Archive 1

User talk:Chzz

In the talk page for the above, [User:Nortonius|Nortonius]] states that the name should be spelt without a 'p'. He has added a note in brackets on the page to denote this.

As per the above, assuming it is correct (I wouldn't know);

• in Medeshampstede 1st line, is the abbreviation 'recte' (meaning 'correctly') acceptable?
• If the name was wrong, then the page needs a move.

Nortonius has started correcting the spelling on other pages, but that means that they are currently linking to this via a redirect.

I suspect the (recte) part could be deleted, the definition kept if there's a citation for it, and the page moved...and then links checked? --  Chzz  ►  17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Further info

Googling shows many sites that DO spell it with a 'p'...some are scraped from WP, but others look like they're sourced elsewhere.

Google matches are; Medeshamstede 3290 Medeshampstede 448

and [[1]] looks like a citable ref to me, from an AD664 Anglo-Saxon charter.

I suggest moving Medeshampstede to Medeshamstede, adding the citation, making a redirect from Medeshampstede, and checking links.

I would still welcome another opinion...if this is the right approach, I'm happy to do it. --  Chzz  ►  18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're looking for Requested moves - that's a forum where you can bring potentially controversial moves such as this to the attention of other editors and get some other opinions on the matter. Not knowing much about this myself (and judging from how long you've been waiting, I'd say not many other helpers do either), you'd probably be better off there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take it over there --  Chzz  ►  19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I'm not sure that I qualify as 'another opinion' (!), but the 'citable ref' found by Chzz is excellent - in that it's an online reference which follows the organisation of Peter Sawyer's indispensable handbook Anglo-Saxon Charters (as signified by the 'S' in 'S 68'), and gives an edition of the text of the charter in question; though I would stress that it's an edition, as the earliest available (12th century) manuscript version for this charter actually reads Ælfere, in error for Uulfere - but, more importantly, I can confirm that the manuscript does read 'Medeshamstede', and not 'Medeshampstede'!. And I'm relieved that you've offered to work this through, Chzz, thank you! Nortonius (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Having checked WP:RM and other articles I'm confident this is an Uncontroversial proposal and therefore I will do the move and adjustments, as described, myself. Of course I will document this on the Medeshamstede talk page.--  Chzz  ►  19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Moved "Medeshampstede" to "Medeshamstede" and talk page

Fixed linking pages as follows;

• Peterborough - had already been changed (earlier today)

• Wulfhere of Mercia - had already been changed (earlier today)
• Medeshampstede (redirect page) - correctly redirects to Medeshamstede

• Peterborough Cathedral - changed 1 link
• Flag Fen - changed 1 link

• Talk:Peterborough - note and explanation added
• Deusdedit of Canterbury - changed 1 link

• Shifnal - changed 1 link
• Medeshampstead (redirect page) - changed to redirect to moved page

• Medehampstede - disambig page - changed 1 link
• Talk:Medeshamstede - talk page, comments already added to explain move

Noted where appropriate

 Done

Reply to your message. I have read over the article and made a number of modifications to the spelling and grammar. But the main problem seems to be that it lacks a lead paragraph. What had been the "lead" was actually a discussion of the name. I have created a new "name" section of that material. Someone needs to add a short summary of all the other material in the article as the real lead paragraph.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look at this over the week-end. At first glance it seems reasonable although I have a number of punctuation changes. I have left a note on the talk page of the article re looking at the English Place Name Society's work. 128.100.62.31 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List new users: Special:Log/newusers

You can go to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates for a full list of welcome templates, or to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table for a visual gallery of welcome messages.

The standard template is {{subst:W-basic}}. To use it, type this on a new user's talk page:

== Welcome! ==

{{subst:W-basic}}

This will make a section titled "Welcome!" and place the welcome message under it. Be sure to place greetings on each user's talk page, not their user page. This will ensure they will receive the "You have new messages" automatic alert.

For cookie, I appreciate it.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

You were right, I needed to clear the cache. Now I see the changes in public. AnnicaG (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)AnnicaG

forgot to thank you for the reviews

Hi Chzz, I just noticed that I forgot to thank you for reviewing pied-noir and Louvre, so I thought I'd drop by and do that. Again, I appreciate the comments and am presently working on the article. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the positioning of the covers is not the RFC issue, but it still is the source of contention as evidenced by several reverts. As the template states, the current version is not endorsed by protection, so reverting to another version at this point, even if it is the pre-dispute version, seems imprudent. If you disagree, I suggest bringing this to the attention of other administrators at the noticeboard to get some outside opinions. Nufy8 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No harm done; at least it was only one revert as opposed to the several that other users continued to do. Nufy8 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident that consensus will be reached within the protection period (three days), so I still think it's best to leave it as is until then. Reverting it now would probably ignite more displeasure, and there's always the possibility of administrators stepping in to enforce WP:PREFER, which could start a wheel war. In this situation, I'd rather err on the side of caution unless it's something blatantly anti-policy. Nufy8 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was not already established; that would imply some discussion had taken place, usually on the talk page, in which editors concluded that the nude cover should be at the top. That didn't happen. User:Freakofnurture added the cover about three years ago and there it stayed until now. Going unchallenged for awhile does not imply consensus. Nufy8 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I just stopped by, and saw this discussion. About 'Going unchallenged for awhile does not imply consensus', at Wikipedia:Consensus it says "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." Just poking my oar in, sorry if you think it's irrelevant, or it's not wanted. Nortonius (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is little hope of reaching consensus until after the drv ifd has closed. If the image survives we will then have 3 options, no cover, cover lower down and cover at the top. And it will be for the editors at the article to make that decision,. what happened before is not relevant due to the recent interest in the subject. I hope if the image survives that we choose not to use it anyway, it would be the obvious and sensible solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're trying to do on User:Chzz/virginkiller, but you're not supposed to have non-free images in user space. Sooner or later those album covers will have to go. You can list them, though. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I already changed that page to a list. Incidentally, Chzz, I've mentioned that page here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that rule about non-free. Now I do, so sorry, and thanks for changing it. Really, the page was just me keeping a quick note, for possible use in the argument(s). I don't mind you referring to it at all. I do wonder, though, if we're now gonna see an IfD for, particularly, the Blind Faith album. --  Chzz  ►  22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless World Net Daily writes an article about it, I'd say unlikely. But that's no reason to forget the Scout Motto. Be prepared. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would. But that isn't actually the case - in fact, something like 40% of Americans believe in intelligent design, according to surveys (I don't know if that's the actual figure, but it's half past midnight here and I can't be bothered to look it up). It is, of course, true that something like 95% of qualified biologists believe in evolution (again, probably not the exact figure). Both of these are accurate statements which can be sourced and which emphatically belong in the articles. But at the moment, the general approach seems to be to label ID as "pseudoscience" and as essentially religious rather than scientific. While I understand the rationale for that view (and I'm not qualified to dispute it personally, since I'm no scientist), it isn't NPOV; it's disputed by the likes of William Dembski, who describe their viewpoint as entirely scientific. The fact that the US courts have ruled that ID is pseudoscience (I'm aware of Kitzmiller v Dover) does not make it indisputable fact that it is pseudoscience, since this is still hotly disputed. At the moment, most of our evolution-ID controversy articles read like an attempt to "debunk creationist myths" rather than a neutral and balanced look at the subject. We are not here to argue a point of view (even that held by the majority of scientists), but to cover all significant points of view in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. (Sorry for this rambling response; it's late here and I need to go to bed.) Walton^One 23:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm honoured - does this mean promotion? ;o) Do you mind if I edit grammar, e.g. capitalisations, etc.? It looks ok at first glance, but there are some things that I think ought to be changed on the basis of usage, e.g. 'Domesday' for 'domesday'... Obviously, if I do that and there's something you don't like, you can just change it back again. I think I'll leave it alone until I hear from you, though! While I'm here, I notice that all the citations are under the section heading 'See also' - shouldn't this be 'References'? I agree about it sometimes being a good thing, not to be familiar with the field, let me know what you think. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do! I've made a start (not saved at time of writing this) - but watch carefully what I do, in case you don't like it, because I'm already noticing signs of 'mission creep'! Nortonius (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've saved a partial tidy, down to the paragraph mentioning the Erewash Canal. Nortonius (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I will take a look.--  Chzz  ►  16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(undid indent)

