User talk:Chzz/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Your message

Thanks for the heads up. It probably won't help any claim for notability on my part. I was interviewed by Computer Weekly at the time of the Kuwait war when I was press contact for Electronics and Computing for Peace which eventually merged into Scientists for Global Responsibility and did a week in the life of thing for a newsletter for drug or alcohol workers but I'm not sure that's enough. The assorted crackpots who have denounced me for my contributions here aren'treliable sources.

On the subject of my "fuck knows", I can't help feeling that the Foundation would have a stronger case if it could say something more about how it handles copyrights than "Er, when someone notices an editor is copying lots of stuff we hand them over to CCI and they check through things as quickly as they can. Of course, as it's staffed by only about half a dozen volunteers, there's a backlog of a year or two." The bill might be drafted by the techno-naive, but I don't think Wikimedia can claim to deal with systematic copyvios in a timely manner given the financial resources.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST update

Hi Chzz,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

1. ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
2. CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish and Sheodred

It looks like people are staying away from this [1](and rightly so because its toxic).

I noticed you closed one or two discussions on Wikipedia:ANI, can you please close the relevant discussion as its clear its going nowhere and people do not want to get involved. Sheodred (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. I've been following the thread, and I do not think it's concluded. Best,  Chzz  ►  14:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it has not concluded, everyone is staying away from it from what I can see. Sheodred (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am now unblocked

Thank you for your help in clearing this matter up, without your help I would have likely just stopped making use of Wikipedia at all, because I was getting very frustrated after only a short time, because I have encountered several hostile editors and few, like yourself, who have been willing to help someone new. Again, I appreciate your efforts and give you my sincere THANKS...Willietell (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries; [2]  Chzz  ►  21:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking the time and the extra step to help a new Wikipedian (see above) weather some initial rocky issues, and demonstrating the qualities of helpfulness and goodwill that all Wikipedians should have! -- Avi (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

dinsdoc

I noticed your dinsdoc cleanup drive (it showed up in my watchlist) - good job! -- stillnotelf is invisible 21:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Julia Child Rose, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Floribunda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  11:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries

So yeah, I was too optimistic. Oh well, its not a problem, idgaf about virtual identities. I guess it seems a bit weird that I am unable to accept injustice, but things like that really annoy me, so for me it is easier this way. Wasbeer 00:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Radar q

CHZZ - I've done nothing but hit a brick wall all morning! Searching Google, 3 or 4 pages deep and Wiki:Radar charts still seems to be THE authority! I don't want to reinvent the wheel, I just make it better! Could I use some of the references used in the Radar chart article? Maybe I should be writing this article for eHow?? Gregory L. Chester 20:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Hi. Yes, you can use references from any appropriate reliable source - but, do the references talk about the subject? If so, yes, of course - great. That's all we're asking; references in reliable sources to verify all the information in the article.

Regards eHow - sure; I wouldn't know, sorry; I've never looked at it.  Chzz  ►  05:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Market Intelligence

Hi regarding the reference I am a little bit unsecure but hopefully you can help me

Here is the information for the reference http://vbn.aau.dk/da/publications/market-intelligence(c9a902ac-330c-41d9-ae6a-fdee246ca650).html

It is fine for me to add the content to the current page about Market Intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny Bomstak (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New book and knowledge about Market Intelligence

Firstly: the book must be "notable" - which means, you need to show several references to "independent reliable sources", such as newspapers/magazines writing about the book. See WP:VRS.

If it meets the notability requirements, then you need to write facts about the book, in your own words, using appropriate references. For help with those, see WP:REFB.

I hope that helps; for more general advice, see WP:FIRST. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

worldboxingnews

Is there anyway you or somebody else could add my site www.worldboxingnews.net to Wikipedia please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phildjay (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I can; if it doesn't meet the requirements (WP:NWEB, WP:VRS) then there's nothing I can do. Sorry.  Chzz  ►  21:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In view of your 'This is why we do not retain new editors.'

Please take a look at what is happening with User:Shparvez001 with regard to EEE SUST. I would appreciate you thoughts. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's another example of the problem. A major issue is that typically a new article might be CSD-tagged, declined for CSD, then be PRODded, then de-prodded, then go to AfD. The editor will therefore get a CSD warning, a PROD notification (which looks pretty harsh too), then an AfD notification. They might edit to appeal some of that, and could well get "please sign" messages too. The flood of templates is incerdibly confusing to new users - as is the jargon terminology we use. An example from that page - just imagine, if you didn't know anything about Wikipedia, and maybe English wasn't your first language, how you'd cope with ...realise you had removed the Proposed Deletion notice and I reinstated it when reverting off the copyright text the 2nd time. If you want to contest the Proposed Deletion, please feel free to remove it again and add your reason to the edit summary. However, what the article really needs is reliable references from 3rd party publications to establish the department's notability (I bolded the terms I think would be confusing).

Instead of all that stuff, new users should be forced to create articles via WP:AFC, so that they get helpful constructive reviews instead of an assault of template messages. There was consensus to try that idea - WP:ACTRIAL - but the Wikimedia Foundation refused to implement it.  Chzz  ►  12:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Spectator's comment: Actually, User:AllyD did the right thing by leaving a personalised message instead of a template. It should just have been much simpler in wording. For new editors not native in English, all those automated messages should be switched off, automatically. This is not a technical problem, a simple geo--lookup plus edit count evaluation would do the trick. The templater could get a message like You tried to place a {{uw-create1}} template on $USER. Please consider that this user has less than X edits and resides in Bangladesh. They might not understand the meaning of this template. Please leave a personalised message for this user, explaining your concern in simple words. The hard part would be to then assemble a really simple message summarizing the main problem. --Pgallert (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the Simple English Wikipedia people could help. It doesn't seem to have the diversity of templates that en.wiki does... simple:Wikipedia:Template messages -- stillnotelf is invisible 00:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

@Pgallert, that would be technically very challenging, and one significant problem is that many people use shared IP addresses - ie, the IP could have hundreds of edits, but the person using it might be brand-new. Technical measures could possibly help a little though; the general idea might be worth more discussion. It might be worth trying to ask people from Wikimedia about it; it's kinda related to the meta:Template A/B testing thing.

