked on, if someone has observed issues.) I prefer the instantaneous nature of IRC, but if you would like to do this on the record on-wiki, that's fine by me. Please leave a reply or /query me on IRC if you're interested. Thanks.
1: I realise you may be sick and tired of the whole debacle, so if you'd rather not talk to me, I'd understand. wctaiwan ( talk) 15:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC) wc
Just for fun, I was reading the request for bot approval for Chzzbot II; if I understood it rightly, the final form of the bot was supposed to run hourly, but it just edited twice in less than an hour: 10:54 and 11:35. It's definitely not hurting anything, but if I'm reading the bot request rightly, it's slightly misbehaving. Nyttend ( talk) 11:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure this was an accident, but be careful when editing through conflicts: [21] causa sui ( talk) 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of my comments.-- Cerejota ( talk) 18:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you completely that on the William Lipscomb page
Thanks to your interest I added a list of paragraphs to move and where they should go to the Talk:William Lipscomb page in the "Is this a biography" section.
Above that I already have listed items to possibly remove. Below that I give instructions for doing a personal biography of Lipscomb from his extended autobiography online, an easy job that anyone can do.
But who? Perhaps someone kind.
Or I'd be willing to do these myself, but I cannot touch the William Lipscomb page again until I am cleared of the suspicion of impropriety. See at the top of the William Lipscomb page, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." That banner will have to go, notwithstanding that nobody has pointed to anything non-neutral that I have done on the page, which might make one wonder. Perhaps some kind person might remove the banner and add a note to User talk:Jslipscomb clearing me to proceed.
Sorry, I did not have anything to do with Watson, but in 10 years in IBM Research I did do some cool stuff.
jslipscomb ( talk) 23:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.
You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.
Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.
If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.
-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!
Yo Chzz, can we unhat it for 24 hours just to see if it works? I won't revert your hat if you want to keep it that way but I'd be interested to see if it promoted collegiality and I don't think it was left very long. Ta, Egg Centric 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 05:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
How can you!!!!!!!!!! the article is rated by the readership as 5.0 (REPEAT 5.0) in all categories; so is being and will be going on and forward as being one of the very BEST MOST FAMOUS articles about SOME MOST VERY FAMOUS FAILED POLITICIANS on Wikipedia. PS have to take my frustration out somewhere! Cheers ( Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).
I wanted to say that even tho we were in different sides of that discussion (and would probably remain so, although I hope one day you will see the light :P), you comments on that thread (and that of others), were spot-on. Just like I am not a WP:NOTNEWS fundamentalist, I do believe there is a need to sanitize the project of this tendency to basically have a variation of Rule 34 on content "If it exists, there must be a wikipedia article of it", and the extreme abuse of dead horses that results from not accepting the results of a delete consensus. You think this is fixable (via clarification of policy?) or all we have left is an eternal need for these battles to repeat? -- Cerejota ( talk) 19:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
As you have not once warned the other editors about their behaviour on the Swarcliffe article, but insist on warning me, I find your attitude to be anything but neutral. You are failing in your duty as an Admin, and I wish you could be fair, as your actions are one-sided. I do not say this lightly, but as one who believes in a neutral point of view, I believe in equal treatment for all. If you wish to complain about this message, it would be nice to hear from a neutral Admin. I thank you.-- andreasegde ( talk) 03:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, I see that you are making multiple edits with the summary "move external links per MOS:SECTIONS". While this seems to be working well in most cases, it seems to have had an unexpected result in this case where it has moved the external links section into the navbox. Cheers, Bahudhara ( talk) 08:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
...a fun-size lion for you!
Nortonius (
talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of my comments.-- Cerejota ( talk) 18:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you completely that on the William Lipscomb page
Thanks to your interest I added a list of paragraphs to move and where they should go to the Talk:William Lipscomb page in the "Is this a biography" section.
Above that I already have listed items to possibly remove. Below that I give instructions for doing a personal biography of Lipscomb from his extended autobiography online, an easy job that anyone can do.
But who? Perhaps someone kind.
Or I'd be willing to do these myself, but I cannot touch the William Lipscomb page again until I am cleared of the suspicion of impropriety. See at the top of the William Lipscomb page, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." That banner will have to go, notwithstanding that nobody has pointed to anything non-neutral that I have done on the page, which might make one wonder. Perhaps some kind person might remove the banner and add a note to User talk:Jslipscomb clearing me to proceed.