I don't think there's anything I "really hate" about that draft! But, the way these things go, no doubt somone will disagree! Just a few (!) more thoughts:

• About coal, I've had a look at the URL indicated, but couldn't see anything about early coal mining. Coal was always useful - knowing next to zero about its history, I'd airily assume it's been useful since it was found to burn: Bronze Age? Earlier? But in terms of an "industry", this would've been minuscule until the Industrial Rev.: wood was easier to get. I don't know how the deposits around Eastwood were found, probably coal was visible on the surface? If so, it would've been used. But my guess would be, in the period that Eastwood became a recorded settlement, coal miners would've lived next to their coal, not in an agrarian settlement like DB Eastwood. Mining skills were often in demand for other things (wells, warfare), but cf. the historical, social exclusion of charcoal burners. That would be my POV on all that, anyway! Could be wrong...
• An aside on Eastwood & Wm. Peverel senior: about his Domesday Book estates, you'll remember what I said about "fee" vs. "wardship". I see where "wardship" came from now, that Broxtowe Borough Council page. But "wardship" is not from DB, it explicitly states that he held Eastwood "in demesne", though obviously I haven't checked all of his estates, and it lists his Notts. estates in exactly the same way as any other regular fee. Anything that happened under Henry I (per the Broxtowe page) might well have been to do with circumstances then, and nothing to do with Wm. the Conqueror or Wm. Rufus: you might find an explanation for this in a volume of the Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum series. I'm no expert on Henry I, so I've no idea what they mean by wardship being "usual at that time". But, if it's not just the product of some wild misconception, then it'll be something to do with some incidental, legalistic development (see Ward (law)), or possibly to do with the politics of Henry I's reign. It wasn't "usual" under Wm. the Conqueror - that would've been bonkers in the context of Wm.'s conquest - nor, as far as I've ever noticed, was it "usual" under Wm. Rufus. You might find a better answer - or just ignore it!

• And, I think the idea of Wm. Peverel senior having long been thought to be a bastard of Wm. Conqueror is crying out for a fuller explanation in the Wm. Pev. sr. article, whereas at the moment it's just mentioned! It's "sort of" relevant for Wm. Peverel junior too, for his genealogy and status.

• I can't make sense of the link between the Enclosure Act and factories appearing in the countryside, not in Nottingham. I think that needs just a little bit of clarification. By the way, is it supposed to say that the Act "did not come into effect in Nottingham until the early 19th century", or should that be "Nottinghamshire"?
• About "a further rail link", we haven't actually met the first one yet - it's only there by implication, through mention of a line between Pinxton and Leicester - which in itself needs explaining, for its relevance to Eastwood - or leave it out? Is it the first useful line for Eastwood? The first line and its nearest station to Eastwood need introducing.
• "during the 19th century in population per square mile": shouldn't that be "during the 19th century, in terms of population per square mile", or similar?
• "D.H. Lawrence was born in 1885": does need locating somehow, even if you're trying to avoid over-using "Eastwood". Maybe through something like "in Primrose Cottage, on the eastern side of the town", or whatever it might actually be.
• About pits local to Lawrence, how about "There were ten pits within easy walking distance of Lawrence's home (but when? Adult/author? Child? "Always"?), and an overwhelming majority of the local, male population were colliers"?
• "trams provided new means of transport": is that no longer "trams and buses"? If so, it should be "trams provided a new means of transport". No hyphen in "tram-service". Was Lawrence a tram anorak? ;o) An amusing and interesting detail, but maybe it should be qualified somehow...? Maybe just "Lawrence was an occasional user of the tram service, and described it as...".
• How about "the coal industry was nationalised, and the new National Coal Board acquired..."? And "coalmine" should be "coal mine". But I expect there's work to come on the pits, per previous comments by A.N. Other? (apologies to them, I just forget who for the mo)
• Tourism could possibly (sorry!) do with expansion? "Lawrences' birthplace a museum, and a ‘blue line trail’ starting here" needs sorting out, anyway.

That's really it for now - as you've suggested elsewhere, time will tell! Thanks for the comments on Sexwulf - don't worry, it was a kind offer, taken in that spirit! Some very useful stuff there, I'll sift through it properly in a bit. Did you see my (so far fairly brief) exchanges with Ron B. Thomson, here and here? A bit tricky, I hope it'll work out (hello Ron). Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about "include": I think you need to be clear in your own mind about the relationship between the 3 wards of Eastwood, and local parish councils, e.g. are they co-terminous? Or are there some that overlap? Perhaps it's unlikely that any would overlap, but if there are any that do I think you'd be right to name them: otherwise, I think it would be best to stick to parish councils within the 3 wards. So, no "include"?

It can be a problem identifying what exactly makes a place; but the thrust of the article seems quite rightly (for all I know) to be that it's the 3 wards that make Eastwood, since the UDC became part of Broxtowe Borough, via Broxtowe District Council. I'd stick to that as a limit, unless you want to say something like "In the 19th century the residents of Eastwood were frequently subjected to elbow tickling by an eminence grise from [[Castle Perilous, Thingummy|Castle Perilous]], in the neighbouring village of Thingummy." Either way, you need to capitalise "parish"! ;o) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What is 'Eastwood', is a very tough question, and one I fought with whilst writing the demography part. First of all, there are two "Broxtowes" - one for local gov, one for national elections. Most of Eastwood is in both, but part is not. On the local side, the 3 wards do pretty well cover what I'd call Eastwood - and what others have called Eastwood - which is why I've used the totals of them for population, etc. (I noted that other 'featured articles' are not at all so careful, and compare various older borders, wards, etc when showing population growth over long periods, e.g. altrincham - but I think that's wrong, because they're comparing apples with oranges. Their demography/population section is very misleading) Now, as regard Parish - there are many, some are tiny, and which constitute 'Eastwood', I would struggle to define. One street to the next, it can change - and whether those people in those 5 houses consider themselves in Eastwood, or Langley Mill, Beauvale, Greasley, Nuttall, New Eastwood, and others - well, you'd have to ask them! So, I think it has to stay with the slight cop-out of 'include'. (And don't even ASK about the way the borders have changed over the years!)

