::OK, well, you maybe might want to take a look at the parenthetical response he made to g4foley ... or maybe not. Sorry 2 bother you man.
::OK, well, you maybe might want to take a look at the parenthetical response he made to g4foley ... or maybe not. Sorry 2 bother you man.
::Regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS ([[User talk:Uploadvirus|talk]]) 03:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
::Regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS ([[User talk:Uploadvirus|talk]]) 03:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:::I saw it; that's OK. I see no imminent danger to our Encyclopaedia; if I do (in the future), I'll do something. If you notice something I miss, let me know. Cheers, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 03:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:43, 14 April 2011
An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopaedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.
Another editor has tagged the above infobox for deletion. It is not clear why he has done so, but he has his reasons. Please carefully review the above infobox, but please do not delete it without first counting to a googol and only then with reasons related to frogs.
Where has my message gone? My talkpage is very active, so please check the archives. Put your user name or article name into this box, and 'search'-----→
Please do not my article for deletion with no reason. That seems offensive and now I will never post a "Help me" tag again. I thought that was disrespectful to post up for deletion. Please post the reason why. I asked for help not for a deletion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbum98 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I can understand that you are annoyed - but it is absolutely nothing personal.
I nominated it because, after searching the internet, I was unable to find any 'reliable sources' - for example, there are no entries in the Google News archives [1].
Articles must show "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" - such as newspapers, books, or websites such as CNN News or other reputable publications.
Again - I am sorry - but please, remember, nobody owns an article - anyone can edit. And in order to keep Wikipedia great, we have to make sure things are verifiable. I hope you will understand.
What I did was absolutely nothing to do with your use of a {{helpme}}. If you have any questions, I suggest you use one of those - any time. Best, Chzz ► 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason why I did not have any books, or news articles as a source because the series is not a huge thing. I just needed an article to make, and I found an episode. I searched on "Google" and found as much reference I could find, (Some descriptions the creator used, emails to the "Fever Studios" and "Floppy films") Both of the groups I discovered are not a real studio. I also watched the episodes and asked some people about their description. I also contacted the creator. I also seen that there was a deletion notice deleted because I thought I solved the problem. I am not angry though, just confused. Also how would I find out the opinion of either deleting the article or keeping it is? Have a nice day!Thomasbum98 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98[reply]
Wikipedia only has articles about 'notable' subjects, which have good coverage in reliable sources. So when creating a new article, the first thing to do is, look for such sources. Have a look at WP:VRS. Information from the creator, and from emails, is not enough to show notability.
The deletion discussion will be there for around 7 days, during which time others can state their opinion. After 7 days, someone will evaluate the consensus and decide if it should be deleted or not.
Thanks for being understanding about it. If I can help in any way, please ask - any time. Chzz ► 20:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can I help you?
Hi Chzz, the previous wikification drives had the number of words count in the leaderboard. I do not know why it has been removed. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Childproofing Afd
I just wanted to say that I think this was a good nomination even if the article was kept. Looking at the pile on keep votes I didn't want to give the impression I disagreed with it being nominated at all. I'm going to take a stab at the article proper, see if it can be expanded beyond a stub. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - no worries at all! Cheers, Chzz ► 19:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbot
Hi, the bot is inserting the wrong template in the tutorial sandboxes, see [2] (same thing on other tutorial sandboxes). It even edit-warred with an IP which added back the tutorial sandbox template.
Also, could you make the bot handle WP:Introduction ? We had agreed with HJ Mitchell that it could be unprotected (so that new users can see the edit button) if a bot replaced the header (otherwise it's too much maintenance).
The first, every so often, clears the sandbox with a standard header.
The second runs all the time, making sure there is a header. Until just now, it looked for these;
"{{Sandbox heading}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading)}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (Sandbox heading)}}",
"{{Sandbox heading/noedit}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading)/noedit}}",
"{{Sandbox header (do not remove)}}",
"{{PLTLA (SH)}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}}",
"{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)/noedit}}",
I just modified the code to add this;
"Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading)"
That means, it will no longer add in {{Sandbox heading}} if that one exists.
You can note that new version, because its updates will include '(my ref:Sandbot1 ce)' (which I just put in, for 'Ceranium'). Example [3].
Note: it avoids 'edit war' (to an extent) by refusing to edit a specific sandbox more than once every 'x' minutes (currently, 5)
There are problems; the sandboxes header links I listed are all redirects to the standard one. {{Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading)}} is not one of those.
