This is an archive of past discussions about 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.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
A discussion about improving the help documentation inspired an idea--Wikipedia tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. Cheers, Ocaasic03:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chzz,
Thanks for the feedback on my page. I did the ThinkPad X Series page. One question that I've had is mainly to do with the links and references. I stick to a set of reputable sources (major PC reviewers, press releases and things like that). Now, assuming I source an entire paragraph from a single article and then rewrite it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, can I put the reference at the end of the paragraph? That's something I've been wondering about and if you check the T Series Page you'll find I did the same thing as the X Series page.
Identifying when to link is a bit of a concern, because I make sure I have a source for every sentence, but I'm not sure when that source has to be included mid-text or sentence, and when it can be included at the end of a paragraph.
It's best to give a reference at the end of each sentence. It's OK to give a reference for a whole paragraph but, it can cause problems later, if someone adds to the middle of the paragraph. For example, if I put,
Chzz is 103 years old. Chzz comes from England.<ref> Some book </ref>
...that's fine; but what if someone else adds to it;
Chzz is 103 years old. Chzz likes tea. Chzz comes from England.<ref> Some book </ref>
It looks like the 'tea' fact is covered by the same reference, but it probably isn't. For that reason, it would be better in the first instance to put;
Chzz is 103 years old.<ref name=something> Some book </ref> Chzz comes from England.<ref name=something/>
However, you do not need all those 'quotations'. Totally unnecessary, and they cause copyright-violation problems, because it is excessive copying of a copyright source. Just cite the source, and the reader can go check it for themselves.
Thanks, Chzz. That clarifies a lot of my doubts. I'll work on the T Series and X Series pages to incorporate your feedback. I'll indicate on your talk page when I'm done, so if you could look at the pages, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again.
One problem; some of it seems to be copied, word-for-word, from the referenced pages - for example, "high speed, subsea cable system connecting Gulf" [1].
That's a copyright-violation.
Please note - just changing a few words will not fix that. We can't use close paraphrasing either. It needs to be rewritten in our own words. We can use brief quotations, only as necessary - if they're in "quotation marks".
Thanks again for the update - quite note, the phrases you mentioned (that could risk copyright infringement) - i.e. 'high speed, subsea cable system connecting the Gulf' are found all over the internet, in the company's press releases, and were word for word in various newspapers, (I just selected the most 'credible' ones as references in the article) do you think it would still risk copy right infringment?
(kinda like someone copy righting 'the quick brown fox') :)
"the quick brown fox" has 10 million Google hits; "high speed, subsea cable system connecting Gulf" has 4 - and all four relate to "Gulf Bridge International". It probably does come from a press-release, but that doesn't mean we can copy it - sorry. Unless we know for a fact that it's available for use (e.g. the actual source explicitly stated that it was public domain, or free for reuse under another licence) - we can't use it. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog apparently dates back to 1885, so it has entered the Public domain.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Chzz. A while ago you helped me at the new editor's desk (or something with a similar name) with an article I'd written Royal Waterloo Hospital for Children and Women. Not only did you give me great advice, but you also fixed the article's many errors. After this I was very naughty and looked at your edit history and guess what? I found you to be a fabulous Wikipedian well worthy of a barnstar (why aren't you an admin?) Anyway, my question is about barnstars. 1. how do I give you one? Do I put it here? Would you rather I didn't give you a barnstar?
2. There's another editor (User:MilborneOne) who likes airoplanes a lot. He/she also fixed up that article, but also showed a great amount of humility when a former patient of the hospital (it's was a very notorious place) almost started an edit war. MilborneOne has a section of his/her user page set for 'awards', can I edit this myself and put a barnstar in there, or would that be a faux-pas? TehGrauniad (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
---
1. a) Easy answer: go to the user talk page, create a new section, and put this;
{{subst:The Original Barnstar|put your message here ~~~~}}
--- if you want to give me a barnstar here, that's absolutely fine.
2. It's best to put the barnstar on the user talkpage - and let them move it to their user page, if they wish to do so. So, in that case, User talk:MilborneOne (making a new section such as == Here is a barntar for you! == or whatever). You might want to look through that gallery, but I guess this might be suitable:
{{subst:Diplomacy_Barnstar|message ~~~~}}
Great; Jan David Winitz looks good. Thank you for helping sort it out.
One thing - whenever you leave a message on a talk page (like here), please "Sign" with ~~~~. Thanks.
I know Wikipedia can be quite daunting at first, but now you've got the hang of it, I hope you'll edit some other articles. Cheers, Chzz ► 04:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Spam
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
That's not 'spam', it's valid warnings, because of edits made from your IP address. For example, the last one is about this edit - where you, or someone using that IP address, wrote "bit fat pussy's" on our article RoboCop (video games) on 14 April.
If you read the messages, they'll explain. If you've read them, and understand them, just edit the page and remove them. If there's more 'vandalism' from that address, then it'll be blocked.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If any of you who feel the death of bin laden not belong in this article would like to make a case more then you feel it’s not worded properly please feel free to explain
-The lost library (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I do like that; but in a different way. I like Pulse 'coz Floyd were always a live band, and you can feel the atomosphere, sort of thing; especially when they're just mucking around for ages, before hitting those 4 notes. Chzz ► 09:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Same here. Pulse is great for the rocking live versions of their songs; Gdansk and a couple others are less rocking, but they improvised and changed around the songs a bit more. 20:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
DGUSA reliable source
Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion
With regards to what? I've edited about 500 articles in the last 24 hours, so could you please tell me what you are asking about? Thanks, Chzz ► 08:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, great; that's one; hopefully it is 'reliable' (I'm happy to assume so - but it needs independent reliable sources, plural. Can you find a couple more? Cheers, Chzz ► 08:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that isn't independent - because that's the tv company that produce it. So, it doesn't help establish notability, sorry. Chzz ► 09:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a reliable source, but it is not an independent reliable source. It's a primary source. For example;
Say we had an article about "Chzz's Sausage Company", and it had a website "chzzsausages.co.uk". Just because it had its own website would not make it "notable". To be considered notable, other people would have had to write about it (e.g. in newspapers).