--  Chzz  ►  05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood - believe me I do understand! And I'm sure you're right about weirdness in other articles - the point being that (as you've already realised) in fact there is a good, clear answer somewhere. Usually a way to it can be found in "Youngs", I suppose you'll want vol.2: Youngs, F. A., Local Administrative Units: Northern England, Royal Historical Society, 1991 (unless you already know that!). Youngs isn't perfect, it has lots of hidden errors - it must have been hideous to create - but it's probably the best guide you'll find. Just check for any subsequent changes, and then you'll set an example for everyone else! If you like. ;o)

I'll try to have a little tinker with the Honour page today. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do understand (a bit)...but at the end of the day, there is no formal definition of "Eastwood".

My objection re. Altrincham is that they're comparing population figures over many, many years, by adding various sub-divisions of local council - all of which have changed their borders over the years. The decision as to 'what is Altrincham' and indeed what WAS Altrincham 100 years' ago, basically means the editor could make the stats go whichever way they fancied. Apples and Oranges. But I suspect the same problem exists for all encyclopaedias.

Hence I only showed the pop growth over the timespan when Eastwood UD didn't change. Unfortunately, that entity no longer exists, so the current pop is not quite a fair comparison, but in my opinion it's about as fair as you can get - ie adding the pop of those 3 local council wards. Hey ho.

Do what you like w/ Will the Younger and Honour. I've only had a stab at them. Cheers!

--  Chzz  ►  09:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's entirely up to you whether you want to get involved in the arcane subject of "what makes Eastwood"! Probably a rat's nest. What I was getting at is that there will be a "formal definition of 'Eastwood'", suitable for an encyclopedia, and it would be worth adding: the job is to decide what it is. I'm sure your understanding of what's happened in the article for Altrincham is on the money, even astute. I'll probably have a tinker with the new articles at some point today. And be aware I've done some editing to Eastwood. I'll be interested to see what the family tree looks like. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Help w/ peer review broken template thing

{{helpme}} The article is Eastwood, Nottinghamshire

There's a peer review going on

I've just spent *ages* tidying up the peer review page at Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1 - it was getting all confusing, so I moved stuff into sections to allow inline replies; put a notice explaining what I'd done, and all that.

...but foolishly, I moved the peer review notice doohicky, and I think I've stuffed up the listing on Wikipedia:Peer_review by moving the peer review template thing?

...but I don't want to loose all my careful reorganising 'coz it was tricky to make sure I did it right, keeping all comments, etc etc

Thanks in anticipation of any assistance.--  Chzz  ►  09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Please see this diff for changes made. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha! I see what you did there. Stupid me; 4 "=" not 3 for sections. And don't mess with the template that says "don't mess with this" :-)

Many thanks, sorry to have troubled you  Chzz  ►  10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no problem, it happens. And in case you weren't aware of the reasoning for the number of "="s mandated for Peer Review article pages, it is so the Table of Contents on the main PR page will only show the topic and article name headers, rather than subheaders of the kind you implemented. Just for a cleaner appearance of the TOC. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep kicking ass. Otherwise the article is going to be longer than 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay‎. Yunfeng (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just scared of that moose-head winking at me, in the top-right...

--  Chzz  ►  22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey - yeah, that would be an agreeable move. I just think a cull of the international reaction would rob the article of what is rapidly becoming something of a Wikipedia standard for big events and natural disasters. It has the problem of turning into a long list of flags and platitudes, I grant, but I do not feel isolating events without an international persective sits well. Thanks for your message doktorb _words^deeds 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Were you referring to the "Reactions" paragraph? Your revision of the vandal removed it as well. Sometimes, when you revert edits with intermediate edits, they all get reverted together. But thanks.--haha169 (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the problem w/ removing the vandalism, and had an edit conflict trying to fix it!

{{helpme}} How do I amend the main page/in the news - to update the death toll as per 2008 Sichuan earthquake to reflect new totals

Go to WP:ITN and request a change there. Only administrators can make the change...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know, I've left a comment for you at User talk:Chzz/tree. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

--- --  Chzz  ►  20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) ---

No problem. I saw his/her request on one of the editor assistance pages, and I was intrigued by the religious connotations of the sciatic nerve. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your response to my last comment. Thanks! If you don't mind, since you have changed the text of the nomination, I'd like to remove both my BLP comment and your response from the AfD page. I don't think they are needed for further discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. --  Chzz  ►  23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've removed our BLP exchange for now from this AfD. It can be easily restored later if needed (or we can also put it on the AfD talk page). I did some further digging and I see some of what you are talking about. Some verifiable negative info is not represented in the article and by looking through its history log I see that there was, in effect, some POV pushing involved by some users who remove sourced negative info. This may be a good enough reason to delete the article based on BLP considerations, I'll have to think about this. But I don't believe that notability is a problem here. I put an additional comment on the AfD page regarding some negative info that I found. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I honestly thought my comment of 'alleged self-promotion' would be within remits, but on further consideration I realise it was not, and I am grateful to you for pointing that out to me.

I also am a staunch advocate of human privacy rights.

I would like the article to be removed, because it is subject to such POV-pushing and advertizement. I thought that NOTABLE might result in its removal; whether he is notable or not is of no consequence to me. I do honestly believe he isn't notable, but it was a means to an end.

If it is removed for whatever reasons, then great.

Alternatively, if an NPOV article could be stabilized, great.

Both would be beneficial to the encyclopaedia, therefore a 'good thing'.

--  Chzz  ►  00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, your proposal is nothing short of POV promotion, which makes it asinine and a non-starter. Merger of the PRC page with China will create an inherently biased China page, which degrades Wikipedia in general as a neutral source. Your proposal is not only damaging to China-related articles, but to Wikipedia as a whole. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my overreaction last night. While I do believe that your proposal is not helpful to Wikipedia, I have proposed a solution to this entire debacle over China, and it goes as follows

I hope you can comment on this, and tell me what you think. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive comment. I think fundamentally, we're suggesting the same thing - one "main article" about China, and various sub-pages. As to exactly what is in each, I think will require more deabte and thought; but I do think it's good that we agree it needs sorting out - to clarify the current situation.

Regarding your specific ideas - I think perhaps some parts of the current PRC article might be better in the "main" article - I'm thinking particularly of Geography and climate, Science and technology, Economy, Demographics - and some mention of "Human Rights" - to maintain NPOV. I think that the "main" article should contain sufficient detail to give an overall idea of China, supported by detail in sub-articles, including one on PRC.

I also see so much overlap in, e.g. Geography of China and Geography of the People's Republic of China. I do understand how this has happened, but that's the trouble with having, basically, 2 top-level China articles. If 'Geography of China' - the whole thing - does end up too big, then certainly more detail could be in sub-articles, and one could be on the area called "PRC" perhaps.