Sorry, I did not have anything to do with Watson, but in 10 years in IBM Research I did do some cool stuff.
jslipscomb ( talk) 23:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.
You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.
Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.
If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.
-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!
Yo Chzz, can we unhat it for 24 hours just to see if it works? I won't revert your hat if you want to keep it that way but I'd be interested to see if it promoted collegiality and I don't think it was left very long. Ta, Egg Centric 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 05:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
How can you!!!!!!!!!! the article is rated by the readership as 5.0 (REPEAT 5.0) in all categories; so is being and will be going on and forward as being one of the very BEST MOST FAMOUS articles about SOME MOST VERY FAMOUS FAILED POLITICIANS on Wikipedia. PS have to take my frustration out somewhere! Cheers ( Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).
I wanted to say that even tho we were in different sides of that discussion (and would probably remain so, although I hope one day you will see the light :P), you comments on that thread (and that of others), were spot-on. Just like I am not a WP:NOTNEWS fundamentalist, I do believe there is a need to sanitize the project of this tendency to basically have a variation of Rule 34 on content "If it exists, there must be a wikipedia article of it", and the extreme abuse of dead horses that results from not accepting the results of a delete consensus. You think this is fixable (via clarification of policy?) or all we have left is an eternal need for these battles to repeat? -- Cerejota ( talk) 19:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
As you have not once warned the other editors about their behaviour on the Swarcliffe article, but insist on warning me, I find your attitude to be anything but neutral. You are failing in your duty as an Admin, and I wish you could be fair, as your actions are one-sided. I do not say this lightly, but as one who believes in a neutral point of view, I believe in equal treatment for all. If you wish to complain about this message, it would be nice to hear from a neutral Admin. I thank you.-- andreasegde ( talk) 03:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, I see that you are making multiple edits with the summary "move external links per MOS:SECTIONS". While this seems to be working well in most cases, it seems to have had an unexpected result in this case where it has moved the external links section into the navbox. Cheers, Bahudhara ( talk) 08:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
...a fun-size lion for you!
Nortonius (
talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
We desperately need an article about the
"scallywags" and we miss you; can you solve these two problems?
Much wikilove from
Wasbeer 13:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. Vive la Révolution!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for creating the help page for us and for training us in Boston! Lsukari ( talk) 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
I've just "been bold" with a major edit of the IEEE CS page, which I hope addresses all your suggestions (for which much thanks). It takes me a long time to respond because (a) I'm old and generally slow and (b) the rules here seem incredibly daunting. I'm trying to do the right thing toward getting the flags removed the page and then will be glad to turn this work over to other nonCOI editors, including the world at large. I think it is now fairly neutral and definitely accurate and verified. Thanks, Cecilialw ( talk) 23:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
{{Original research|date=May 2010}}
"."{{Refimprove|date=August 2010}}"
.Hi, following on from User talk:Chzz/Archive 33#Newbie could do with guidance - this newbie clearly has some sort of problem, although I'm at a loss to know what it is exactly. His recent postings have all been to the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject West Midlands, and since they related to a section higher up the page, I moved his post, and in all but the last case, have left my own reply. But in the last case, I'm stuck as to what is best for me to put. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
[32] The bot put two sandbox headers on the page. -- Σ talk contribs 18:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Arghh!!! :P Meh. Hope you're having a nice break :) / ƒETCH COMMS / 22:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey Chzz,
I was wondering what I can do to not have this deleted. D021680 ( talk) 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Chzz.