The problem isn't so much the templates themselves, as the volume of them, and the excessive automation.  Chzz  ►  18:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Yo. How's it going dude? Any chance you could tell me how to get rid of these horrid people grinning at me from the fund-raising banners in each article header? Been told to click the cross but it's not really a permanent fix (as soon as I close the browser they bot up again). 195.43.48.138 (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC) I particularly dislike the gentleman with the moustache. He's really winding me up atm :( 195.43.48.138 (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As an anonymous user, I don't think there is a way to disable them. If you create a user account, you can.  Chzz  ►  11:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

MG Bibliography

Hi, not sure if I thanked you for your help as for bibliography above. Guess I got busy with other things in the mean time and then forgot to stop by to leave a note saying Thanks heaps. Hope you're doing well (m)anyway. Thanx XL. Uzerakount (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		Wgfinley has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--WGFinley (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Academic journal articles

Hi, I saw your "decline" for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Games and Culture. Please have a look at WP:NJournals and WP:JWG. Journals like this that are included in highly selective databases like the Social Sciences Citation Index are normally considered notable (and I don't know of a single case where such a journal was deleted after an AfD). Hope this helps. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NJournals is an essay, and the other a project-specific guide. I've just reviewed about 340 submissions, so I can only go on policy (WP:V) and guidelines (WP:GNG). Sorry. But if you think differently, just move it to a live article. Best,  Chzz  ►  12:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't intend this to sound like criticism, your work at AFC is really appreciated. I don't work at AFC myself because it deals with too many subjects I have no experience in. It's just that I have seen several journal submissions rejected recently at AFC that normally are accepted at the WikiProject Academic Journals (and I saw some accepted that I PRODded or took to AfD immediately after they had been approved; none of this by you, if my memory serves me well). And I didn't want to barge in just after your decline decision and do something contrary without contacting you first. What would be the best way to bring this to the attention of people working at AFC? (BTW: NJournals is indeed an essay, but in practice it's what is followed for journals). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No offence taken at all; I was just stating the facts, kinda thing. The place to raise it is probably WT:AFC but, personally, I think AFC's need to meet WP:GNG regardless of SNGs. What I mean is... I accept that if someone creates an article on e.g. a high school or geo place with inadequate references as a live article, then I cannot tag it as A7, and AfD would probably keep/fix it; however for AFC, if I accept it, I'm putting something that is sub-standard onto Wikipedia, which I don't want to do. Sometimes - if I can - I'd try to fix things; but as we had a massive backlog I didn't have time. When an AFC is 'rejected' the idea is, it can be fixed and resubmitted; nobody particularly cares who does that; plus, of course, any (auto-)confirmed user could just move it live themselves and tidy up the headings; that's absolutely fine too - and then it's subject to the same slings and arrows as any other live article.  Chzz  ►  12:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, Will do. I'll also post a note on WT:AFC, because passing articles that don't even meet WP:NJournals is more cumbersome than rejecting those that do (and more confusing to newbies: "why did you PROD my article, it was approved at AFC"...) Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § Articles on academic journals

 Chzz  ►  15:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's Birthplace

Hi Chzz. Did you also take nitice of this line?

This article has already been submitted as Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. The present submission was done without discussion with the author, after removing a substantial part of the article without discussion, and without taking notice of the reasons for creating this page, which can be found at Talk:Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. I reviewed the submission, and explained why I didn't think I could accept it as a live article. Regardless of who created it, it was submitted for review by Madi Carlo da Silva (talk · contribs) [3] and so, that's who I informed of my review [4]. That's about all I can do, in reviewing an AFC (and I've just reviewed about 350 of them). If you think it should be made live, or edited, or go back to an old version, or anything else - feel free. Best,  Chzz  ►  12:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Madi submitted a draft which was in my userspace, without any deliberation with me. the intent of the draft was to collect various sources which are being mentioned as references in an ongoing discussion on Bodhidharma's birthplace at the Bodhidharma page. There's also deliberation going on of what's the best way to collect these sources. Madi did shortcut this by submitting the draft. As a matter of fact, the page had already been created as a mainpage, and deleted. Sorry, my irritations are toward Madi, not to you. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Move it back to your user-space, and restore whichever version you like then; that's what I'd do. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof.Rohan Jayasinghe

I think I accidentally got the official notification because I helped the main author (User:Arunfrenzys) with formatting and ref tags. Cloveapple (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, yes; because of this edit, you are the person who actually 'submitted' it, so you're the person who gets notified. For future reference, you could change the user in the template; ie, when you subst'd it got saved as {{AFC submission|||ts=20111220090937|u=Cloveapple|ns=5}} - you could've manually edited that, and changed the "u=" to the user you were helping. Because, that's who will get any notification.

In this case though, now, if you want just cut/paste the notification over from your talk to User talk:Arunfrenzys.

Hope that makes sense. I've done it often enough myself, and ended up informing myself that I just declined my own AFC. :-s  Chzz  ►  13:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks for explaining. I'm not sure I entirely follow it, but I understand enough to watch for the "u=" part in order to change it next time. I naively thought it took hitting the actual submit button to be registered as the person who submitted it. Cloveapple (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, sure.