It would be acceptable to use "chzzsausages.co.uk" as a reference to show e.g. they were based in London (a simple, neutral fact) - and in that regard, it can be considered a reliable source. But, it's got a vested interest in promoting the company; therefore the website cannot be used to say something like "Chzz sausage company has sold over 9000 sausages" (a claim). For that, we'd need an independent reference.
And, "chzzsausages.co.uk" does not help establish notability. It doesn't matter how much "chzzsausages.co.uk" says that the sausages are "world famous" - we'd need evidence of others agreeing. If there was an article about the company in The Times, if they were in a book on "Best Sausages", and if BBC News website had a story about 'em - then they'd be notable.
If there were no independentreliable sources, then we wouldn't have an article about the company.
I understand your point on a vested interest. However it was never my intention really to refer to the attendance of the event through the source. I actually was referring to the match results of the event. The sources also reveal the date and location of the event. Surely vested interests don't come into play here? The attendance of the event is not mentioned, so I think we can leave it out of the article. I'd address notability concerns later. Starship.paint (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
If it's not notable, it gets deleted. You can remove the PROD if you like - as it says at the top; in which case (if I still don't think it is notable) it'll become a 'deletion discussion'. Chzz ► 10:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry; you don't seem to understand what I've tried to explain about the need for "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" - or, we do not quite agree on what is a 'reliable source', or what is 'independent', or what is 'significant'. As I said - you can remove the proposed deletion yourself, if you wish. Best, Chzz ► 10:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Chzz,
I notice that the wikipedia article "Ryan Drummond" was struck again by this mysterious IP address user, He added that he died on May 31, 2011, I removed the deathdate and kept it there, you'll see my edit in the history of Ryan Drummond article on Wikipedia. FSXTheGreat (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey man, I just want to say thank you for help here. BTW it seems that the tooldoes category difference which is exactly what I was looking for. You're great. --151.75.29.27 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
And, just now I discovered that I may really do it in a single step: if I give an input for parameter "Last change", the tool will return the pages that were changed after the last time I checked them out. --151.75.16.133 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Chzz, is there a reason your not an admin yet? I can't say I see eye-to-eye with you on a few things, but you seem to be a great editor and pretty much an ideal admin candidate as far as I can see... Hobit (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I just found your first RfA (which I !voted neutral in 2009 suggesting you come back in a few months--I'd forgotten about it). Dude, you'll be fine this time. It's scary (and note I'm not doing it, but frankly A) I'd not pass and B) I don't need the tools (which is at least part of why I'd not pass)). I get the fear, but I encourage you to give it a shot again. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Notable?
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ref. Safe Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).::I've replied on the talk page, but, I don't think it should be deleted - I think it needs improving. I've made a start, and also listed it on some wikiprojects and asked others to help. I'm pretty confident it meets the requirements for inclusion. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Your recent adventure
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Chzz! I just wanted to take a moment to say that I'm very sorry you were treated so disrespectfully by a certain (non-admin, btw) editor at AN/I during your first foray, there. While I'm on tolerably easy terms with that editor, it's my opinion that he's extremely self-indulgent and unnecessarily aggressive, both in his actions and in the language he allows himself. I just wanted to say that you obviously didn't deserve that treatment, or anything like it, and that I regret that you were subjected to it. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk)19:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Since I just stumpled upon a policy that I somehow missed earlier, I added a new comment here. I really had no intention of spending more time on this matter and in all probability won't be checking for further comments, but since I know you specifically requested some input on it earlier and got very few replies, I'm linking it to you in case you missed this section from WP:RS too. Cheers 62.107.222.79 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning it; I'd probably have missed it. It's a fair point, and definitely something that comes in for lots of discussion. As the web takes over from 'traditional media', the veracity of sources such as blogs, in comparison to newspapers (esp. tabloids), blurs the concept of "RS". We stridently object to use of Twitter as a source - yet, if a newspaper prints something about a celeb, and they "tweet" that it's wrong...well, it becomes problematic.
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Thank you for helping me to edit Safe Planet page. I am also planning to update new information soon. About adding images, what is the policy of posting them? If they are posted with the consent of the author, does it mean that these images can be used by everyone from the moment they appear on Wikipedia?
Normally, we cannot use images unless they're released under an appropriate licence (PD or e.g. Creative Commons allowing 'commercial use').
Logo's are an exception - we can use them under terms of fair use of non-free images but only under those strict conditions - in particular, a) the logo should be 'low resolution', b) it needs a specific 'fair use rationale'.
Consequently, instead of uploading a new file, it'd be easier - and make more sense - if you go to the existing file page, File:Safe planet logo.jpg, and just 'upload a new version' - because it's already got the appropriate fair-use rationale there, and the old version would otherwise have to be deleted.