So this doesn't fill the notability requirements, essentially? But I've had notable musicians and autheros write for the site as well as notable artists who've been interviewed exstensively for the site. Also, while I can't find anything in the google archives either, the site has been mentioned in notable newspapers and magazines. Both occasions, those were in print. So what can we do to make this entry legit? Please let me know and thank you for your time. D021680 ( talk) 23:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Julia Martha Thomas/archive1 and on the article itself. I've left you some comments on the FAC page. Is there any chance that you might be able to say whether or not you support the nomination? Prioryman ( talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
On 6 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The First Domino, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the writing of the English play, The First Domino, was inspired by its author's injury in a 1999 nail bomb attack in Soho? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/The First Domino.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. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 00:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your explanations. However, as I already explain, the redirection is wrong. In es:WP we don´t keep wrong rd, no matter who "cheap" could they be, because is better nothing to point to a wrong concept. As I told you before, I just came to request for the article, so write myself the stubb/article I request (because my english is not good enough) seems not to be realistic (or logic). As you did the rd and know the procedures, please be so nice to undoit. Cheers. -- Andreateletrabajo ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
'''Somebody''' is a pop singer/whatever from someplace.<ref> http://www.somenewspaper.com/somearticle </ref> They had a hit single with "something" in 2010. <ref> http://www.somechartthing.com </ref> Somebody appeared at Some Festival in 2010. <ref> http://www.somefestival.com/giglist </ref>
Discussion re closure, now moot, I think
|
---|
Hi, I don't understand why you have closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy in the way you have, it was about, if removal rights were granted, what is the policy for using that right. For example there does not appear to be consensus to support it's use in Emergencies. Mt king (edits) 01:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, my overbearing thoughts were a) if we can't trust a 'crat, who can we trust, and b) specifics (pol, guidelines) need to develop organically. "use good sense" being a good start. Chzz ► 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Formal request to reconsider your closing rationalI would like you to consider clarifying your closing rational on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy to specify address each of the four questions. I do not think the fourth of them reached consensus given it received less support than any of the others and received more opposes's than the other three combined. Mt king (edits) 03:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Just adding my mite - I think, in situations where it's a case of "Obvious close is obvious", how the close is explicitly (or not) worded isn't really relevant. Obvious close was obvious.
Pesky (
talk …
stalk!) 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't often agree with Chzz, but this close is one of the most solidly well argued, well done, and well explained closures I have seen ever in wikipedia, and I have been around for a bazillion wikiyears, been involved (not punished!) with Arbcom, hundreds of AfD as a participant, nom, and article starter, and what not. In short, I have seen every combo there is to be seen of discussions that need some sort of closing, and this one had humor, intelligence, respect for the topic and for those in the other side of the consensus, and furthermore, it set a solid basis to understand what the community is doing to anyone un-involved in the discussion looking back at it. While I am a firm believer in talking through everything, and that WP:CCC, even the topic being closed was not a big deal. This whole thread is why we all should take a deep breath, remember what we are not and be a little less self important. Just sayin'-- Cerejota ( talk) 08:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar | ||
For being willing to look at your closure again. Mt king (edits) 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
The Considerable Cowbell Barnstar | ||
For a great closing at here.-- Cerejota ( talk) 09:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks, both. c/f [5]. Chzz ► 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This has been a very unpleasant experience: trying to help improve an article which was listed on the Yorkshire Wikiproject page as a GA candidate, along with a couple of other editors, and finding almost every suggestion slapped down by an editor who considers that they WP:OWN the page. Among improvements I made which didn't get removed were changes to the use of the {{ convert}} so it no longer gave inappropriately precise conversions for approximate measurements.
The editor's attitude to other editors has been confrontational throughout.
One problem is his lack of sensitivity to language. He insisted for some time on the phrasing: "As he had never married the family estate was later taken over by the Leeds Corporation." To me, that implies that the council acquired it by some sort of compulsion, and also that this was an inevitable consequence of the man not having been married. Another editor and I both suggested variations such as "He never married and the family estate was later acquired by the Leeds Corporation" but the editor preferred his own version, repeatedly. The talk page discussion under "Rubbish" shows another case, where "Although" was inappropriate. Early versions of the politics section started "Since the boundary changes—which took effect before the 2010 General Election—Swarcliffe has been part of the Leeds East constituency, which includes Cross Gates, Whinmoor, Seacroft, Gipton, Harehills, Killingbeck, Temple Newsam, Halton Moor, Halton, Whitkirk, Colton and Austhorpe.", which suggests to me that Swarcliffe was not part of this constituency before 2010. My attempts to change this were reverted, and my attempt to discuss on the talk page ignored until an unhelpful and illogical reply ("This article is not about political areas. Leeds East has its own page, unless one works for Leeds City Council.") about 20 hours later.