Think of it this way... imagine if someone puts <nowiki>Something something something ~~~~<nowiki> on a page (accidentally 'signing' inside NOWIKI tags - then the page would literally display ~~~~. If you then edited the page, and removed the NOWIKI stuff, then it would add your signature, not the person who had previously 'signed'. Which can, of course, be confusing.  Chzz  ►  13:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"clear older messages"

Hi Chzz. I restored my messages at User talk:LieneCL that you removed with the edit summary 'clear older messages'. In addition to the version of the article that is at AFC, there is a version currently in mainspace that is tagged as G11 by me. Removing the notification, unless you were going to also decline the g11, makes it unlikely that the user would post to defend the page. That may be moot as their old version is at AFC, I agree...but one could just as easily say the AFC version is moot because the article now exists in mainspace.

My COI note to them is valid in any case and should probably not have been removed except by them.

I could see 'clear older messages' being used to remove notes from several months or years ago. Using it for messages ~1 hour old seems odd. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any hassle.

At first, I was speaking directly to the user as CronLab (talk · contribs); I did not know of another account. They'd created and edited an AFC page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CronLab Ltd. Obviously, first thing I had to do was suggest changing user-name per WP:CORPNAME and, per WP:UCN (and they were not blocked), I suggested they just create a new account. The user said they'd got the name LieneCL (talk · contribs), and at then point I spoke to an admin who soft-blocked the corpname account. So, I wanted to help them forwards from there.

I advised them about the "Article for creation" and the problems regarding the referencing. Then when I looked at their "new" user talk page, I saw the old notices; unfortunately, that's when I made my error - I assumed those must be outdated notices; I failed to spot that the CSD'd article issue was still ungoing. Note, I was still speaking to the person throughout; I suggested that it might be easier for them if I cleared the old messages, and have them a link to the draft, so they could continue to work on that.

Now, looking at the live article, I'm not too sure it actually is G11; I know it appears like it is but, like the draft, it's the formatting that is misleading; the user did not understand the difference between external links and references, and had them reversed; that's why the live page (and the AFC did have) only references to the company website, whereas the external links are (somewhat) independent (somewhat) reliable sources.

I'm not sure quite what the best approach is at this time; if it were up to me, I'd suggest an IAR deletion of the live article, to allow them to fix the formatting on the AFC page - as being the clearest way forward for the new user.

Apologies for removing that message too soon though.  Chzz  ►  15:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a prob. I had to do quite a bit of double checking as well myself between the two usernames and talk pages (and wondering why I couldn't see my g11 nom on the AFC page, and wondering why I would have g11'ed an AFC page in the first place). I expect that is probably the best way forward, and I guess I will do that - del the live page, rm the speedy warn on their talkpage, leave the coi concern, and let you continue to provide your usual excellent help to them at AFC. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am sorry; if I'd spotted that the CSD warn was so fresh, I wouldn't have removed it like that; I was trying to do too many things at once. Thanks for being so understanding about it. Clearly it is a COI thing, but the user appears to be trying to work within guidelines, yep.  Chzz  ►  16:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrthiss, hey; since the above, the user has worked on the draft, and improved it; [5]

I've had a quick look at that, and - without fully checking - I think it'll be OK, if I tidy it up a bit.

So, my question to you is... do you think that is "acceptable"? ie, if I tidy it up, are you happy if I make it live again?

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, yes I'm fine with that. The language needs to be toned down a bit ("provides solutions"), so I'd be wary that it may get tagged by someone else as G11 if it goes live with that. If I see, I can decline it obviously and worst case tag it with advert. Thanks for checking with me, and no need for talkbacks. I'm watching your page.  :) Syrthiss (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Yes, I will make sure the tone is OK before I move it. Ta, great stuff.  Chzz  ►  17:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lightning Rods/How do I increase notability for this article?

You left me this message: "This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria (A7) and/or guidelines on notability. Please provide more information on why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you."

I'm not sure what I need to do. In (A7) it mentions "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." My article is about a book.

This article is just as notable as her other book "The Last Samurai". Sorry. I read your advice but am not sure how to improve the article. Could you give me an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VillWinton (talk • contribs) 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lightning Rods

Honestly, I am not sure it is worthy of inclusion (fwiw I am not sure that The Last Samurai is either, but that is a digression). I checked and it hasn't appeared on the NY Times bestseller list. It does have quite a number of reviews, but hasn't been even nominated for awards from what I can see (not surprising since it was only recently released). Perhaps for the moment, you could merge the contents into the Helen DeWitt article? Or just make Lightning Rods a redirect to it? That way, if it does become notable in the future then it can be expanded. Syrthiss (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not speedy-deletable, but would likely fail AFD based on Wikipedia:Notability (books). Unlike her other book's article, this one doesn't even make a claim of notability (at least that one mentions nominations for several awards). Further, there is only cited one critical review (LA Review of Books) and it's unclear how major a publication that is. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnny_Jolin

Good day. How do I create a suitable biographical table on my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Jolin such as there is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Front_Porch_Country_Band thank you for your help. --Aswgoblue (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like you figured it out? DMacks (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Stalker

[delurk] Should I do anything after responding to a stalk-request (somehow mark it "handled")? DMacks (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, really. I suppose I should add some cool 'code' stuff, like the thing I copied it from - {{uninvolved}} - so it says, "A TPS has responded!!!" - maybe I will. Still, I'm just impressed that it worked!!! Thanks!  Chzz  ►  18:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

heh:) Actually it appears to have some code for it already if |answered=yes:

Hiding this 'coz it's meta
Meta

Might be good to reword it so it's not still asking for help rather than just changing the icon? DMacks (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

mmm, I'll work on it.  Chzz  ►  20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just a heads up

So, it looks like you're tackling a backlog, but just make sure that you're not including batch articles (like you did here) when you're mass-tagging. Otherwise, your work is keeping me busy, just when I thought we had both tackled the backlog to a managable point. Oh well, happy edits! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I tagged the batch - I should have spotted that. I'll deal with them myself later (if others haven't). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Don't worry, I won't "flood" AFC with them; I'll only submit a few at a time, and I'll happily ensure the queue stays low myself. There's "only" about 1000 in Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template so it isn't that massive a task.  Chzz  ►  11:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lachlan Robinson