I know that this is quite a complex issue, but I'm glad we're getting some ideas.

I hope some other people will contribute their own thoughts.

Incidentally, I am well aware of other/previous discussion regarding a 'move', but I think 'merge' is a more accurate description of what needs to be accomplished to start sorting this out.--  Chzz  ►  22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I should probably have put the above into the merger discussion - I'll copy it there. --  Chzz  ►  22:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to be policing everything I do in Wikipedia (which is great because you obviously know much more about it and have much more experience than I do) I wanted to ask you about the Ken Wood (manufacturer) entry. I had some photos of him in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s hosted on sharenow.com in the external links section. But sharenow.com went through a radical change since then and all the links went dead, so all I would have to do is edit the link for each photo. My question to you is about your use of the word 'unecessary'. If I put them all back, are you just going to take them all off again? I think it's rare to have photos of the different stages of a person's life in Wikipedia - but I did see it here: Mussorgsky in the gallery section. Also, I think a picture of Mr Wood in the main section rather than a picture of the machine he manufactured (which appears in the entry on his company anyway) would be more appropriate, don't you? This entry is still classed as a stub - when does it lose that status? Johnalexwood (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

See above query re. Ken Wood - I removed external links to images hosted on 'share now' - see [2]. I think it's not a suitable use of external linking, to just show pictures of a person, because the file sharing site does not state the copyright status of the pictures, and because it shows advertising. I don't know detailed policy on this, and would welcome any help answering the users query above. --  Chzz  ►  17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, the images would require copyright to upload them to Wikipedia, and the details of copyright for the website can be found here. You may also want to read this for more information about finding images on the Internet to use within Wikipedia. I hope this helps! The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chzz, I noticed you moved John Tudor to John Tudor (baseball player) in order to put a dab page at John Tudor. I just thought I'd let you know that it would be OK to leave the baseball player as is, and just use John Tudor (disambiguation) for the dab page. You could use {{otherpeople}} to make a hatnote on the baseball player to point out the others. Peter May works that way. It's entirely up to you of course, but it would avoid the need to fix all the old links. Nonetheless, thanks for fixing all the old links! --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the Peer Review for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A point of contention has arisen due to the usage of the word flagship as an adjective for the Chapel Hill campus. Carolina has been referred to and appropriately sourced as the flagship of the UNC system in the past, and appears on the pages of such articles as the University of Michigan, a featured article. I am curious as to why you ascertain that flagship is a POV term. Thanks for your time. Fletch81 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. 'flagship' - it struck me as WP:PEACOCK at the time. However, all my comments were meant constructively, and I would be extremely suprised if they were all useful. 'Flagship' I could live with. I commented on everything that struck me, to give as thorough review as I could. Best wishes for the future of your article. --  Chzz  ►  02:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Fletch81 (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Kc shake booty single.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cartell cd.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chzz, I noticed that you recently prodded the article artificial sunlight. I'm not sure if you knew, but that article is coming up soon in our Wikipedia Spotlight queue (two weeks from now), and Dendodge just contested the prod. I agree that the article currently doesn't have much info, but I do think it has potential, and hopefully the Spotlight collaboration will help it come along and be a bigger, more informative article. Just thought I'd let you know about that. :) --JamieS93 16:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I've just posted another reply re Sexwulf, here. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Me again - I've just responded to your latest comments on Sexwulf (gratefully received!) here, and you'll see I've already commented on the Eastwood draft again, here! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

...And again! Another edit of the Sexwulf sandbox here, incorporating almost all of your suggestions - or anyway I think reflecting just about all of them. See what you think. I do like comments like 'What does "d." stand for?" - I try to explain stuff as well as I can, but I'm sure I'm less likely to even think of stuff that I take for granted! Any thoughts on my comments for Eastwood, here? I try to suggest my "IMHO" through things like "...?" at the end of a suggestion. ;o) Nortonius (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quicker than me :-)

Re. Eastwood - I've had a look through your comments, and plan to act on them / reply to you when I can sit down and do it justice.

I'll try and get to look at Sexwulf again v soon; maybe tonight; maybe tomorrow

Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  00:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok to both! And, I've just added an image for Sexwulf, here and here! It's a scan I just made from a photocopy of the manuscript - I found the p/copy in an old file. It's not such good quality as a photo, but that would be expensive, and I think this image is ok...? It also covers the point I've been making about how the modern, printed edition is in error for having "præeunte", when the manuscript has "pereunte" (at the other end of the middle line from "Saxulfi"): it takes the form of a scribal abbreviation, but it's quite unmistakable. Fingers crossed, showing that might even bolster the rest of what I've been saying...? I don't see how anyone could say this image is OR! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to try and clean up that scan a bit? --  Chzz  ►  20:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, if you can be bothered! Beware of the scribal squiggles, denoting the abbreviations, obviously. The squiggles are quite clear. Except the mark under the "l" in "Saxulfi" is not a squiggle, nor is the vertical line under the "e" in "memori(a)e", they should go. The spots and specks are just surface imperfections that show up in a photocopy, so they can safely go. Also, I couldn't avoid including the top of a capital "W" along the bottom left of the image, which could also go. It's right on the bottom edge, under the third "i" in "benignissim(a)e". Great, I'd really appreciate that! :o) Actually even the photocopy is an odd thing to have, though it's a blessing - I'm sure they wouldn't let you make a photocopy of things like that these days, with good reason! I think the Society's librarian even made it for me - cheers! Nortonius (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

have a look at - see if I've chopped off any bits I shouldn't have etc. --  Chzz  ►  20:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no, that's spot on and brilliant, well done! A big thank you, it's a vast improvement. Tell me you did it with some clever software, rather than laboriously working over the image spot by spot?! Nortonius (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A combination of the two; Paint-shop pro; the despeckle filter didn't really work well because of the lettering having dots; so I manually removed the worst of it, then used a couple of effects to remove the bits and increase contrast. --  Chzz  ►  23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(undid indent)

Well I'm relieved you had some useful software to help you, anyway - again, thanks for a wonderful effort. I've updated the image's description to show where it came from, but I suspect the 'licence' template is the wrong one. Never mind, I think it's covered, anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I'm beginning to feel like I'm really bothering you over this Sexwulf business - but I do appreciate your input, and you and Ealdgyth are the only people who have answered my calls! The price you pay for being helpful, I suppose... Anyway, I've just done another edit at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox, and it's my final attempt at clarifying Sexwulf's possible identity, before throwing in the towel. So, I'd be very grateful if you'd have one last look at it: if you and Ealdgyth still see OR - Ealdgyth has said pretty much the same as you, understandably - then I'll give up all thought of it, and post the revision without it. But obviously I'll want to keep mention of the factual error itself. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

D'you know, I hadn't spotted that 'short wikt' link before, so thanks - I could go bonkers with it, if left unrestrained! Tantalising, though, a little edit like that, & no comment on the text! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - generally, it's looking good, but I haven't finished reviewing it yet - I'll get back to you ASAP!  Chzz  ►  19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I know you're busy! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so much 'busy' as 'easily distracted', I think. And I know what it's like to be working on something, asking someone a question, and then wondering why they haven't replied 5 mins later - when you're sitting there wanting desperately to 'get it done'! Believe me, I do understand. And, with that in mind, I shall do Sexwulf right now, and have some kin d of comment for you within the hour (if you're around).