The editor's response to questions raised on the talk page was variously silence, "Read the rules", implications that I had COI by working for the council or the labour party, and archiving the entire talk page. He later accused me on my talk page of being "destructive, and hav[ing] no interest in co-operative work. ". I considered reporting him for 3 reverts (3? how many?) last night but couldn't face the hassle of the procedure. He has reverted many, many edits by me and by other editors who have tried to improve the article, and has shown a very uncollaborative approach. PamD ( talk) 22:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If the other editor's various comments about the GA process are correct, then it seems to be a "heads-up" to avoid going anywhere near an article whose main editor has nominated it for GA - to hold off from trying to help in any way - because the criteria are so rigid and inflexible and the convenience of the reader comes way down the list of priorities. Rather sad, but something to take away from this. I hadn't realised the extent to which the GA process is a closed world of GA experts, into which normal editors are not encouraged to venture. But maybe this is just the impression from one editor's attitude. I noinated a modest article I had created a few years ago, had useful discussions with GA assessor, improved it, and it passed. It's now being held up to be mocked: as far as I can see Leeds Country Way still meets the GA criteria, but perhaps there are super-criteria behind the scenes which are only known to the in-crowd! PamD ( talk) 07:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
PamD, having now looked at things in more detail;
I sincerely hope that will get us back on-track. Please let me know if I overstep the mark, or any other comments on my facilitation. I have not disregarded the other editor's confrontational/unproductive/uncivil comments; at the moment, I'm saying 'please stop', but if that fails, I'll pursue it. Thanks for your cooperation, Chzz ► 12:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
First, glad to see you back contributing again.
You single-handedly manage the help desk at times.
I have a question. I know you set up the Feedback page organization, and frankly, I don't fully understand how it works, except that it works quite well (OK, we can't get enough help, but the mechanics of the page are working nicely)
How, I note that Wikipedia:Feedback#Mekhis_Qandakeba, from late June and early July, seems "stuck". It shows up on the current day page every day. Any thoughts?-- SPhilbrick T 12:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ STOP! ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ *** PLEASE DO NOT ADD REQUESTS ON THIS PAGE ***
It has already been oversighted, before which DMacks and I had RevDel'ed the two edits. :) Reaper Eternal ( talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Its one da kids put up a blog bou wats happnin rite now. In that page wichis blocked to edit u shud put under causes about the girl that got beat up.
http://apoliticallyconcerned.blogspot.com/2011/08/fun-fact-not-being-mentioned-about.html
she was attacked by one of em with a baton after protestin bout da Star who got murderd. It was wat started the first riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedcatchen ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Help Most thankful. Please excuse english. Want «archive» You understand examples other page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiang_Kai-shek/Archive_1 -- 108.14.202.122 ( talk) 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
保持良好的工作 ! 108.14.202.122 ( talk) 17:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Chzz,
Permission is granted to ref the website - it is a neat story - Alaska wilderness-built company . . . . What should I do to get of the delete list?
Thank you, Ellen Emowrer18 ( talk) 17:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This case is not worse than that one? This applies to nominate? 187.116.55.122 ( talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help here - the result seems to have gone from one extreme to the other as he seems to have "taken his bat home", while three editors gently tweak the article to improve it. I was surprised to find a couple of actual mis-copied figures in it - a death date out by 5 years and some muddled demographic figures. Perhaps it's the difference between music and geog - possibly also music editors go more for flourishes of language and geography editors for clear statements of facts ("bus timetables"). Thanks also for comments on Leeds Country Way! I had checked the External Links recently (and removed a dead one) but forgot to check the refs, and have updated a couple now. Might get round to generally improving it some time, though it's not easy to see how much "broad scope" is appropriate for the topic. Thanks again, Pam D 15:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
In the contribution I included information stating notable awards that Creaxion won as an agency. The agency continues to do work in Atlanta that is notable, which is why I thought the article was warranted. Anything else I can do to see it created? ( Zanedharris ( talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
How does BLP1E apply to a dead person?-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That deserves a considered response; there is "stuff I want to say". For now, please understand a) I don't have time to formulate such a response, b) I don't particularly care what happens in that specific case (re. that article); I've lodged my objection in the AfD, but it does look like consensus will keep it. If you'd like me to simply strike my opposition (in the interests of progress there, and per WP:FUCK) then I will do so; let me know. Regardless - I do intend to try and explain my deeper thoughts here surrounding the wider issue (viz. the policies and our actions in similar cases, not this one), and will try to do so ASAP. I apologize that my oppose in that specific AfD does not make my reasoning clear - and further apols that I have not elaborated upon it here, either, yet; I will, when I have the time. Best, Chzz ► 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
this thread might be of interest to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion has started at the above linked page regarding the methods of implementation; one of the keys will be working on AfC. As you're the most active editor I can think of there, your input would be greatly appreciated. We haven't made this a hugely visible discussion yet, but if you know any other AfC regulars please also notify them of this. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 21:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in Kinetic Sculpture Race. I appreciate you removing the awards List from Baltimore. But I have a question. How could we include the idea of what the awards are given for without the list? The idea Tom-of-Baltimore had (and maybe didn't accomplish very well) is to show that they are both serious and wacky. Again thank you for your interest here. We still have that conflict of interest person User:Ebenezercore adding his name to the article but I am sure he will get tired of it eventually. I did what you said and put it on Conflict of Interest, but no one has done anything. With best wishes, A reasonably New Editor Ellin Beltz ( talk) 01:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
please writ makka instead of Macca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.80.153 ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 14 July 2011
I appreciate your helpful input today. Certainly some food for thought.