Apart from "fair use of non-free images" (which is, I emphasize, an exception) - then yes; pictures must be released under a licence that allows anyone to copy them, for any purpose.
thanks for your prompt response! I will clear this with my boss, who is the coordinator of the UN Safe Planet Campaign. The official logo now is with World Intellectual Property Organization for copyriting. So we are waiting for approval. But as soon as it is ready, I will definitely post it by replacing File:Safe planet logo.jpg. Your advice was really helpful, thanks! --Justina.environment (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. Please note though - we don't need permission from the boss; we're using it under terms of 'fair use'. What we would need though, is proof that it is the real, current logo. For example - if it was on the website, http://www.safepla.net/ - otherwise we'd be unfairly representing the org.
So...please don't upload it until it is in use on some official website - so we can point to that, to prove it's the right one.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'd quite like to comment on the discussion about who should get to keep reviewer status - I think in order to do so productively I need to lose the right myself, can you remove it for now please? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I cannot, as I'm not an admin. However, I know someone who can - and asked, per your request...and it's done; [6] Cheers, Chzz ► 22:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
By the time I got back on a computer, it looks like it got archived again. Basically I do agree that it was very unfortunate that you couldn't get a conversation established with Scott. By the way, I see that Diannaa did try to approach the subject with him as well on his talk page, and at least got a reply without it being deleted. The crux of the issue though that I think you are rightfully questioning, (that admins. should adhere to a higher standard) is a long standing issue. Yes, I agree, there is a huge gap between the way admins. vs. non-admins are a)treated, and b)what they can "get away with". I don't know if there really is anything that could be coded to reduce or eliminate that gap, but I know many editors (including many admins) would certainly more than welcome it. It's really tough especially when there's a disagreement between a long-term, well established, and exceptionally knowledgeable editor, and an admin. (and I do include you in that first group). I think part of the issue is that some folks get that admin. button, and they think all of a sudden that makes them all-knowing. It doesn't. I'm not really sure why Scott was so dismissive of your attempts at communication. Have the two of you had any past experiences that might explain his attitude? I had always thought he was a very good admin., but a couple things this past month have made me wonder if he might be burning out a bit.
In general Chzz, I don't know the answer to that cloud of disparity that hangs over the whole "admin vs. editor" issue. I know it exists. And I know it's wrong. I just try to never put my own contributions above ANY editor, even the new ones. — Ched : ? 20:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ched. Yes, it got archived again, with no response. Maybe 'coz we all know what the answer would be.
Anyway; yes, there's background. It sounds like you know that MacDonald blocked KWW over PC...well, I asked him about that; he flat-out refused to either acknowledge he'd been wrong, or to say he wouldn't do it again; again, he just ignored me and eventually dismissed it with no answer; please could you read the thread entitled "Your block of KWW" here.
That was before this ANI business. A few days after that, MacDonald happened to turn up in the DRV, which led to my question on his policy understanding, which led to ANI.
Re. the block - following arbitration, MacDonald eventually did say the block was wrong (sort-of) - you can see that under "BLP and flagged revisions" here.
And since then - 31 May - our paths happened to cross again; Off2riorob (talk·contribs) changed Mel Gibson DUI incident to a redirect [7]. As it'd survived three AfD's, and as there was no discussion, I undid that [8] and explained why [9].
Shortly afterwards, MacDonald began an RfC on that [10] and, less than a day later, redirected the page again [11].
Unrelated, but in looking on MacDonald's talk, now, I see the pattern of behaviour continues - ie, with dismissive, brusque and uncivil remarks directed at another editor, such as [12][13] - behaviour unbecoming of an administrator.
So, tell me Ched; should I just give up on this one now? I could do. Perhaps I should. Sadly, it is exactly this kind of thing which makes me seriously consider giving up all together; not this 'case' specifically, but this frequent problem, with a lack of any appropriate way for dealing with concerns of this nature; where admins indeed do 'get away' with this sort of behaviour - all the time. Chzz ► 06:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Chzz, sorry for not responding to this when you originally posted, to be honest, I thought much of it was rhetorical, and just an overview of past interactions. I do agree that he hasn't been doing himself any favors lately. I also have to think his reputation has taken a few hits lately, but to each his own I guess. Perhaps that's simply his communication style, and he's just not a very social person on WP. I was surprised that he wasn't at least admonished over the BLP issue with KWW, but given the weight that the project puts behind our BLP policies, I do sorta understand it. As far as whether you should pursue anything, I'd just say that you should do what you feel comfortable with. I admire the folks who fight the good fight, but I'm not usually one to do more than state my personal opinions on various things. I tend to be easy-going, and generally walk away when others get confrontational. Perhaps there's a bit of "passive aggressiveness" in my approach, but that's just my own personal style. I would say that it would likely be an uphill battle, and would probably cause you some grief and frustration, and that does seem to be contrary to your style. Meaning that I've always viewed you as a happy, fun-loving person. It's pretty much a given that admins. can get away with more, and tend to have other admin support (especially in gray areas). I do think there should be some sort of community desysop procedure in place, but at present all there really is is Arbcom. I'm not really sure there is a case for it anyway, but I can understand your frustration in it all. He simply is who he is, and I doubt anyone can change it. The several admins. that I've encountered whom I found to be disagreeable to me, I've simply avoided and let things play out over time. At least half a dozen of them have lost the tools since I've been here, so it is of some consolation to me in that respect. If it were me, I'd probably just avoid him, and simply voice my thoughts at the places I felt a need to. Time tends to be a very karmaesque equalizer at WP, and I'd imagine if he does anything too wrong, it will have it's repercussions. As always, I'll try to help in any way I can. — Ched : ? 21:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I may well step away, but I might step too far away; ie you are right it is not 'worth it' in the sense that the entire project isn't worth it. Meanwhile, I do wonder how many other editors have decided it isn't worth the bother; and Wikipedia becomes a more and more closed community. But still; "meh". Chzz ► 01:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
So did it peter out or did it continue in another venue? Just wondering.