Hi Chzz, I noticed that you just completed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lachlan Robinson for User:Travismac3. I wanted to make sure you were aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lachlan Robinson which resulted in a delete decision. This deleted the article that is up for AfC. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, ok; I added a comment.  Chzz  ►  21:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank. Have a great holidays. Sparthorse (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas

	Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
	Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

	Bet you wish you were here!
	Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Close

Would you be so kind as to take care of this? CTJF83 12:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just haven't found the time to do that yet; I did take a look, but it's not a "5 minute job". I might, possibly, have time in about a week, so if I do, I'll check back. Apologies; I've just been very busy.  Chzz  ►  00:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've looked at the problem, and it appears that the consensus is to remove the 'last' parameter. I counted 7 total supports and 4 total opposes, 4 of the supports being significant and 1 of the opposes being significant. Significance was calculated based on quantity and quality of discussion. There were 2 users who participated but did not take a side. That is a brief statistical overview and hopefully an admin can close the discussion and make the change (removing the parameter called 'last') as the page is permanently indef protected.

On a side note, do you think I'm doing things right at AfC? Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 14:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See my responses [6].

The above discussion was closed by another uninvolved person, [7].  Chzz  ►  13:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  13:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Monty’s Hotel, Secunderabad

Hi, This is regarding an article about a historic hotel which is more than 120 years old. This has been declared as heritage structure by HUDA and INTACH. Recently it was in news over a court battle. This also an important landmark in Secunderabad. References from reputed sources and external links are provided. Regards Sarvagyana guru (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem; if you think those references are sufficient (or can add better ones), please feel free to make the article live. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You may then remove the template an recategorise it appropriately. Cheers Sarvagyana guru (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear: you could do that, if you want.

I reviewed it (as requested), and I didn't want to make it live because I think it doesn't have enough references, so it might be deleted.

But if you disagree, you could move it to a live article yourself. Best,  Chzz  ►  23:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rejection of my article

What credible sources u need to clear my article about Tablighi Ijtema? I cited famous indian news networks, is that not enough credibility even Press Trust of India issue news regarding it, Google it u will find tons of pages on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooms183 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome.

Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bhopal Tablighi Ijtema this version

References 1, 2, 4 6 are the same text, and appear to be a press-release; it doesn't seem to be true independent coverage. See WP:PSTS.

Ref 3 (twocircles.net) doesn't seem like a reliable source.

Ref 5 (Herald) looks OK. But I didn't think it was quite enough; mostly, I'm concerned that it looks to be based on PR. If there is some further independent reliable sources - such as coverage of the event in other publications (which do not have to be in English), then I'm sure it could be accepted. Please let me know if I can help.  Chzz  ►  12:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

brandnew editor is looking for some feedback.

To Chzz, John and UKexpat A brandnew editor is looking for some feedback. I gave some here, which isn't all that positive, and I think others viewed the issue as resolved. The editor is asking how to move forward. Does the editor's suggestion to consider a cat make sense? Does anyone have more encouraging thoughts on what to do with the draft?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That book, The Meaning of Liff, was quite fun. And I do like Adams' stuff. But places mentioned? Not sure; that seems a bit WP:NOTDIR to me, unless others have written about all the places mentioned - I mean, if there were a couple books/news-articles about "The places mentioned...". Mostly, I'd recommend writing about something else - pick a topic that there's plenty of RS about.  Chzz  ►  02:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Cosimo HELP!

Hi Chzz, I am trying to understand how I can include the information you said I needed before my article could be posted. I have looked at other publishing house entries and they are very similar to mine. Can you please be specific on how I can get this article up. I have been working on it for almost two months now. Thanks!

Chelsea180 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cosimo Publishing

I think I spoke to you online about this, after you left that message? My main concern was with the references. I said,

[21:13] <+Chzz> ref 1 is not independent ("Cosimo releases titles under ... Paraview)

[21:13] <+Chzz> ref 2 is primary (Cosimo)

[21:13] <+Chzz> ref 3 does not mention "cosimo"

[21:13] <+Chzz> ref 4 is blog

[21:13] <+Chzz> ref 5 does not mention "cosimo"

[21:14] <+Chzz> ref 6 is PR, I think?

[21:14] <+Chzz> ref 7 is primary

[21:14] <+Chzz> ref 8 does not mention Cosimo

[21:14] <+Chzz> ref 9 is PR

[21:14] <+Chzz> ref 10 is PR

Sorry; the core issue is, notability. But please refer to WP:CORP, WP:BFAQ, WP:PSTS. I believe some other helpers also tried to explain the problems. Best,  Chzz  ►  12:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Question About Stephen B. Allen Page

Hi Chzz:

You reviewed a new article I've been working on the other day and I'm wondering if you could tell me if I've responded to your feedback correctly / adequately. Your comments were:

"Concerned that a) All of the actual biographical content is unreferenced, that IMDB and YouTube (and possibly other references) are not reliable sources, and that refs such as [1] do not actually mention this person"

I found and linked to several additional articles online that refer to this individual's titles at a couple of points in his career to support his career history. I was also able to find an oral history that a graduate student at a university published that literally has his life's history as he told it to him/her. It not only corroborates the facts in the article, but (if I took the time) could be used to add an enormous amount of additional detail about his life. (How much of the "life story" information is appropriate for Wikipedia?) I think I cited / linked to that correctly (it's a PDF on an academic website). My links to IMDB and YouTube were just to corroborate his participation in the projects I referenced. If I put on my reader hat, I find them helpful. I'm not experienced enough as a contributor to know whether they're better left out (let me know?). The reference above you cite as not actually mentioning the person has been removed as a link.