Will be in touch.
Christopher M. Becker www.christopherbeckeronline.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBeckerUSA ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey! Thank you for bringing that glaring talk issue into the picture. I believe I have fixed the problem, (with the title as well,) and if you have any more issues, ideas, or comments... I need all the help I can get.
P.S. Does Anyone ever press your boom button? I was sorely tempted, but refrained, barely. Majestic Pyre My Speech Bubble 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The section seems to have been archived. I'm not sure how to get it back. 218.186.12.10 ( talk) 00:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the pointless barnstar! Would you mind listing it on the Barnstars page? I hope the reason for giving a Pointless Barnstar is for any reason that doesn't merit a barnstar with points. Pine talk 07:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the pointless barnstar! Would you mind listing it on the Barnstars page? I hope the reason for giving a Pointless Barnstar is for any reason that doesn't merit a barnstar with points. Pine talk 07:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The Pointless Barnstar | ||
I award you this barnstar for allowing public use of this barnstar! Pine talk 10:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Chzz; I've noticed that you're one of the most helpful Wikipedians, whereas I have been criticised for being blunt. There's an editor Uksnapper ( talk · contribs) who has been around for 5 years, but only has about 30 edits. This editor seems to be somewhat annoyed that most, if not all, of his edits have been reverted or amended out of all recognition, particularly those to Swan Shopping Centre. As far as I can see, they've all been violations of at least one or more of WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. I'd like to help him but am afraid that I wouldn't word it in the most appropriate manner.
Do you think you could offer him some help please? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
{{ Talkback|WP:HD|Split template does not generate a response}} Done Chzz ► 16:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to have your opinion if you have the time. Lately, I've been thinking a lack of Wikipedia:Etiquette is a reason why people don't stick around here. I recently started a thread at ANI over someone's behavior, a type I thought could chase away good contributors (or editors with a chance of being good) but there wasn't much interest with my concerns. To me, the tread suggests vicious personal attacks are OK if others think it is directed at a likely COI editor. Is that a reasonable interpretation? And can you double-check me to make sure I didn't bite this person? Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 16:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Oooh, good spot. Must have been a typo. Fixed now :) - Jarry1250 Weasel? Discuss. 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for working on the usurp issue. The cloak has now been granted. My biggest issue at the moment is the usurp request on Commons. Pine talk 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Following your message I attempted to work on the references. It doesn't look right. Could you have a look at it and tell me what I did wrong or what I haven't done. Thanx. Wolfeton ( talk) 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Until his retirement in 2002, he continued in his role as News Corporation's Executive Vice President of Human Resources. He left the company exactly 50 years from the day he started on the Sydney ''Daily Mirror'' as a 15-year-old apprentice.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.printweek.com/news/426773/Wapping-dispute-boss-retires/|title=Wapping dispute boss retires|publisher=[[Printweek]]|date=18 January 2002}}</ref>
O'Neill likes sausages.<ref>Who's Who (in Britain) 2001-2011, A and C Black, London</ref>
I worked on compiling sources in the Reference section but they don't look right. Could you have a look at that page and tell me what do I need to do. Thanx. Wolfeton ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC).