My suggestion is to do an RFC on that project's page. It won't have the force of policy but it will be something to point to. Either way, nobody can edit war in the name of an essay. The behavior that Walter suggests is appropriate, that he'll revert anyone who tries to update scores during a match, is going to get him blocked if he follows through with what he said. If he doesn't follow through, no harm done. -- Atama頭23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned it in the ANI, but it was deemed 'off-topic' so I collapsed it - see [14] - which is fair enough, in as far as it goes, but doesn't solve my concern.
I could try and track such reversions, sure. Or, maybe, I could edit during live matches - per WP:ROPE.
Or, I could pursue the clear discrepancy with the wikiproject - esp. that one user - clearly refusing to follow policy/guidelines.
I think an RFC would be good, there was already a discussion about it with people giving comments from both sides. An RFC would help cement some sort of consensus. An RFC won't change policy, so even if people agree with Walter that scores shouldn't be updated during a match, he still can't edit war at the article through WP:OWN. But either way it will help set a precedent and remove some of the ambiguity for how to handle a match in progress. -- Atama頭23:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try to formulate some short summary of the specifics, and then make it an RfC, in the near future. Ta. Chzz ► 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Atama, actually, I'm still not sure what to do about this.
I feel silly bringing an RfC about something that is perfectly clear in policy. It seems pointless. I imagine people will think I'm making a big fuss about something silly. Also, in documenting it (User:Chzz/footie) I have to show links with the actions of that individual...so the RfC will seem like it's trying to deal with a specific user issue. But despite that, it's clear that WG and others intend to remove scores in the future; refuse to accept it - and that does bother me, because I could easily see it driving away new editors. But I don't want to look silly, so I might abandon the whole thing, just to avoid DRAMA - which is a pity. Chzz ► 14:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
An alternative then would be this... Keep a note of the original discussion, and where Walter states that he'll revert the attempt to add updated scores to articles no matter what policy says. If Walter starts reverting people, even if he hasn't violated 3RR, you can report him to WP:AN3. You can state that Walter has given a clear indication that he will edit war to keep scores out of articles about live matches. Administrators will block to stop any indication of an edit war. I think that might wake Walter up. Then again, if Walter doesn't follow through with his pledge, no harm done. -- Atama頭16:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Safe planet logo.jpg
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Safe planet logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Chzz
Please will you give me a feedback on this article. I have added new sources as per your advice on points you raised. Please will you give me further suggestions.
Thanks a lot
Thanks. Actually I very rarely look for web sources anymore, I hate them. I almost always try to stick to book sources if possible, much better. There are so many crappy sites on the web and most of material is reproduced anyway. A quick google book search usually determines notability instantly for me, unless of course they are contemporary B horror movies or recent events, or from an obscure part of the world or place and time where coverage is likely to be very poor, e.g a 1952 Argentine movie.... We literally have hundreds of thousands of articles which are generally accruate but simply need sources like this♦ Dr. Blofeld18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No worries. / Sorry about archive; I do tend to arch done stuff quickly; it often gets busy around here - but I kinda misjudged that one, when removing others that really were done with [15]; I've put it back, above. Chzz ► 11:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chzz, re the above template, there is an issue with smaller monitors and the <pre> tags because the text does not wrap within those tags. My webbook has a resolution of 1024 × 600, and the code covers over the video, so that you can't read it, and it doesn't look good. Would it be possible to use <code> tags instead, which don't have this problem? Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk12:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
For lack of a better term, can I borrow this and use it on my page? Do you want me to give you credit? This is really helpful to me, and I think going to my page is easier than going to yours. If you don't mind, I'm going to put this on my page for tonight, then if you say no I'll remove it tomorrow. Bluefist talk02:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Yea, that's mine. I made it back in 2007. Over the years others have asked (and some have not *eyes Chzz*) if they could use it and/or tweak it. I don't care if anyone uses my stuff. Credit me or not, doesn't matter. Just glad others can utilize my work, so enjoy. :) Lara22:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Collapsed
Thanks for your post on my talk page. As I see it, there were three options for closing this AFD:
Close as no consensus, and have this discussion with someone.
Close as keep, and have this discussion with lots of people.
Close as delete, go through the DRV dance in a week's time when the event takes place and becomes notable (as you yourself concede it will), causing a whole lot of drama and administrative overhead, for precisely zero difference in the end result to what we have now.
User:Meelar's comment more or less made up my mind. Yes, we certainly shouldn't encourage articles like this to be created ahead of time (hence a no consensus rather than a keep), but at the same time going through a whole bunch of process just for the sake of process would be a tremendous waste of everyone's time. Lankiveil(speak to me)10:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC).
I do not understand #3 because, if it was deleted, a week later it'd likely become notable (due to coverage), so an appropriate article could be created. No DRV involved. Please could you explain what you meant?