Incidentally, are you familiar with IRC at all? A way of chatting online - slightly more geeky than all those 'MSN messenger / yahoo' type things, but extremely useful for wikipedia - it can sometimes be MUCH easier to discuss articles and things in 'real time', as it were. If you're not familiar with IRC, it's pretty easy to install a free prog to access it, and to join and talk. You'll find lots of wikipedia stuff on there - like, people helping others, and asking eash other questions. Quite a friendly bunch. I only mention it, because, it might be more convenient for us to 'talk' in that manner, about your articles (or mine). Let me know. --  Chzz  ►  02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

'Sexwulf - I've just had another look in the sandbox version, and largely refreshed my memory of looking at it more thoroughly the other day (when I made that small change to wikt). My opinion is, definitely, make it 'live'. It's well constructed; obviously, it could be improved - but that's true of everything. I think it's in no danger of being construed as OR, so I think it is definitely a worthy article. If anything, I think you've erred on the cautious side over the OR problems.

IRC If you're not familiar, I'd be happy to 'show you the ropes'. Basically, it's a very useful tool for chatting to any number of people, 'live'. It's a complex bit of stuff; it existed on the net before the web did, but I hope it's apparent complexity won't put you off. You can get the basics in 5 mins flat, and the easiest way is to demonstrate it on IRC itself. Then we could discuss more easily. You'd perhaps want to know more (eventually), like how to make your own private chat-room where you have control over who can chat, and suchlike. But for now it's pretty simple. Of course, if you'd rather not enter into online discussion with such odd people (!) then no worries. --  Chzz  ►  02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! One minute OR alarm bells are ringing, the next I'm erring on the side of caution, lol! ;o) So, I've gone live with it at Sexwulf (obv.!). I've left a message for Ealdgyth letting her know, as she's yet to comment on the most recent sandbox version. Funny thing, I expected to see a "Contents" box added, but it hasn't happened yet...

I too had thought that there must be a better way of communicating about all this stuff - Sexwulf, Eastwood, family trees etc. - messages do get missed on talk pages, and much gets lost in translation transmission. But, while I'll happily use something like Yahoo Messenger, it looks like I'd have a bit of a mission to get to grips with IRC. Yes, show me the ropes by all means - but it might be hard work! ;o) And, that IRC article you linked said you could get it for any platform, but didn't appear to give any links to download sites...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>

Simple answer: you can get on without any software; we could then discuss this more easily. If you go to [3] and fill in a nickname (e.g. Nortonius) and in the 'channel' box put in chzz, you should be chatting to me (if you do this in the near future, anyway) --  Chzz  ►  10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I fugered it out the box was up for deleteion. Sorry to bother you. Samurai Cerberus (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with that up-for-deletion user box issue on my user page. Appreciated. Manxruler (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Spotlight Newsletter Issue I (May 2008)
Articles The articles this month were: Recording studio (Since the project was disbanded) Kristallnacht (17-22 May)Closed early because it was promoted to GA status Thirty Years' War (22-29 May)	Article improvement We improved: → Kristallnacht → ⇥ Thirty Years' War Changes to the project The project is now active, restarted by Dendodge on 17 May. Articles are now collaborated on for one week, by the decision of Dendodge, as opposed to the day before it was restarted. The project now has a barnstar, thanks to Dendodge. There is now an optional participants list, thanks to Mm40 Dendodge made a sandbox, as the result of an idea by Mm40
Current proposals and discussions We have discussed making the project daily again, nothing has yet been decided
Awards and honours Mm40 was awarded the spotlight barnstar by Dendodge for giving him the idea to restart the project on 20 May. Dendodge was awarded the spotlight barnstar for excellent contributions to Kristallnacht by JamieS93 on 21 May.
Current article: Suggested articles Join us on IRC to help improve the article!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

An early delivery by Denbot (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope you remember me! Well, the polyclonal response article has been greatly overhauled. It was failed in the initial GA nomination, but I have made a few changes. Now, I believe the forte of the article is its intelligibility to the uninitiated readers. I'd like to invite you to the discussion. Since you are unrelated to the field, you might be able to judge with quite greater clarity if the article makes better sense now, and what else could be done.

Thanks in advance.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 13:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I had indeed noticed the work done on the article, making it much more readable. I will certainly take a look at it, in the near future, and post comments. --  Chzz  ►  19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —KetanPanchal^taLK 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for viewing the LaTraia Jones page, the college football coach from Mississippi Valley State University. Yes, it's a stubby article, isn't it? I'm sure that as we keep expanding the article, it will grow and accumulate more links and references.

As a part of Wikipedia's college football project, head coaches (past and present) of notable colleges are considered notable. You can read about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject College Football/Notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I came across the article whilst patrolling new pages, and felt it needed to be flagged. If it's going to be expanded, then great. Thanks for pointing me at the project; I think others would've put it up for speedy deletion as [WP:NOTABLE] immediately, but I merely tagged it in the hope that further info you (or someone) will be able to make it validly encyclopaedic. --  Chzz  ►  21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it! I've made modifications to the article already, including other sources and other incidents.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review changes have been around awhile... is the article better for you?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. LegalBeagle (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I don't think it marks pages as patrolled once they've been speedied. I've gone through and speedied pages, reloaded the page, and none of them were marked as patrolled. I'm actually glad you mentioned it, as I think I will start doing it from now on, just to save other patrollers time. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep - that'd be helpful, to save duplication of efforts! Cheers. --  Chzz  ►  00:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not tagged any articles, I'm the admin that's deleting them. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must've misread the history. I can't now remember which one it was, and I can't find it 'coz I didn't edit it - I just tagged it as patrolled... --  Chzz  ►  00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I declined the speedy deletion as I do not see the nonsense aspect. In fact, it looks like it might make a decent article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, when I saw it it, it was just a blank template. I can see someone is working on it. I'll advise the creator about sandboxes. Thanks. --  Chzz  ►  01:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chzz

Cheers for your understanding (and prompt!) response.

I'd already read the 'notable' requirements and thought my subject qualified. I 'spose there's nothing for it but to provide some links and leave the decision in your hands!

Thanks again.

No Problem - One minor tweak to your tweak. Harry Dresden is a Wizard not the author (Jim Butcher is the author).

--SirGeek CSP (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

oops! --  Chzz  ►  02:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Chzz.

I recently tried to resubmit a appropriately cited (to my mind) version of what was already in place, and was unable to - I understand this is becasue the article is being 'considered' or something similar.

Will the consideration of whether to delete or not be able to take into accout my unsubmitted citations?

(many) Thanks (again).