It is difficult to code for 'any reasonable sandbox heading'. Someone could put {{Please leave this line alone FUCK YOU PETER!! LULZ}}".
I can check for whatever, but please advise.
As regards the introduction, the 'talk sandboxes' and template X sandboxes - I will try to work on that, ASAP. Please give me several days, and I will do what I can.
Thank you for alerting me to the issue; please let me know if there is anything further I can do.
The tutorial sandbox templates are different of the standard sandbox template. Could the bot not add the specific tutorial sandbox template on the tutorial sandboxes ? I suppose if it can't we could modify the templates so that the appropriate versions appear depending on the pagename. If you do the introduction, it's template:Please leave this line alone, also different. I suppose reasonable headers should be added as they come. ps: it's Cenarium, not Ceranium :) Cenarium (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, it can do that. Give me some days (week?) and I will work on that.
Apologies re. name; really; I endeavour to take care over such things. For some reason, I got it into my head as 'Ceranium', but that is only through feeble association with Cerebellum and Cranium, and indeed my own lack in those areas. Sorry. Best, Chzz ► 23:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for participating as a Help Desk regular. I would like to point out that your use of {{imbox}} is not appropriate. That template is an image message box and rather intrusive for the Help Desk. We have a series of templates at {{HD}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you clarify why the use is inappropriate? I firstly copied from the edit notice, and then thought it better to use an alternative format, so that it did not span the page width - and appeared clearer on the page; so, I used expandtemplates to check the appearance; the notice itself used mbox, and upon checking the doc, I thought the imbox variant of that was most appropriate. In placing it as a box, I was a) emphasizing the repetition (that it was clear from posting originally), and b) emphasizing same to other people reading that page.
Can you clarify if you believe this was not appropriate, and if I need to adapt. Thanks, Chzz ► 00:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because it is intrusive within discussions. {{subst:HD/rd}} or similar fits better in the flow of text. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 04:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There was no 'discussion' - the specific query was answered with my single post; thus there was no disruption caused. The notification I employed was clearer than the 'standard' {{HD/rd}} - it was more tailored to the specific query, it was clearer, and gave additional information. Chzz ► 05:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Free Hetherington
Hi Chzz
Could you pop over and have a wee look at this - I think that there is a biased person over there atm changing things and that edit wars may ensue. Cheers, LD — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDiotima (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! A couple of minor things;
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.
Please, when you refer to an article or talk page, or whatever - link it; so put [[Free Hetherington]] or [[Talk:Free Hetherington#Free Hetherington]] or whatever, so it makes wikilinks, ie Free Hetherington, Talk:Free Hetherington#Free Hetherington
Sorry - but both those things save me, and others, a lot of time working out what the question is.
Now - re. Free Hetherington - I'm not quite sure what you mean; I see lots of edits, but I'm not convinced there is a problem as such, as of now.
If there are one or two user adding unreferenced claims, then the best approach is to warn them to stop it, and - if necessary, ask for them to be blocked.
If there's several, and things get hot, then the page could be temporarily protected - see WP:RPP.
Note: Both of those are actions that you, I, or any other editor can do.
If there is some specific concern, please let me know. But, I will try to watch it! Cheers, Chzz ► 01:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - sorry, I try to remember to sign, but I sometimes forget. I appreciate your help - I'm new to all this and not wanting to do things wrong LadyDiotima (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for 'signing' :-) No apology necessary at all. Please ask, any time. The trick is, to balance being bold with appropriate caution - so, if in any doubt, please ask - me, or others. Cheers, Chzz ► 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ChzzBot II
Just a quick request for you: could you make sure that ChzzBot II is logging its actions to User:ChzzBot II/log instead of just "ChzzBot II/log"? Bot logs should be in the bot's own userspace rather than in articlespace. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh! I'm so sorry. What a stupid error. Fixed. Thank you for telling me, and clearing up my mess. Chzz ► 01:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right...
...I shouldn't have responded to that ANI incident while I was angry. Thanks to your cooler head for prevailing. It appears to have blown over, thank goodness. What a night. :/ --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks; that's a good response. All done. Chzz ► 06:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chzz, was told to talk to you about my issue
I am trying to upload an image to the company wikipage for Albright Stonebridge Group, of which I am the author. I've read the tutorials and am still somewhat confused, so any help would be appreciated. The logo can be seen at www.albrightstonebridge.com in the upper left hand corner.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarinow (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been added, a short time after you asked this question [5]. Let me know if you have any other questions, cheers, Chzz ► 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Henderson Street article
Hi Chzz,
First off, I wanted to say thanks for all your help and input with my Henderson Street article so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson_Street
I've tried to tidy up the refs (as you outlined) as best I could. Hopefully, it looks better now...