Meelar's comment had no basis in policy or guideline, and flat-out contradicts several policies and the deletion guidelines (mostly, WP:FUTURE #1 and WP:GNG / WP:V). If you disagree, please explain. "keeping it does zero harm" - see WP:NOHARM.
Please consider the harm done by driving off editors such as myself, who are so very frustrated by this very basic, clear-cut keeping of an article which has no RS other than the promoter.
Your explanation here sounds very much like you are allowing consensus to be decided by weight of numbers. I repeat: please give me any policy/guideline-based rationale for the existence of this article.
What about another option - redirecting it until there are independent reliable sources (presumably, when it happens on June 19). There's no "whole bunch of process" involved with that. Whereas, if I decide I have to DRV (which I freely admit is 'pointless' in terms of this article, but may be necessary to simply ensure due process is not corrupted by wiki-lawyering by the project and again - as in previous occasions - simply spinning things out until the event happens). Chzz ► 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it probably would (I've hardly been on in the past few days except to deal with a BLP issue that was brought to my attention), given that family and work are higher priorities for me than Wikimedia. I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Having reviewed the discussion a second time, I certainly won't take it personally if you want to take it to DRV, however I still maintain that it was a valid no consensus close per the deletion process. As far as your other comments, you can't win them all, and if occasionally being on the losing side of an XFD is enough to drive you off, I suspect something sooner or later will do it without my intervention. Lankiveil(speak to me)08:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC).
If I can make a comment (I think I am entitled since my participation in the discussion eventually led to my being informed that I am going to hell), personally I don't think the discussion ended in no consensus, but the closure was a reasonable comprimise given the circumstances. The circumstances I speak of are:
At the time there were no reliable independent sources.
There is a real potential that the event would reach the GNG threashold after it takes place.
The common consensus within WP:PW is that all WWE PPV events are notable.
The real solution is to develop a guideline regarding PPV events. A decision needs to be made within the community (including but not exclusive to WP:PW) that PPV events either are or are not inherantly notable, and everybody must live with the consequence of that discussion. The discussion however must clearly outline what sort of media can be used to establish notability. I am sure there are lots of groups that publish information about the events, however the average non wrestling enthusiest might not know which are reliable and independent. My stance on the PPVs would be to have a central PPV article by year summarizing each event, with a link to those that were in fact notable enough for a stand alone article (Wrestlemania, Survivor Series, any particular one that stood out above the rest.) Without this, each PPV is likely to be a battle between editors that want to keep them all, and those that want to delete the ones that don't meet the GNG upon creation. But that's just my opinion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I don't disagree one iota that developing a guideline for PPV events to give a fixed notability bar would be a good thing! And I think your suggestion as to what would be on there is a sensible one (although I know practically zero about professional wrestling), but that discussion need to happen off of Chzz's talkpage. If it does happen let me know and I'll chip in my two cents :-). Lankiveil(speak to me)21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC).
Sigh*
You are missing the point entirely.
There is no need for a separate guideline.
Articles are 'notable' if there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There wasn't. There was no policy-based reason supporting keeping that article, at the time. Chzz ► 18:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
James Hewit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Firstly, thank you for your contributions to making Wikipedia a well sourced encyclopaedic webpage.
The first line in the article is "James Hewitt (born 1958) is a former British household cavalry officer in the British Army.", you did not write a citation was needed for that, so to then write that the argument I used was 'I know he is an officer' is incorrect. I do not personally know James Hewitt. Other sourced articles on Wikipedia state that British Army Officers attend Sandhurst, it is not likely to be disputed as the only commissioning occurs there. In fact, the word that the citation is being attached to already leads to the following:
There is no reason to clutter articles with sources when a sourced article is linked already. I cannot see an argument that the verifiability can be challenged, but if you do I suggest you tackle either the RMAS page or the opening line of the article.
I am pretty confident if my username was working and the edit didn't come from an anonymous IP you would not have reverted such a self-obvious article, so please try to be welcoming to new constructive editors.
80.2.61.232 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It needs a reference. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. WP:V is a policy, and far more important than the essay you mention.
"All British Army officers are trained at Sandhurst" is not common knowledge.
It's nothing whatsoever to do with your being an IP editor. Incidentally, an IP is not anonymous; in fact, it's quite a lot less anonymous than a user account. Chzz ► 18:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Need some help
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chzz,
You gave me some feedback a while ago on my X Series page draft. I've reworked it, and am presently getting feedback from another editor, Nowicki. I'd like another set of eyes on the page, so I can get it right this time around. Let me know if there are any changes that I need to make, in addition to the feedback that's already on the talk page.
Looks OK. What are the numbers in brackets on the refs, such as Denise (15), Josh Smith (6)?
Pictures would help.
The "Features" seems specific to the 2011 models - e.g. older models didn't have core i7's. So perhaps that part belongs under the "2011" heading. Chzz ► 18:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Delayed reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
From Archive 32
You wrote:
BTW, File:Admin mop.PNG seems to be copyrighted? Chzz ► 9:49 pm, 10 June 2011, Friday (12 days ago) (UTC−4)
Sorry for the delayed response. I had forgotten about this and just thought to check back to that discussion. Anything with the WP globe in it is copyrighted. You can use it on-wiki without issue, but once you begin incorporating it into other files, they must also include the same copyright template. For example, in my WP:BRC image, I'm wearing a WP tee with the globe on it, and that image has the copyright tag added specifying that that portion of the image is copyrighted. It's otherwise released under GDFL, so the copyrighted portion could be removed for a derivative. Lara16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just wanted to let you know (since you moved the article from WP:AFC that I have placed a PROD tag on it because I can find no reliable sources to establish the notability of this group. Your input on the talk page is appreciated. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. I'm not keen on the PROD wording of "I can find no English sources" - and possibly AFD would be better, in case foreign-lang sources could be found (in the interests of WP:SYSTEMIC - but I'm not especially bothered about it; I agree that RS don't seem available. Chzz ► 03:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Nadal
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hiya, oh WP guru (long time no chat - trust you're relaxing well on your WP-break - PS: good to see Utd. win the PL again).