IrregularWikiContributor (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article has already been speedily deleted. however, I hope that won't put you off creating a new one. If you want my own opinion on a version you create in your sandbox, please leave another message here and I'll happily take a look. Best regards, --  Chzz  ►  04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are additional deleted contributions that proved problematic. Particularly, the user created two hoax articles in an attempt to spam a myspace page, and the second of these followed a final warning by several minutes - enough time that the user would have seen the new messages bar and been aware that they had indeed been warned. The fact that additional contribs over the last year spammed the same myspace page was also a factor. I'll note also that indefinite is not --  Chzz  ►  14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)intended, in this case, to be infinite; if thre is an unblock request and a reasonable intent to edit productively, I am not opposed to an unblock in and on itself. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 10:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Why are the other contribs not logged? Where would I be able to see them? --  Chzz  ►  11:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The only contributions not logged are contributions to deleted articles - in this case, 6 contributions to 5 deleted articles. Four of these articles were speedy deleted because they were about people, but didn't assert notability (and were only there to feature the website - "She can be reached at her website at myspace", and so forth). The fifth was an article entitled "www.myspace.com/(address)", which was also speedy deleted. Unfortunately, only administrators can view deleted contributions, so there's not a real good way to view them unless you are an admin. I can assure you, however, that there is very little of value. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Could you tell me the date/times of those unlogged edits? --  Chzz  ►  12:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The user created Sophie Lewicki on 23 October 2006. They then created April arthurs twice on 24 October 2006, at 1:22 and 1:25. It was deleted both times. Another page was created on 26 April 2007; this one remained for more than an hour before being deleted as linkspam. Finally, two articles were created yesterday. Daniel motta featured the myspace link, and purported to be about the "...sexiest man alive in the New York Times in 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008..."; it was deleted. Sarah Anne Louise Kay was similar, and followed the final warning on the user's talk page. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So, if I understand this correctly;

Ignoring the edits from over a year ago,

The user created a page Daniel motta which was tagged for speedy delete at 00:23, 28 May 2008, so a notice of the speedy appeared on their user page.

They created one more 'bad' article, which was also deleted? But I can't see a notification for it? and then they received a 'Final warning' 00:30, 28 May 2008 (which seems to be the only warning they've had since a previous block over a year ago)

At 01:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC) the message 'Consider yourself reported as a vandal.' was added, and at 01:51 they were blocked.

Is that correct?

 Chzz  ►  14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct, on point. The user received a final warning at 00:30 for the Daniel motta article. The next article, Sarah Anne Louise Kay, was created at 01:47, deleted (by me) at 01:49, and I blocked at 01:50. I didn't scroll down to the correct duration for the block (indefinite), so accidentally blocked for 55 hours. I unblocked and re-blocked immediately, as the block log indicates. The presumption is that, if a user has received a final warning and disregards it, and there has been sufficient time between the warning and next edit for the warning to have been seen, then the user is intent on further disrupting the project. Final warnings very specifically highlight that blocks may be issued for disruption for this reason - that is the whole point. Warnings exist for especially egregious vandalism (see {{uw-vand4im}}) where the template serves as the first and only warning. It does not work the other way, though - I will rarely if ever block a user who has not had a final warning. While the incidents before this year were indeed a long time ago, the behavior is the same, and the user was warned then for edits that were repeated yesterday. As a result, given that the user had been warned in the past, had been recently warned with a final warning, and that the user continued to post nonsense articles with linkspam anyway, I elected to block. As noted, the indefinite duration is intended not to be infinite, but to ensure that the user remains blocked until they 1) discuss their problematic behavior, and 2) express a sincere (or apparently sincere) desire to edit in a manner consistent with policy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> Thank you for your candor.

So, you consider 2 relatively mild incidents of vandalism within 1 calender year to constitute persistant vandelism and/or spamming (as in WP:BLOCKED ? --  Chzz  ►  17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Had there been productive edits, even if the ratio was one good edit to one bad, I concur that it may have been more of a borderline case. Unfortunately, the reality is that every one of the editor's 12 contributions, deleted or otherwise, was either linkspam (as with this edit or this edit), content blanking (as with this edit), or unsourced and largely non-factual articles as discussed above. The pattern has the appearance of persistent, long-term vandalism, and I believe it to be consistent with the blocking policy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell, I had a change of heart. The original speedy was a knee jerk reaction to the nature of the subject matter. LittleOldMe (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I noticed. I must admit, I was anticipating a speedy, and having a litte bet with myself how long before it got tagged. Under a minute! not bad! --  Chzz  ►  11:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Just seemed a sensible redirect to me and as you rightly pointed out there was nothing in the article as it stood that wasn't in the main one. Cheers! Pedro :  Chat  12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I might not have blocked that user indefinitely, but the fact is that on top of the repeatedly recreating deleted articles thing, the username is an apparently random and confusing string of characters, as PMDrive noted in his AIV report (sorry, no diff, I don't have time to look it up right now). That by itself is not a reason for a block anymore, but per common practice at UAA a borderline username plus bad behavior gets you a block. Yes, I think they were trying to contribute something, but they just got off to too bad a start. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What is UAA?

Is there any policy to back up the decision?

Why is Sdfrgthyjuiklop; a 'bad name'? Compared to, for example, 'PMDrive1061'?

--  Chzz  ►  14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• The bit about the dialect looks out of place there, didn’t notice that before - I think it looked ok there when it was between place-name etymology & DB - maybe put it with modern stuff, as it’s a modern ref?
• Need to avoid less than scholarly things like “even more”. How about "There is some evidence to suggest that the land around Eastwood (you do have to use it sometimes!) was occupied in the Middle and Late Palaeolithic periods. Stronger indications of later settlement include fragments of...", with a comma before “now preserved...”? Then run on to the next sentence in the same para - otherwise the “It” in “It remained a small village ...” looks a bit of an orphan, & it would avoid saying “Eastwood” again...
• Full stop after “Erewash Canal”.
• I wouldn't even put a hyphen in "man made"...!
• Ah - about the Act - I remember the actual source of the cause+effect problem now... There are a lot of ideas swirling around in this short para, which need tying down. Maybe put "Factories were built to accommodate these new industries, land becoming available for them as the rural population moved to urban areas. This industrialisation of the countryside was restricted after the belated introduction to Nottinghamshire of the Enclosure Act, in the early 19th century.[3]" It isolates the causes & effects, and links them chronologically... As it is, it really does befuddle me...
• How about "In a local manifestation of this period of upheaval, marchers of the Pentrich Revolution of 1817 passed through the town and were met by soldiers at Giltbrook: the residents of Eastwood boarded up their houses and hid in the woods." And, a citation for that? Eastwood isn't mentioned at Pentrich, Derbyshire...