I have looked at a number of biographical articles, and there are many degrees of referencing that people provide to support various life facts. If you have further suggestions for how to better substantiate this, I'd love additional direction. Otherwise, I think it's ready to be resubmitted. Please advise.

Thanks in advance for your help.

jeffreyaallen

jaa (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I accepted it as a live article, Stephen B. Allen - actually, before I'd read the above! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why my page get deleted?

Hi, Chzz,

I created page called OpenVReg, which is a open source design and pin to pin compatible Power IC design. I think this is significant progress in current IC industry, since most IC company protect each and sue others via patent law. To do so, they need to claim uniq ic design from other, which makes variety of power ICs with similar function on the market.

While this OpenVReg is a pin-to-pin compatible power IC design standard, majorly driven by NVIDIA. I am one of the engineers that create this ideas. OpenVReg shares patents across companies, which is so called Open Source design. It is just lunched and have 14 major companies joined.

I got some bad ass on the wikepedia saying my page about OpenVReg is advertising, which is not a truth. OpenVReg do not need ads. Companies just adopted if they want to.

But I do not know to solve this issue. I want to record my work of OpenVReg on wiki.

Do you know how to do to avoid my page being deleted by another hard ass again?

Thanks, Tony /OpenVReg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Openvreg (talk • contribs) 01:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OpenVReg has been deleted twice as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I can't see it, but I guess that's the problem. See WP:BFAQ, WP:COI.  Chzz  ►  01:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't have been tagged/deleted as G11, but wouldn't have passed A7 anyway. I've userfied the page to User:Openvreg/OpenVReg and notified the user about COI/username. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Howard Bloom-Rejected

Hi Chzz, Howard Bloom is the guy who conceived the Bloom Filter which is used by Google, IBM and many researchers extensively in their algorithms. I was surprised that Wikipedia does not have a page on him. So it would be reasonable to say he deserves an inclusion.

05:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarprabhu (talk • contribs)

Of course - it'd be great to have an article about him. But, for a biography, we would need evidence of significant coverage about him, not his invention.  Chzz  ►  05:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Submissions

Hi, I see that you are using the list generated by my bot to fix the submissions, it's cool and I am happy to see someone do that, but please bear in mind that several submissions are vandalism or just a joke, I hope you reviewed the list, or is this an automatic script? Petrb (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Likewise concerned by a few submissions which are everything from nothing but two malfunctioning links to blatantly OS-worthy being submitted. sonia♫ 09:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just using the category. Using scripting which just displays the content of the page, and lets me type 'yep' to submit it (with the creator's username) and give the user a message. I'm trying to manually check - hence hence skipping over things like a redirect, or if it's something that needs oversight I report it, and so on. ut I admit, I'm only checking very briefly. Did I miss something, Sonia? Thing is, even if I do, then at least it's now going to be dealt with - instead of sitting around for months without attention. And mostly, I've dealt with them within hours myself, if others have not. See also WT:AFC#Category: AfC submissions with missing AfC template.

A lot of "normal" submissions are vandalism/jokes - that's fine; it's easier to deal with them by submitting first, then reviewing. A few others have been helping out with the reviewing, and I've only submitted a few at a time. But if there is any problem, let me know. Best,  Chzz  ►  10:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Finney Ross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Finney_Ross

Hello Chzz,

I have done everything ALL administrators have asked for the page Finney Ross. I have cited all resources, I have cited his importance to the Rodeo community. I was told to do these things. I complied. Please tell me what else I need to do.

Please don't send me to a blue link to click on. It is too confusing for me. Just tell me what I need to do.

Ross might seem like a non-notable person to people who sit behind a computer all day, but he was extremely important to the Rodeo community and early Rodeo craftsman history.

Thank you Vintagedirtbiker (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will do my best, sure. It's a bit tricky, because I do not have access to the newspaper articles you mention. But my main concern is really, that I suspect those articles are rather more about the products than Mr. Ross. So, let's look at the first few key facts -

1. Date of birth/death, September 24, 1915 - February 9, 1985
2. Born in Missouri City, Texas [1]
3. master leathersmith in Alvin, Texas from 1955 to 1983
4. Single owner and operator of Ross Saddles and Ross Saddle Shop

So - can you tell me, are those specific facts covered in one or more published articles? ie - where could someone check those things, if they wanted? If they're in an issue of the Houston Post, can you tell me what the title of the article(s) are, the page number, the date, and - if there is one - the author of the article.

Let me know by replying here, and we can work forwards from there. I'm quite happy to help you with all the formatting and things - all I really need to know are where specific facts about this person - not about his creations - can be verified. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  00:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Chzz! All the dates are already posted, but I will go through all of them and post the information you need. Please be patient, it will have to be after the holidays. Again, thank you! Vintagedirtbiker (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

About Talk:Reculver/GA1...

Hello Chzzmeister! How's things? I hope I find you well, and that Jayne Mansfield is behaving herself. Thanks for tipping up at the GA review for Reculver the other day - did you see my comment after, starting "Yep, you have!" and dated 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC) (scroll down)? When I posted that comment, I think I was a bit confused about whether you were referring to refs for paras or sentences, but anyway, any thoughts? No worries if not!

Another thing though, Senra has suggested I ask you about some copying I mean to do, from a sandbox into Reculver article space. Point is, I've copied the whole article to the sandbox to do some pretty major re-writing of paras and re-jigging of sections, with the idea that I'd then copy my changes back to the article, with an edit summary as usual. I felt that this (A) would be an obvious, non-controversial thing to do, and (B) would in any case be covered by Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed – obviously I'm not the "sole contributor" of all the text involved, but after all this time I suspect that I might virtually be, and, as I say, I'm only planning to copy back my changes, QED. Senra's obviously right to query it, and you're perfectly welcome to tell me I've got that all arse about tit! And, I hope you have a fun holiday, and I won't mind a bit if I don't hear back from you for a while, as we're all busy one way or another...! Yours aye, Nortonius (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Refs - yes, I saw it; fine. I know what you mean. Generally, refs should be at the end of the sentence - they tend to break^[1] up^[2] text^[3] otherwise. But for "exceptional claims", they can be necessary. Main thing is, that everything is covered by references, and that a reader can see where; the remainder is stylistic, and always up for debate.