When you moved the external links section on the William Lipscomb page it wound up between references 78 and 79. Oops. Please fix. It is not proper for me to edit this page. jslipscomb ( talk) 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. Looks good. jslipscomb ( talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You'll have a lot more fun if you click on Random article. Drmies ( talk) 02:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
"Move external links per MOS:SECTIONS"--you go and move those sections, Chzz. No one can do it quite like you. Drmies ( talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
Please have a look at Wikipedia:Help desk#Problems with two references in article. Thank you very much. -- Peoplefromarizona ( talk) 09:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you saw my private message on-IRC, so apologies if you're already aware of it. I would like to talk to you about the issues you observed in #wikipedia-en-help, if you don't mind.1 (Even if 123Hedgehog456's proposal does not bring any change in the management of IRC, I think improving the help channel is something that can and should be worked on, if someone has observed issues.) I prefer the instantaneous nature of IRC, but if you would like to do this on the record on-wiki, that's fine by me. Please leave a reply or /query me on IRC if you're interested. Thanks.
1: I realise you may be sick and tired of the whole debacle, so if you'd rather not talk to me, I'd understand. wctaiwan ( talk) 15:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC) wc
Just for fun, I was reading the request for bot approval for Chzzbot II; if I understood it rightly, the final form of the bot was supposed to run hourly, but it just edited twice in less than an hour: 10:54 and 11:35. It's definitely not hurting anything, but if I'm reading the bot request rightly, it's slightly misbehaving. Nyttend ( talk) 11:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure this was an accident, but be careful when editing through conflicts: [21] causa sui ( talk) 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of my comments.-- Cerejota ( talk) 18:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you completely that on the William Lipscomb page
Thanks to your interest I added a list of paragraphs to move and where they should go to the Talk:William Lipscomb page in the "Is this a biography" section.
Above that I already have listed items to possibly remove. Below that I give instructions for doing a personal biography of Lipscomb from his extended autobiography online, an easy job that anyone can do.
But who? Perhaps someone kind.
Or I'd be willing to do these myself, but I cannot touch the William Lipscomb page again until I am cleared of the suspicion of impropriety. See at the top of the William Lipscomb page, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." That banner will have to go, notwithstanding that nobody has pointed to anything non-neutral that I have done on the page, which might make one wonder. Perhaps some kind person might remove the banner and add a note to User talk:Jslipscomb clearing me to proceed.
Sorry, I did not have anything to do with Watson, but in 10 years in IBM Research I did do some cool stuff.
jslipscomb ( talk) 23:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.
You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.
Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.
If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.
-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!
Yo Chzz, can we unhat it for 24 hours just to see if it works? I won't revert your hat if you want to keep it that way but I'd be interested to see if it promoted collegiality and I don't think it was left very long. Ta, Egg Centric 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 05:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
How can you!!!!!!!!!! the article is rated by the readership as 5.0 (REPEAT 5.0) in all categories; so is being and will be going on and forward as being one of the very BEST MOST FAMOUS articles about SOME MOST VERY FAMOUS FAILED POLITICIANS on Wikipedia. PS have to take my frustration out somewhere! Cheers ( Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).
I wanted to say that even tho we were in different sides of that discussion (and would probably remain so, although I hope one day you will see the light :P), you comments on that thread (and that of others), were spot-on. Just like I am not a WP:NOTNEWS fundamentalist, I do believe there is a need to sanitize the project of this tendency to basically have a variation of Rule 34 on content "If it exists, there must be a wikipedia article of it", and the extreme abuse of dead horses that results from not accepting the results of a delete consensus. You think this is fixable (via clarification of policy?) or all we have left is an eternal need for these battles to repeat? -- Cerejota ( talk) 19:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
As you have not once warned the other editors about their behaviour on the Swarcliffe article, but insist on warning me, I find your attitude to be anything but neutral. You are failing in your duty as an Admin, and I wish you could be fair, as your actions are one-sided. I do not say this lightly, but as one who believes in a neutral point of view, I believe in equal treatment for all. If you wish to complain about this message, it would be nice to hear from a neutral Admin. I thank you.-- andreasegde ( talk) 03:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, I see that you are making multiple edits with the summary "move external links per MOS:SECTIONS". While this seems to be working well in most cases, it seems to have had an unexpected result in this case where it has moved the external links section into the navbox. Cheers, Bahudhara ( talk) 08:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
...a fun-size lion for you!