All for now, more to come... Later! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just saved a trial edit of all this at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/EastwoodHistorySandbox, when you're ready. Also I've got IRC open, if you want to chat about it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On 30 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tama (cat), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jules rimet.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Trixt (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Re. above; it's cc aatrib; I said so, I gave the attrib. What else do I do?  Chzz  ►  02:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I took care of it. In the future, add the link to the page where you got the image from, like I just did. Thanks, --Rory096 02:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not upload images of Goatse until (if ever) there is a consensus for an image to be included in the article. If you do so again, you will be blocked. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Could you please give me any policy reason for your threat? --  Chzz  ►  05:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on IRC, administrators see someone uploading Goatse and they tend to automatically think they're out to deface Wikipedia. Seeing as you claimed to try to include it in the proper context, the block isn't exactly warranted. I'm willing to see you unblocked, but you can't upload Goatse or similar images. MessedRocker (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this went onto *gasp* IRC, where I do think chzz has been acting upset, but blocked users frequently do. After a lengthy discussion with the guy, he seems to understand the reasoning behind the block better, and has agreed to try to stay away from this trouble spot for a time. In particular, I do appreciate a new contributor who seems to be acting in good faith, to do what they believe is right, even if that pits them against admins from time to time; I just hope things will mellow out as Chzz becomes more accustomed to the project's ways and norms. To Chzz, I especially recommend discussion over reverting when the going gets tough. To admins who might find this unblock unusual, I can at least say I'm sticking my neck out for someone I hope will continue to be a contributor to our encyclopedia and our community. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean the one for Liberamente? Itzjustdrama ^(drama?) 02:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I did, but seems fine now. --  Chzz  ►  02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to point out that Chad Larson is quite a real person, and even though there are no links or historical information, everything is accurate. I don't see why it should be deleted. Would you please consider this? Thanks : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbrendanium13 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with ~~~~

Please start a new section when you comment on people's talk pages

Re. Chad Larson - I will look into it.

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  05:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chzz,

Thank you! And I apologize for the faux-paws, as you've noticed, I'm a bit new here. :/

Kingbrendanium13 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi to you too.

I asked an admin to check your article, and they've now added a comment on your own talk page. I hope that clarifies it for you?

I couldn't look at the article myself; I'm not an admin, and hence can't see something that had been deleted. So I asked an admin to check it for me.

I hope this makes sense, and I sincerely hope it won't put you off contributing.

Feel free to ask anything you like,

Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  05:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. What exactly do you feel needs to be cleaned up about this page? I appreciate that it has little in the way of an introduction for people who aren't familiar with the subject matter, but if you take a look at some other pharmacology stubs then you will see that the format of the page is quite consistent with standard practice. Furthermore it seems somewhat unnecessary to split the content into sections under subheadings when there is only 7 lines of material. This page is a stub, for other people to add content to later, and I don't see what was wrong with how it looked without those tags on, the pharm-stub tag should be sufficient to attract the attention of a suitably qualified contributor at some point. However if you have constructive suggestions for how it could be improved then I'll be happy to make some changes.Meodipt (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, I apologise. I've been patroling new articles for the past many hours, carefully trying to tag them constructively and appropriately. Upon checking them over, quite a lot of the articles had had their tags removed without any change to the page itself. In every case except yours, there was no justification in the users doing so.

I've now removed the tags on your article myself.

The thing that struck me about the article was largely the number of ? in the table. It looks like a 'work in progress', but I do appreciate that they represent placeholders for future edits.

Perhaps it's an accepted convention in such articles to have all those ?s. Normally (ie in other articles, e.g. a movie or a biography info-box), I wouldn't like to see ?'s because it makes the page look rather half-hearted and unencyclopaedic.

As I didn't know the subject, I tagged it with the 'expert required' - i.e. I hoped someone with more knowledge than myself would be able to look at the article and perhaps fill in the blanks.

I hope this makes sense, and many thanks for your courteous manner.

--  Chzz  ►  10:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I noticed from your edits that obscure pharmacology articles aren't really the area you specialise in! I've asked one of the pharmacology wikiproject admins to take a look at the page anyway, so he can reword it a bit to make it easier for a general audience to understand if he feels that would be appropriate.Meodipt (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. It would be nice if the smaller articles within that Cholinergics family could have just a little 'noddy introduction' - like the Nicotine one does. I realise, of course, that the nicotine is much easier to define in that way, and a much more substantial piece. But a short plain intro would help the others a lot.

Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  10:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chzz. Unfortunately, many chemicals and drugs have simply not been studied well enough for all the fields in {{Drugbox}} to be filled in—hence the sequence of question marks :) This also precludes many articles having a well-developed introduction, and makes pharmacology and chemistry stubs more jargon-filled than those on other subjects. I've made some minor changes to the article, and I hope you'll find it more lay-friendly. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you've been busy! I'm sort of around for chat, if you want to catch up on it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again !

Is this how I send messages ?

other ?'s

1) Ok I can remove the Czech translations .. ? all ( 95%) the history is in Czech so how can one verify if they can not see the translation ?

2) you ? resources .. did you check them .. their are 100 of pages that confirm my notes.. try Google search z Vlašime

3) what should I do to address -

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since June 2008.

It may be confusing or unclear for some readers. Tagged since June 2008.

It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Tagged since June 2008.

It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Tagged since June 2008.

thanks ! .. tj@jankovsky.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlasime (talk • contribs) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again!

Yes, it's fine to leave messages here - but please remember to 'sign' your posts by putting in ~~~~ at the end.

I will try to answer your questions.

You can cite references to foreign language sites - that's fine. So you don't need to include all the text. If a reader wants to check the citation, it's up to them to get it translated.

I questioned the references - they need to be listed, so that everything you say is backed up with reference links. I shouldn't need to google to check facts; the article should include references that verify all the facts.

So - removing the non-English text, and giving references to sources, will solve the 'It needs sources or references' and 'It may be confusing or unclear for some readers'.

The 'It may need to be wikified' means that some of the key words in the article should be wikilinked to other articles, where it is sensible to do so.

'general cleanup' just means tidying up extra spaces, spelling, grammar and that kind of thing.

So - if you can remove the non-English, and cite sources using <ref>, that will fix most of the problems.

I hope this helps,

I will try to help more if I can,

--  Chzz  ►  13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello ... and thanks for the reply ! I will try to make the changes you recomend .. tjVlasime (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why there is an expand tag at the top of the article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was rather hoping someone might help expand it! --  Chzz  ►  13:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the article need to be expanded you believe. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

Well, since placing that tag, I have done a lot to expand and, hopefully, improve the article. I am still working on many areas. Parts that I feel require futher work, at present, include demographics - others have pointed out that some interesting stat comparison with stats from the area would be good, landmarks, religious sites, education, famous people (all could be expanded, tidied up, etc); the refs need sorting out somewhat; future plans could probably use expansion; a few pictures would be good - especially of the blue line trail and the war memorial (I have requested one of the latter from a web source); etc.

Of course, any article can always be improved. When I put the tag on, I was very new to WP and - perhaps naively - hoped it might attract others to help make this a better article.

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  20:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello .. I think I cleaned up the pages .. are they Ok ? thanks again ! .. tj Vlasime (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope I don't get blocked for that, but administrators have now found out that I am a sockpuppet of bsbroy and an indefinate block is likely to proceed. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again!

Thanks for doing all that work to clean the articles. I'l like to help a little if I can; I think the English needs a bit of work, but I need to check a few things before I can help;

I agree I need to do more work ! .. but that was my first pass and had to make / delete information plus learn the system.