For copying: in that specific case, it doesn't seem terribly important - looks like it is effectively - or all-but - written by you [8]. So a copy-paste with a diff link to show where it came from in the edit summary seems OK; ie edit-sum of something like "Updating section Foo and Baa; these changes were worked on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nortonius/Sandbox&oldid=467499385 ".

For more complex cases - if some draft has been worked on elsewhere by lots of people, and the history of it is significant, then it's sometimes best to move the draft to a subpage such as "Talk:Article/Draft of March 2011" and mention that in the edits, and on the talk of the live article. And a diff; always use a diff link when copy-pasting.

Hope that helps.  Chzz  ►  15:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep that's great! Cheers and have fun! :) Nortonius (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dilmaghani

Hmm, it looks like you manually re-submitted this even though the article had already been created at Dilmaghani. Not sure what you want to do with it. :-)    Thorncrag  19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, you're quite right. I'm trying to sort out the stuff in Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template - most just need submission - a few don't. I'm trying to filter out things like that, but miss a few. Still, it's easily dealt with, like this. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I will be here to help more after the holidays so I can hopefully help you sort these out and keep them sorted, if you need.    Thorncrag  19:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Great :-) I'll sneak a few more (20 or so) over to the pending category now then. The vast majority are easy to review - mostly unreferenced/junk. But putting them through AFC is nice, because the users get feedback. And even if some are complete junk, at least they'll be dealt with instead of sitting around forever. Cheers, and all the best for the festive season,  Chzz  ►  19:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Masaki Henmi/Masaki Hemmi at AFC

Hi, I have redeclined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Masaki Henmi and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Masaki Hemmi as an article on Masaki Hemmi already exists. I declined those pages in june and in the interim period there have only been a few bot edits. What was wrong with the old decline templates? Jarkeld (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure; for some reason, a bot tagged it here as being a misplaced AFC. Sorry, I should have spotted that. I'm working through the Category:AfC_submissions_with_missing_AfC_template - most were not submitted correctly for some reason (such as, the user mis-typed the submission template itself) - so I'm re-submitting them. The vast majority are best dealt with through a "normal" AFC review. I'm trying to avoid problems like that one, but I missed that specific case. Thanks for letting me know.  Chzz  ►  00:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think the bot had marked it up because the 'decline' seemed wrong; it had {{afc submission|ts=20110528060822|d|exists|Masaki Hemmi}} and that should be {{afc submission|ts=20110528060822|d|exists|u=Masaki Hemmi}} - I'll look out for those, in future.  Chzz  ►  00:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I declined after a basic {{afc submission}} template was added by another editor. Must have declined it by hand as the malformed submission templates can't be processed by afchelper. A u=/3= isn't mentioned at the documentation at Template:AFC_submission/comments so I guess I didn't include it. Strange. Jarkeld (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep; there's various odd things in that category. But at least they're getting looked at.  Chzz  ►  00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Good Shepherd Sisters: Omaha Order

Hello! Your submission of Good Shepherd Sisters: Omaha Order 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! Presearch (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing. See also User talk:Kikneifl#Did you know nomination queries.  Chzz  ►  12:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)  Chzz  ►  13:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

william marcus holland

I was trying to give his family a little Christmas present with a Wikipedia entry. Most of his work is in print and I will not have time to get to it until next year. Is there anyway someone else can give some help with this. He was the editor of a major newspaper in Georgia and has one more than one award fror his contribution to Minor league baseball. Many Hall of famers statred out in these leagues buit I don't have time to get this in. Cab you help make this Christmas wish come true ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenixo (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ William Marcus Holland

I could try, but it is very hard without references. I've just managed to get the links you gave to work, but those are all things written by the person. Is there anything written about him? That's what is needed.

I can help with formatting, and anything else; but my problem is, I don't know where the info could be verified, and that's a really critical core policy.

BTW, you could always talk to me.  Chzz  ►  16:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I removed a tiny part from the start of your comment above - regarding health - I hope you understand; we don't want to have speculation about a living person, even here on a talk page. Got to be careful.  Chzz  ►  16:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Jane Blalock cheating controversy

When I began this article as a user page, I didn't know that when I submitted it, that the article went through some review process. If you checked, you'd see I've created over 80 articles. The only reason I used the user page was because this was a lengthier and more complicated(It has nearly 40 different citations in it) than any other article I had written before. All my other articles I completed in one day, or usually in one sitting.

I did the article even though the most prolific editor of wikipedia golf articles thought an independent article wasn't necessary.[9] It is golf's biggest golf cheating controversy in 50 years and is not well remember. An article about it should keep it from being forgotten. Cheers- William 00:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sure - it's no problem. Just thought I'd tidy up, that's all. No hassle at all. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ilford Magical Society

Hi, re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ilford Magical Society

Just asking for some advice really. I have had a look around wiki pages, for example: Wilmslow Hockey Club, Ilford F.C. and find them to have been accepted although they appear to have a similar sort of content. How do I make my page more encyclopedic?

Regards

MagicTIMS

MagicTIMS (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You need references to independent reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, news websites. See WP:VRS. For help with the formatting, see WP:REFB.