Nortonius (
talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of my comments.-- Cerejota ( talk) 18:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you completely that on the William Lipscomb page
Thanks to your interest I added a list of paragraphs to move and where they should go to the Talk:William Lipscomb page in the "Is this a biography" section.
Above that I already have listed items to possibly remove. Below that I give instructions for doing a personal biography of Lipscomb from his extended autobiography online, an easy job that anyone can do.
But who? Perhaps someone kind.
Or I'd be willing to do these myself, but I cannot touch the William Lipscomb page again until I am cleared of the suspicion of impropriety. See at the top of the William Lipscomb page, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." That banner will have to go, notwithstanding that nobody has pointed to anything non-neutral that I have done on the page, which might make one wonder. Perhaps some kind person might remove the banner and add a note to User talk:Jslipscomb clearing me to proceed.
Sorry, I did not have anything to do with Watson, but in 10 years in IBM Research I did do some cool stuff.
jslipscomb ( talk) 23:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.
You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.
Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.
If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.
-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!
Yo Chzz, can we unhat it for 24 hours just to see if it works? I won't revert your hat if you want to keep it that way but I'd be interested to see if it promoted collegiality and I don't think it was left very long. Ta, Egg Centric 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 05:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
How can you!!!!!!!!!! the article is rated by the readership as 5.0 (REPEAT 5.0) in all categories; so is being and will be going on and forward as being one of the very BEST MOST FAMOUS articles about SOME MOST VERY FAMOUS FAILED POLITICIANS on Wikipedia. PS have to take my frustration out somewhere! Cheers ( Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).
I wanted to say that even tho we were in different sides of that discussion (and would probably remain so, although I hope one day you will see the light :P), you comments on that thread (and that of others), were spot-on. Just like I am not a WP:NOTNEWS fundamentalist, I do believe there is a need to sanitize the project of this tendency to basically have a variation of Rule 34 on content "If it exists, there must be a wikipedia article of it", and the extreme abuse of dead horses that results from not accepting the results of a delete consensus. You think this is fixable (via clarification of policy?) or all we have left is an eternal need for these battles to repeat? -- Cerejota ( talk) 19:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
As you have not once warned the other editors about their behaviour on the Swarcliffe article, but insist on warning me, I find your attitude to be anything but neutral. You are failing in your duty as an Admin, and I wish you could be fair, as your actions are one-sided. I do not say this lightly, but as one who believes in a neutral point of view, I believe in equal treatment for all. If you wish to complain about this message, it would be nice to hear from a neutral Admin. I thank you.-- andreasegde ( talk) 03:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chzz, I see that you are making multiple edits with the summary "move external links per MOS:SECTIONS". While this seems to be working well in most cases, it seems to have had an unexpected result in this case where it has moved the external links section into the navbox. Cheers, Bahudhara ( talk) 08:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
...a fun-size lion for you!
Nortonius (
talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
We desperately need an article about the
"scallywags" and we miss you; can you solve these two problems?
Much wikilove from
Wasbeer 13:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. Vive la Révolution!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for creating the help page for us and for training us in Boston! Lsukari ( talk) 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
I've just "been bold" with a major edit of the IEEE CS page, which I hope addresses all your suggestions (for which much thanks). It takes me a long time to respond because (a) I'm old and generally slow and (b) the rules here seem incredibly daunting. I'm trying to do the right thing toward getting the flags removed the page and then will be glad to turn this work over to other nonCOI editors, including the world at large. I think it is now fairly neutral and definitely accurate and verified. Thanks, Cecilialw ( talk) 23:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
{{Original research|date=May 2010}}
"."{{Refimprove|date=August 2010}}"
.Hi, following on from User talk:Chzz/Archive 33#Newbie could do with guidance - this newbie clearly has some sort of problem, although I'm at a loss to know what it is exactly. His recent postings have all been to the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject West Midlands, and since they related to a section higher up the page, I moved his post, and in all but the last case, have left my own reply. But in the last case, I'm stuck as to what is best for me to put. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
[32] The bot put two sandbox headers on the page. -- Σ talk contribs 18:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Arghh!!! :P Meh. Hope you're having a nice break :) / ƒETCH COMMS / 22:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)