If it's convenient, could you answer a simple query?
I think Nadal should redirect to Rafael, but I'm unsure if I'm right to make it do so.
I think I have the skills to do it, but didn't want to be bold, in case it annoyed ppl or broke rules.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sifu Tan Siew Cheng until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Janggeom (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know; I think I'll stay out of that one, and let others decide / hunt refs. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, I didn't see you had re-created this, I thought I must have forgotten to tidy up after the move. Create it again if you like, but I don't see a lot of point - I know redirects are cheap, but who searches for a talk page? These are normally deleted - the system actually provides a special G6: "Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It's fine - actually, I didn't quite mean to remake it; I thought I was on Eflag, not the talk, which is why I'd first redir'd to EFLAG - d'oh. Once I'd done that, all I could do to fix it was change it to point to the talk. So, actually, it's best that you've deleted it! Heh. Anyway - thanks again. Chzz ► 11:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Calling to arms
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ever heard of the Pugachev's Cobra? Ever heard of a Sukhoi, or a MiG? Ever heard of "Foxbats", "Flankers", "Fulcrums", or Fullback"? Do you know what they are? Do you know what the Soviet aerospace industry is like? Do you know who the Americans really fear? Do you know how much headache it caused to the West? Do you know how much attention the fighters are getting? If the answer is NO, then there are clearly some catching up to do. During the next few days, I'll be working on the MiG-29K, Su-34, Su-35 and Su-37. I want to bring them all up to the same standard as the Su-33. If you want to participate, please come along and help out. Don't be hesitant. Give the Soviet aerospace industry the recognition it really deserves. Sp33dyphil"Adastra"11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
hi!
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi - I met you at the summit this weekend, and am just leaving comments on talk for everyone I met for future communication. Kevin (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Chzz'y! Thanks for being part of a great few days in Boston! Hope you enjoy the rest of your time there. Do try to not get carded again, okay? ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]08:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Chzz,
I wanted to say "hello" and let you know that I noticed that, whenever you spoke in Boston (at least when I was present), something interesting and perceptive and thoughtful and provocative emerged. It was a pleasure to meet you, and I look forward to collaborating with you, with the goal of making this a better encyclopedia. I see that you are spending some extra time in Boston. We expect several articles about baked beans and the Red Sox. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi; thanks! I'm having fun in Boston! Too much, probably; I've made friends with Mr. Samuel Adams...hence...not so coherent. I'll be back in UK tomorrow, after which, 'normal service' will be resumed. More or less. Cheers! Chzz ► 04:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Since we weren't able to bring you to any pubs when you were here, I guess this will have to do. It was nice seeing you last weekend and I hope to see you again next year! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've been trying to pick up the strings of where the "proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles" left off. I know there was consensus, and some talk of a trial, but has there been any recent forward movement? As one of the clear supporters, I'm hoping you may have some insight. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots13:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC),
The VPP proposal has been open well over 30 days, with overwhelming support - only a couple of minor opposes, and all they're debating is whether it should be 3 months or 6 months initially - which, really, doesn't matter - anything can be switched on/off, if there's an issue. So....yeah; I think that proposal could be closed, and we could ask the devs to 'make it so'. Probably an announcement on AN would be a good idea, and maybe ask there for someone uninvolved to close the proposal discussion.
I can't see any reason to delay implementation, to be honest. *Anyone* - you, me, etc - could get it moving; consensus is clear enough. Chzz ► 16:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see ChzzBot II regularly patrolling Wikipedia:Sandbox, but not its associated talkpage. That talkpage is itself a sandbox, not "talkpage about the sandbox", and could use a periodic cleanup. Probably 12hr or longer would be sufficient. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep; I'm aware that the talks of various sandboxes should also be cleared; I knew it when I wrote the bots, a few months back. And, some other pages need clearing. I will do my best to add these things to the bot's repetoire ASAP. Cheers, Chzz ► 04:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Irony on the help desk
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
So, I see where you (rightfully) removed some BLP-attack on the help desk, and then proceeded to quote the offending passage in noting why you removed it. As chortle-inducing as that was, perhaps you wouldn't mind redacting yourself, since you kinda just committed the same act you removed... --Jayron3203:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I sort-of know what you mean, but I feel that there's a distinction between the original message, and a subsequent one saying that describing any person as a **** ******* ***** specifics later removed from quote is not appropriate - sometimes, we need to quote things to explain them - and that specific remark, in itself, is not specific. I made the point of saying "any person" - it wasn't that specific.
It all gets a bit silly, when we cannot *say* things that are/are not appropriate. "Is it OK to say fuck you, or fuck off, or you are a fuckwit?" - all kinda valid, in the 'help desk' context.