For example (making up the details),

The society was founded in 1938.<ref> "Ilford is magical", J Smith, p.23, Essex Post, April 1 2011. </ref>

There are lots of "bad" articles, but that's not a reason to add more; it means those need fixing or listing for deletion. Verifiability is a core policy. If the society has been written about in publications such as newspapers, then state facts using the specific referenced source; if it shows "significant coverage", it can be accepted. I wouldn't want to accept something if I thought it'd be likely to be deleted. But, there is no hurry; it can be re-submitted and re-reviewed at any time. Best,  Chzz  ►  15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh! I think you archived the Christmas pudding by mistake!

Unless, of course, you just ate it? Have another!

	Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
	Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, thanks! Just that my talk page was getting far too long, as usual. Seasons greetings to you! See you soon.  Chzz  ►  12:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sergio Franchi biography

Thanks for your help on the Sergio franchi discography. I am currently doing a major upgrade on the Sergio Franchi Stub article. I have experienced a rather arrogant editor removing a whole section on Personal Interests and Hobbies, and most of the information on Personal life. From the examples I have read, personal life is acceptable information. I have been discreet, and neutral. However the current deletion called my information "tabloid" in nature. That may be one person's opinion. Can you HELP ME? Nor only have sections been deleted, but he has messed up my references. I guess that is what I get for not working in a sandbox.. but I didn't know how to move an article from a sandbox. I am very upset with the arrogance of this editor! How do you encourage new editors with this type of arrogant interference when I am writing an article. And I do have a Master's Degree. I guess you can tell I am very upset.Cathlec (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sergio Franchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can see others have given advice. All I'd say is, a) nothing is actually "lost" - it can be seen in the history; b) I think some (probably most) of the info removed with the two edits [10] [11] is probably not suitable for inclusion. But some is. So, c) discuss it on Talk:Sergio Franchi, and d) if you cannot agree, see WP:DISPUTE. Most importantly, remember that there's no deadline, and simply discuss it with the other editor(s). Best,  Chzz  ►  14:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC) I added a similar response over there, too.  Chzz  ►  14:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Greek financial audits, 2009-2010

I'm sure this title will evoke fond memories... A reviewer has again rejected this article for the same reason as that of the previous reviewer: "This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter". We discussed it, and I was under the impression that it wasn't the context that was insufficient but Citing sources, which I then addressed. If I'm correct, could you please confirm your advice, somewhere in my/his(her) talk page, or anywhere deemed relevant (I don't know), so the next reviewer can take it from there. And if he/she still feels the context insufficient, he/she might be compelled to offer a more substantive and specific explanation than those previously provided, so that I can actually understand his/her point of view. Everyone's input would then me more efficiently used.

Thank you, and happy holidays.

McKidd (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greek financial audits, 2009-2010

At the moment it's awaiting a review. So, probably best to see what happens with that. Best of luck with it all,  Chzz  ►  13:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/pure infinity (tb removed; don't think it's currently a q for me as such)  Chzz  ►  13:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI: heh, see history... mabdul 03:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh well; I'm still not clear what it is about - but it hasn't been resubmitted, so meh.  Chzz  ►  13:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 PTS

Can i just ask why you committed this edit? Jason Rees (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V - if people are "fighting" about what is and is not "fact", I find that insisting on a reference helps. Of course, add it back with a reference, or discuss on Talk:2011 Pacific typhoon season. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Chzz, but while the number of depressions isn't controversial, adding the amount of damages, which isn't discussed in the main article, isn't appropriate. The infobox should be a summary of facts made and supported in the main article text.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is quite fair, and true; if the article shows that there were 39 depressions, then that'd be fine. However, it's not clear that is true, right now; so it becomes a contested fact - so a specific clear ref or refs would help.  Chzz  ►  21:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The article does indeed show 39 tropical depressions, since each system talked about in the article starts off as a tropical depression. Also the damage that a system has done will be talked about under each storms section and the seasonal effects graph. However i fully admit this years PTS article isnt the best example of this at the moment, which is why i am going to try improve it but its gonna be a long job. especially since the damage and death total is still rising from Tropical Storm Washi. Jason Rees (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Jason Rees - and I appreciate all of that. I merely worry about WP:SYNTH and, in the WP:LEDE although a "summary" is appropriate, synthesis and OR are not. I'm glad you're working on it, but, forgive me - if a couple people are bickering about e.g. "Bob killed 43 people" v "Bob killed 44 people", I'd rather the lede had no info. I do not agree w/ Mr. Wales often, but on this I do;

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.^*]

Talk can of course continue on 2011 Pacific typhoon season, and if/when a ref can be shown (or, if the facts are uncontroversially said in the body). Meanwhile though, I'd rather the claim was simply omitted.

Wales, Jimmy. Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information  Chzz  ►  22:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

On the count, I'd be fine with including the 39, with the provision that if someone posts on the talk page a challenge, e.g that one was missed, that would be sufficient argument (even if false) to insist on a reference, absent a dissenting post, I can't get too excited about the count. However, the summary damages are not discussed at all, so requires discussion, and refs in article before inclusion in the infobox.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"39" seems to have been disputed, from the edits; therefore, I'd say it was a disputed claim. Easily fixed with a ref.

But this discussion belongs on Talk:2011_Pacific_typhoon_season  Chzz  ►  23:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe im going blind but I dont see any one disputing the amount of tropical depressions, since each depression has its own section in the talkpage archives.Jason Rees (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Jason Rees - and please understand, here I'm just trying to follow fair process;

I - chzz - hereby dispute that fact; so see Talk:2011 Pacific typhoon season#Number of depressions disputed.

Sorry. I just need to make the point; I hope you'll understand and forgive me.  Chzz  ►  23:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

But why? when each TC has a section in the talkpage archives which is built up of various links that prove that it was considered to be a tropical depression by a certain warning centre.Jason Rees (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V  Chzz  ►  23:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check that out - of course, if the count is disputed, it needs a ref. I just want to be clear that it gets discussed in the body; refs do not belong in the infobox. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't refs belong in infobox? I disagree totally.