I wanted to ask about a couple more things I'm hoping you can help with:
Co-ordinates:
I was wondering why is it - when I check my co-ordinates on a google map - other wiki articles show up with a W symbol but mine doesn't...? What do I need to do to get an icon for my article on the map? Can you point me in the right direction please?
Categories:
Also, I was thinking over the orphan tag and wondering if adding a few more categories at the bottom would help...
I'm not sure what other categories it would be acceptable to add the article to though.
Here's some ideas I had but I'm not sure of their suitability:
Social history?
Victorian architecture?
Victorian era?
1880s in Scotland?
Listed Buildings in Edinburgh? If I add to something like listed buildings or Category A/B/C listed buildings...assumably my whole article would get linked to that category and maybe that isn't acceptable unless I create direct links to the individual listed buildings mentioned within the article (and I'm not even sure how to do this or if it's an ok thing to do)?
Or, maybe, instead of adding new categories, I should add a section listing other wiki articles on other streets and features in the area?
What do you think? Hoping you can help....
Photo Layout:
Finally, re the photos, I'd like to try and reorganise these a bit. I understand why you right aligned all of them(if that's standard wiki formatting) but I'd originally tried to lay them out so that they sat in sections of the article relevant to what the image showed.... I'm a bit surprised by why wiki allows you to left align and force the sizes, if you're not supposed to do it. I also found quite alot of other articles (including feature ones) where the images are left alligned and some have forced (px) sizes so I'm confused by this one!
Would it be ok, for example, to realign some of them to the left, as long as they are not at the top of sections and to, at least, resize (force) the one of the lamppost and make it smaller - as it now looks massive in comparison to the rest of them....
Any suggestions that could help achieve a bit of a compromise with this one would be great....
Anyway, when/if you get a chance, it'd be great to get some feedback from you on any of the above!
Once again, thanks so much for your help interest,
Lisa Lisaseventyfive (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The refs definitely look better!
Google maps - I'm sorry, I don't know; it'll be something that Google do - but I don't know how they pick up and link articles, or how you request it. It's something you'd need to ask for help in Google Maps; it's not a wikipedia-thing (directly).
Check the featured article, Gropecunt Lane for ideas on all these things.
Cats - don't be worried about over-adding. If there's duplication, or unnecessary cats, someone will work it out. That FA is in 'History of England' and 'History of London' - therefore, how about Category:History of Scotland and Category:History of Edinburgh maybe?
It is OK to have photos on the left, but not at the top of a section. It is also important not to 'sandwich' text between two images, which can happen if you have 2 quite close-together. And remember that some people have smaller screens. Also, in this regard, the infobox at the top, and that quotation, are structured in divisions - so the text shouldn't be 'sandwiched' between those and an image, either.
As for forced-size pictures...it is a bit debatable, but usually they shouldn't be forced size without a pretty good reason - usually, for some image with text that can be read if made a little bigger than normal. I see what you mean about the lamp-post, so yes - sure - go ahead and change it; I just removed the force size from all, for speed, really. Check MOS:IMAGES. (and remember that, whilst often useful for ideas, FA's can be 'wrong' too!)
The main thing I recommend though, is, try to get a peer review - it can take a while, but at least list it there - and it'd be good to get others to look.
...speaking of which...maybe I know a couple of other editors who can check this over and either make changes, or suggest things; I'll ask them if they can look it over. And if I get more time myself, I'll look over it again too. Cheers! Chzz ► 20:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say - thanks for the RA nomination and thanks for sending Pesky my way - he did some good bits of tidying up. I'm still playing about with photos in preview - bit of a nightmare. Can't seem to avoid the stacking I've now got cause I end up with 'sandwich'ing like you said. Am beginning to work out what you mean about problems from various browser types for viewing...Also depending on whether TOC is hidden or visible, stuff moves around... I'll have to have another think and come back to it.
I had a look at the peer review thing, like you suggested. Looks like lots of articles there already have 'Good Article' status though so, is it worth trying to get a peer review if it isn't even classed as a GA? Cheers again Lisaseventyfive (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; image alignment is a tricky business - mostly, the trick is to resist the temptation of trying to do too much - ie, 'keep it simple'. There is a page, Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links - but that just emphasizes how fiddly it can get, really. Best to stick to fewer images which help illustrate, and if there are more, link to Commons where you can have hundreds of pics if you want - use {{commonscat}}.