Still, if you want to remove it, go ahead. I do sort-of-understand, if you feel that - in that instance - the specifics were too close to the subject. If I had thought it was, I'd have requested revdel/oversight - I didn't, hence quoting it back. But, opinions vary. Chzz ► 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's cool. You will note that it WAS revdeleted specifically for that comment; so to have you essentially quote the exact phrase that was revdeleted kinda defeats the point of revdeleting it in the first place. It has nothing to do with swearing (fuck no); but instead has to do with not defaming people. Thanks for cleaning that up. --Jayron3203:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The redaction at 01:29 [22] was a while after my comments around 00:43 [23], but...yeah.
The point being, I wouldn't have 'quoted' something that had already been revdel'd, nor would I have quoted something I thought should be revdel'd (instead, I'd have asked for it to be revdel'd).
In that specific instance, I don't think revdel was necessary or warranted, as I feel it is 'routine' - I worry about over-use of revdel, really, for the only-too-frequent "XXX <famous person> is a YYY".
If the particular specific slur on that individual really warrants revdel, then my own comment - and the others in-between that and my removal of it - also need revdel? Chzz ► 03:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't fully understand this, but it is very difficult to discuss it without saying the apparently offensive text [24]. I never said "X is a Y", I just said it was inappropriate to call anyone a Y; I don't see how that can be seen as inappropriate.
But a) it's very hard to discuss without using the 'naughty words', and b) it's probably not worth worrying about further, so I suspect it best, at this point, to forget about this one (unless either of you really want to continue the debate). Chzz ► 15:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Editing Cryptozoic pages.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Please do not remove content from the pages I am working on. I have left some things due to lack of writing time and am getting to them as I am able. If you have suggestions on ways to make the pages better please discuss them with me without making deletions or tags. Thanks. ~ CrimsonOwl Re: Cryptozoic EntertainmentWrath Gate— Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonOwl (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but, Wikipedia is live. If something was not ready to go live, it should have stayed in a userspace draft.
I didn't put comments on the talk page, as I thought the edits were self-explanatory; the article does not assert notability - it lacks references showing "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" (WP:GNG), it has a large number of links to the website of the org (WP:PRIMARY, promotional), those links are malformed, and it contains unencyclopaedic information (details of the products, etc - see WP:NOT).
However, in this case - in deference to your request - I won't take any action right now - I'll see how the two develop over the coming days.
In future, I suggest you do not make something live until it is ready (ie conforms with basic requirements, and has good references). Best, Chzz ► 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed "/* Editorial Team */" per WP:NPFWP:BLPNAME. If they're not named in newspapers and stuff, their names don't belong.
I removed "Submission Guidelines" per WP:NOTDIRWP:NOTGUIDE etc. - unless there are independent RS that discuss this, it doesn't belong in an Encyc. article
I added some details to some refs; it needs more; use template:citation - say the author, date, publisher, and shit like that.
Jcaneen (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Thanks for a quick response. I can see your edits already. Is it OK to remove the "unreviewed article" tag?
Jcaneen (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Thanks again. I removed the image. This was picture taken of a print copy that I own, but I will try getting permissions etc. I cannot, however, remove it from the commons page. I would be grateful if you could. Thanks for all your help.
Hello, Chzz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'd be particularly interested in your feedback
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I saw this page may be deleted. I wanted so to see if you clicked on the links to the sources? Some of them include the Washington Post, NY Times, and Wired.com.
Can you please help me make sure this page doesn't get deleted?
Hi. 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.
I guess you mean, Christopher "Broadway" Romero - please bear in mind, I edit hundreds of articles; I checked your contribs and thus guessed you meant that article. In future, it'd help if you linked the page - e.g. [[Christopher "Broadway" Romero]].
I marked that article for deletion, as it's an unreferenced article about a person.
All articles need references to 'reliable sources' - please see WP:VRS, and - in this case - WP:BIO.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Chzz, hope you enjoyed your time in Boston.
You rightly said that we shouldn't be in the business of predicting the future. I agree. However, one needs no crystal ball to assess how "likely" it is that Breivik will "remain a low profile individual". BLP1E requires us to assess that likelihood, and I think most reasonable people would assess that likelihood as "infinitesimal". The policy does not rule out BLPs in all cases, but only when the event is relatively insignificant and the person remains "low profile" afterward. I don't see this as such a case, whereas Jonnie Marbles who pied Rupert Murdoch the other day is a perfect example.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I added a reference from ABC News. His pics are also at the end of the document, though I don't know if those were added later by someone else. Pristino (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that.
The document could, I suppose, have been faked - as could some of the other websites that have been linked to him. But adding an RS at least shows why we believe it to be his. Thanks, Chzz ► 00:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
You don't seem to have fully understood that a self published source can be acceptable about a persons beliefs or act as a statement by them about their own background.Teapeat (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
OR is when you combine multiple sources to create a synthesis. ABOUTSELF says you can use a self published source as evidence that somebody said something about themself.Teapeat (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Feel free, but with all due respect, you're wrong. If done correctly it should be made clear that they claimed it, not necessarily that it was actually true. It's part and parcel of 'verifiability over truth'. In this case we realistically know he wrote the manifesto, and so what it says can be taken as claims made by him.Teapeat (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.
In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.
Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.