Let's look at featured articles recently; just for the sake of something, going from December TFA's to date; School for Creative and Performing Arts (yes), Macaroni Penguin (yes), Tropical Storm Barry (2001) (no), Saturn (yes), Adenanthos obovatus (no), McDonnell XF-85 Goblin (yes), USS Arizona (BB-39) (yes), Xá Lợi Pagoda raids (no), Maple syrup (no infobox), Norwich Market (no infobox), Californication (album) (no), Gillingham F.C. (no), Cogan House Covered Bridge (yes), Amundsen's South Pole expedition (no infobox), Andalusian horse (sort of), True at First Light (no infobox), David Lewis (politician) (no), Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo (yes), Egbert of Wessex (no), McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink (yes), A Rugrats Chanukah (yes), Issy Smith (yes), Lavanify (no), Red-capped Robin (no), 1689 Boston revolt (yes).

I make that, of 20 TFA in December that have an infobox, 11 have refs (and one debatable).

So yes; if info is challenged, it needs a ref. Surely.  Chzz  ►  01:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Reculver promoted to GA!

Just thought I'd let you know that this happened this evening - thanks for your tips and support, helpful as ever, and part of what led me to nominating the article in the first place! :) Hope you're surviving the holidays, speak soon! Nortonius (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. Now make it good.  Chzz  ►  00:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yes, there's always more to do! :) Nortonius (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome template

Hello there! Great work you do on IRC. Just wondering, I've seen you use a very nice welcome. I don't remember where, but I remember it said something like "you don't have to read anything". Can I have it? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Chzz/w  Chzz  ►  00:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Chip123456

Chip123456 (talk · contribs) continues to be problematic despite the recent ANI discussions. Feel free to chip in and offer guidance on his/her talk page. I have suggested that as a (very obviously) young editor it might be appropriate to push towards the adopt-a-user programme. What do you think? --Bob Re-born (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

PSSG Thank you

Dear Chzz, Thank you for your kind support on 25.12.2011 Am onto it Regards, Nick NPRFTE Nick Robinson 14:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPRFTE (talk • contribs)

Coalition of Hope - Thanks for the Review - Need suggestions for attribution

Hello Chzz, Happy Holidays. Thanks for reviewing Coalition of Hope draft entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Coalition_of_Hope). Yep, there are a lot of unsourced/unreferenced concepts within the article. Much of what is in the article comes from email traffic and conference calls. Is there a way to source/identify email traffic to Wiki standards? I'm guessing not likely. This COH concept is so new that there is little secondary reporting on it, but it is an important project with great potential in humanitarian service. There must be a way to bring this article up to Wiki standards. Can you recommend a similar, new-source article on Wiki that has 'made the cut' I might refer to for guidance? I think I've chosen a difficult topic for my first Wikipedia article. Any advice you can send is appreciated! Thanks G H Smith (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I did not answer the above; I've been taking a break.

I suggest you try asking on the help desk. Best,  Chzz  ►  13:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: The Phoenix Network

Added sources, links and info to The Phoenix Network after tags put on. Need advice. Thanks. jerosaur Jerosaur (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I did not answer the above; I've been taking a break.

I suggest you try asking on the help desk. Best,  Chzz  ►  13:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your voice of reason recently regarding WJB. Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

help me improving my article

hey chzz hope you are in good health, well i saw a msg on my article's top on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Babar_Malik you left the comments that all reference are by Babar Malik not about babar malik but now i tried to put some references about Babar Malik please go to the link and check... i hope these references are helpful for improving my article... please chzz help me in this regard. best regards, Decoderz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoderz (talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I did not answer the above; I've been taking a break.

I suggest you try asking on the help desk. Best,  Chzz  ►  13:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

	Thanks
	I don't think I say it often enough, so thanks. Thanks for being so helpful to me in my Wikipedian journey. And hope you have the very best of years in 2012. Shearonink (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Reminder for MtC drive

As you have stated that you would like a reminder, here it is. The drive is starting in approximatly 32 hours. Remember to add yourself to the logs subpage. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chzz Help me

Hey Chzz Cheers and Happy news Year in advance, hope you are in good health and shinning like a diamond ;).. well chzz look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Babar_Malik i added some more references and made some changes, i think now you can see this article as WP Notability because i added another reference not by Babar Malik but its about Babar Malik from well known personality and from independent sources. please check my article and if article meet the criteria of WP Notability guidelines then please move it to en wikipedia artciles. Best Regards,

(Bob 16:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoderz (talk • contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sabu_Toyozumi

Many thanks for reviewing my article. I agree that Discogs should not be used as a source and I'll remove that. I'll get back in touch when I've tracked down some more sources and referenced each fact . Best for now, Drywell (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

wp:beans blatant violation

☺ nice beans up there ;) benzband (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

acting as third party

Chzz, would you consider stepping in as a third party to a dispute? I don't want to burden you with any details (though it isn't impossible to figure out)... I don't want to take up any more of your time than you're used to spending if such an act is too time-consuming. For reference, I'm on the border of a dispute request, and I feel I've exhausted other options. Thanks for any reply. Squish7 (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I did not answer the above; I've been taking a break. Apologies; I can't deal with it right now. Best,  Chzz  ►  13:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harold Lloyd's World of Comedy

I created the page because it is one of Harold Lloyd's best known works but did not have a page. I created one which is accurate and has several references and yet was denied when you submitted it for review. A stub classification might be fair but to remove it entirely only removes information from Wikipedia users and prevents others from contributing to improve it. How is this helpful? I don't want to put time and effort into creating pages if it is going to be wasted unless I commit to working on it indefinitely. I hope this does not sound like a rant and I apologize if it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestOfTime (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I did not answer the above; I've been taking a break.

I suggest you try asking on the help desk. Best,  Chzz  ►  13:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)