PR - it is often used by people working towards GA or FA, but not exclusively so. It'd be fine to list your there - I recommend doing so; just don't hold your breath, as it might be month/s before someone actually reviews it, unfortunately. Chzz ► 14:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Chzz, I had not made any edits because i was catching up on Wikipedia policies. Is it ok if I copy and paste an article I have been working on in a subpage of yours so you can take a quick look at it before I publish it. Cheers. mauchoeagle 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure - but you're probably best putting it in your own userspace - so, maybe User:MauchoEagle/draft? Cheers, Chzz ► 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, should be there. Mind taking a look for me. I have been reading policy an the references I have meet guidelines, eh. mauchoeagle 20:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good; a few comments;
It would be better to add a couple more references, if possible. I generally suggest a minimum of three, to avoid notability issues. Maybe a few facts from newspapers? Google news archives might turn something up with a bit of a search, e.g. [6] (ie looking through, or using more creative search terms) - or, are there offline newspaper sources that mention him?
I see that the article is now live, as Robert Cross (mayor). Articles can improve over time; references do not have to be websites - in fact, often the best references are newspaper articles or books. I do not know any specific sources for articles about this person - as I said, I suggest searching Google News archives, or maybe looking to offline news sources. Best of look, Chzz ► 15:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Henderson Street
Hi again Chzz,
Thanks for all the advice and suggestions!
Will look into them in detail and get working on some when I get a chance tomorrow!
Cheers!Lisaseventyfive (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sophie
What happened to Sophie? Was she confirmed to be an adult posing as a minor? EME43 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know, other than that Sophie (talk·contribs) was blocked by Risker (talk·contribs), with the comment Please contact Arbcom with relation to this block. That being the case, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. Sorry. Chzz ► 15:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits! :D --MZMcBride (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh; just thought it'd be best to clarify the refs, before someone mistook it for vandalism or something! Chzz ► 16:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Not sure whether it's the done thing, but thanks for checking Leigh Newton at DYK. Much appreciated, Jenks24 (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Henderson Street
Hello! Your submission of Henderson Street at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (I think), and responded on nom page. Chzz ► 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see new note on DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox on Outreach wiki
Hi Chzz, can you set up the Sandbox header bot on outreachwiki so it replaces http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Sandbox with {{Sandbox header/en}} <!-- Please leave this line alone! -->
every 24 hours and, if it's been removed, buts it back on every 5 minutes, please? Thanks in advance, RockdrumBa-dumCrash 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should be fine; as discussed, I'm improving the bot code - hopefully within the next few days - and then I can make that happen. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the help. I will sort through all that and come up with something that suits the purpose. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Need Referral to Good Admin for Possible Sanctions
Hey Chzz! I'm a fan of yours, and know how helpful you are. I've been reviewing new changes in the spirit of doing more general housekeeping and spreading my efforts around a bit. I notice that a particular IP user (217.129.65.5) has been repeatedly warned - like 10 times - for disruptive edits and edit summaries. He is back at it again! Could you recommend someone I could take this to, or can you? Stupid stuff like this TICKS ME OFF. Hope things are well with you. TTYL/TUVM!\
Your fan:
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC) a/k/a "Uploadvirus"[reply]
Looking into it. Chzz ► 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is now blocked for 24 hours [7]; I will try to watch for it. Thanks, Chzz ► 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user I mentioned above sent me an IMMEDIATE and very nice reply, expressing his regrets and willingness to do his best to improve. Told him I would immediately let you know of this, and I have kept that promise. Thanks very much for your help! Hey, you have been GREAT every time I have dumped an extra "mission" on you (your mission number 4,567 out of 6,952 - LOL). You and Doc James and WhatamIdoing are some hard-working folks. I admire you a lot - for what that's worth.
The Helping Hand Barnstar
To Chzz, with gratitude, for helping me RIGHT NOW and EVERY TIME Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk a/k/a "Uploadvirus") 02:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, this is over with; an IP and user was blocked for 24 hours for disrupting the project, and that is all. If they don't do it again, all is well. Thanks, everyone, for your understanding. Nothing more to see here, move along... Chzz ► 03:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, you maybe might want to take a look at the parenthetical response he made to g4foley ... or maybe not. Sorry 2 bother you man.
Regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