My honest personal opinion, at this point is, that enough time has been spent and CIR/block is in order, and that pragmatism dictates that there's a limit to your wasting your good time on it. IMHO, FWIW, and lots of other TLA shite. Chzz ► 00:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
(edit conflict) Someone removed the sandbox header again and was replaced inside the edit box with gibberish: "thyivnuiremciwutyowicmh". How can anybody try out their edit skills without a sandbox header? StormContent (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The sandbox header is just a small tidbit for the top of the sandbox so that people know what they can and can't put in it, etc. Some people ignore the message and remove it when making test edits; that's why bots like ChzzBot II clean it regularly when the header is removed. There's nothing we can really do about the constant removals of the header except use bots to replace it each time it's removed. LoganTalkContributions12:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yea....all cabinet members, or even a video game tester, could go with the category, but I am even suggesting a list of the top "hazardous occupations", where anyone can edit, not the category, otherwise, carry on (:O_O:)--Corusant (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I changed the redflag for the 2nd legal threat to a subsection. If this is an issue go ahead and revert my change. I thought a subsection might be more appropriate. =) CycloneGU (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Chzz,
You gave me some feedback a while ago on the ThinkPad pages I had created (X Series, and T Series) and I need some help with the W Series page. I've put up requests for feedback twice and still haven't received a response.
I'd appreciate you giving the page a once over to let me know if I can move it to live Wikipedia.
Sure, I'd say, make it live - it has a much chance of developing after it is live, and it seems OK.
I noticed a few things;
It should start off with the subject in bold, as part of the first sentence - it doesn't need a 'title' because the page name (when live) will be the title. So it'd just begin, The '''ThinkPad W Series''' [[laptops]] are part of...
A couple of facts there need a ref, Lenovo acquired ThinkPad following its purchase of IBM's Personal Computing Division in 2003. However, the W Series laptops were not part of IBM's original ThinkPad line of laptops.
Is "gadgetsfan.com" a reliable source? It might be; I just don't know - and the phrase at the top saying "Posted by Sanky" made me wonder if it was a user-generated-content (blog, type of thing) rather than a professional news source?
The formatting of the named references is incorrect. When you repeat a reference, you just put the name of it, with a forward-slash. So - currently, you have this;
The W Series laptops were introduced by Lenovo to replace the T Series models suffixed with ‘p’.<ref name="Notebook Check - W500 Review">{{cite web|title=Review Lenovo Thinkpad W500 Notebook|url=http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Lenovo-Thinkpad-W500-Notebook.11683.0.html|accessdate=11 July 2011}}</ref> Originally, the Txxp models were laptops used by professionals who needed high performance.<ref name="Notebook Check - W500 Review">{{cite web}}</ref> The W Series laptops were launched in 2008, at the same time as the Intel Centrino 2, marking an overhaul of Lenovo’s product lineup.<ref name="Notebook Check - W500 Review">{{cite web}}</ref> The first two W Series laptops introduced were the W500 and the W700.<ref name="Notebook Check - W500 Review">{{cite web}}</ref>
...instead, it should be this;
The W Series laptops were introduced by Lenovo to replace the T Series models suffixed with ‘p’.<ref name="Notebook Check - W500 Review">{{cite web|title=Review Lenovo Thinkpad W500 Notebook|url=http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Lenovo-Thinkpad-W500-Notebook.11683.0.html|accessdate=11 July 2011}}</ref> Originally, the Txxp models were laptops used by professionals who needed high performance.<ref name="Notebook Check - W500 Review"/> The W Series laptops were launched in 2008, at the same time as the Intel Centrino 2, marking an overhaul of Lenovo’s product lineup.<ref name="Notebook Check - W500 Review"/> The first two W Series laptops introduced were the W500 and the W700.<ref name="Notebook Check - W500 Review"/>
Section headings should only be initial-capitalized if they're a proper noun. So "Processing and Graphics" should be "Processing and graphics", "ISV Certifications" should be "ISV certifications", "Security and Reliability" should be "Security and reliability"
Those are all quite minor things though, and I do suggest moving it to the live area.
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I have seen you around on a couple of noticeboards (BLPN/ANI) and saw that you had made a couple of edits to Warv0x, basically I ended up reading about LulzSec and editing the article a bit, and when removing a couple of garbled, unreferenced paragraphs, asked myself "who or what is Warv0x?" I also wondered why it wasn't wikilinked.
So, I strolled over to the Warv0x article and was amazed that it exists! The article appears to be pure self-promotion by the hacker in question (or a close associate), I just wiped the whole EL section which were mainly links to hacker news websites with vainglorious promotion of Warv0x.
My question is, what should be done about this article? I have only CSD'd obvious junk before, this does not fit as there is a (very small) claim to notability, I don't really know the procedures for PROD or AfD but I would like to point you to this, [30], the first edits by Anon73313 (talk·contribs), who has only ever edited Warv0x since then, so an SPA with a very probable COI judging by the leetspeak name and the nature of the edits. Some feedback from a more experienced editor would be appreciated. CaptainScreeboParley!20:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The existing references look very weak, and I can't see much else from Google News search. It'd been PRODded before - so can't be again. We could redirect it to LulzSec, but I don't even know if it has enough claims for that. So, I'd list it for deletion - AfD. Before you do, check a bit more for sources - take a look at WP:BEFORE - but, if you can't find enough for notability, I suggest starting a deletion discussion. Cheers, Chzz ► 21:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh thank you very much, I am a bit all over the place on WP so I take on board what I need to know as and when. Right, can't be prodr'd twice, didn't know that, I will take your advice, read up and probably AfD the whole thing after consideration. Cheers too! CaptainScreeboParley!23:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 26, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for letting me know about the glitch. I have a spellchecker but it only highlights errors rather than correcting them and I didn't even look up the page. I wonder what else it does without telling me? --AJHingston (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
.gif)