If you can answer these questions, I'd be happy to improve the English in the articles.

(1) re. z Vlašime - Is this a 'family name'? Which 'area' does it come from - I know that areas have changed so much in that part of the world; is it from the Carolingian Empire perhaps?

z Vlašime is both a family name and a title ie Lord / Baron of Vlasim. Vlasim is also a city in Czech Republic that was founded by my family in the year 1303.

The family is one of the oldest in Europe with history going back to the late 700's. Over the years are several sub-families each having own name / title and Coat of Arms. The first COA's is the Black Eagle .. that of Kaiser Charlemagne .. same COA's as many Royalty in Europe.

(2) Re. the references - which language are they in?

99 % of the history is in Czech and also German or old Latin .. that was the reason I was going to document in both Czech and English so that one could easily verify. But there are 100's of documents on the family. The history and names from the late 1200's to date are well known.

(3) Jan Očko z Vlašime, Paul z Vlasime and Vanek z Jenstejna - do you have dates for when they were born and died?

Jan born 1298 - died 1380 was the first Cardinal of Prague, Paul about 1305 - 1375 and Vanek about 1380-1446

(4) Jan Očko z Vlašime - in the title of the page, the last 'e' does not have an accent mark, but within the article it's spelt Jan Očko z Vlašimě - which is correct?

Očko z Vlašime is the best listing .. but you will also find the name listed as z Vlasimi, z Wlassimie, von Vlasim, von Wlaschim .. sometimes with and without accent marks.

thanks again ! Vlasime (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

OK, well, I hope my edits are useful. I know that I might not be getting the text quite right, but I hope the way I've edited will help you to see how to improve this, and the other articles. Please do change and correct any of the parts I've put in.

Regarding the above;

1. I've added the information, and put in a link to Vlašim. You might also wish to edit that article, and add a note about the foundation with a link back to your own article.

Also, I think the information about Kaiser Charlemagne is interesting, and it would be good to add that to the section about 'coat of arms'.

2. OK - the only reason I asked was, I wanted to make sure I was correct in putting (Czech) on the end of the citations. If links aren't in English, it's necessary to put the language on the end. But note that it's perfectly OK to cite references that are in foreign languages - and not at all necessary to include any of your translation work in the article itself.

3. OK, I've just added the dates to Jan Očko z Vlašime, and I wikilinked to Czechs and Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor. Again, I hope this gives you an example of how to improve the other articles for yourself. (Perhaps you could add dates on Paul z Vlasime and Vanek z Jenstejna).

4. OK, I changed the spelling in bold, on the page, to "Jan Očko z Vlašime" because it should be the same as the article name. I asked because, if the article name was wrong, it would need a 'move' to rename the article itself - but in this case, that's not necessary. You could certainly add information about other variant spellings to the article itself.

I hope all of this is useful;

Regards,

--  Chzz  ►  00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again ! ..

I have image of Coat of Arms that I would like to add to the z Vlasime article .. how do I do it ? .. I've tried but have not been able .. these programs are very hard to use and understand !

Thanks again for the changes you made .. they look Ok to me ! Vlasime (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's actually really easy - the problems always come with copyright issues.

See Wikipedia:Uploading images#How to upload for instructions.

Good luck! --  Chzz  ►  02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok .. I did that and have the two COA's uploaded under user vlasime .. but how do I move them from there to the z Vlasime article ?Vlasime (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You add a bit in the article, for example, [[Image:Coat of Arms the Black Eagle.jpg|thumb|left]] - that will result in the image displayed as it is here. Please have a look through the information in the 'welcome' section on your talk page to learn more about editing on wikipedia.

Regards, --  Chzz  ►  03:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your post, on my talk page. Unschool (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it wrong to compliment an attractive photograph? I think that's a really striking grasshopper. Is talking about the aesthetics of pix considered a waste of Wikipedia space? Just curious. jengod (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Awesome. Thanks man, no worries at all. Best, jengod (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally started an ARC article, but it needs A LOT of work. Please take a gander. Thanks.

--Mak Allen (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good for a start-off. Lots could be added, about the 'official' name of the card, the fact that it is a substitute for carrying your passport, that you can get one before 90 days it you want, that you have to give it up if you leave the country and get another upon return (even if you pop to Korea for a vsa run, aargh), maybe a bit more about the procedure (photo, fee; wait 2 weeks go back and collect it).

Of course, I don't have any citations for any of this!

And...as for slacker...hmm - check my contrib history!

Cheers, let me know if I can do any more specifics, and I will try to make time!

--  Chzz  ►  08:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just joking about the slacker bit. I was the one who took a month to get a round tuit.

I copied and pasted most of what you wrote above to the ARC discussion page. I am not too fussed about improving the ARC page, but I needed a place to put stuff that was not appropriate for the alias page, and the terms on the alias page needed explaining. If you have any more thoughts, or a response to this, could you please reply on the discussion pages? Thanks again.--Mak Allen (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to chat more about that, I'll gladly go to IRC & give you my IM ID again, in case you lost it - just so's you know I'm not being anti-social! Leave a message on my talk page if you want. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! been a bit busy with other stuff. I'm on IRC now; on ##zorch - I'll be there for a short while. Cheers,--  Chzz  ►  10:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chzz. Sorry about that- my mistake. I will remove it. Cheers Northmetpit (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What did I do? 69lolz4 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, thankis for your hard work CSD tagging. However, can you please be more careful and make sure you are not tagging good articles that have been vandalized as CSD material such as you did here. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is wrong, take it to AFD, or some other area for attention. Erm is part of the infobox on the bottom of the screen, as well has apparently valid information. If it is wrong, you are welcome to be bold and move it, or do something else. However, it appears to be an article that has been around for a while and did not appear to be CSD material. Even more, the CSD tag was added directly after a series of vandalistic edits. I have had that happen several times recently where somebody will copy a copyvio over a good article, and have it get tagged for CSD. I always review this but it makes it easier if the CSD tagger looks carefully before slapping a CSD tag on. Thanks again for your hard work. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find enough content for 1 or 2 paragraphs and I don't know how to merge or what main article to merge to. So it will have to be deleted, which template should I use Template:Db-a1 or Template:Db-g7. Also why is'nt there an Attribution Template for Smith's Bible Dictionary which in the public domain? Kathleen.wright5 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look around on the internet, and I agree there's probably not enough material to create an article. I don't know the subject area, so I can't really suggest where else the info would fit - I don't suppose it would warrant a mention in the synopsis of Book of Ezra (and I note that, in the synopsis, there are other, perhaps more significant characters like Haggai, Zechariah, Zerubbabel and Jeshua ben Jozadak who don't appear to have an article to themselves?)

Regarding the template, I have absolutely no idea, sorry; I've never used templates that cite specific sources for anything; I've always cited a published volume etc.

Regarding deletion, I would suggest Template:Db-g7 would be more appropriate, although either would do.

Sorry I couldn't help more, --  Chzz  ►  00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, thanks for putting up the tag. I'd just slapped something up in response to a request from some of my notes - but of course as you made me realise, they're a bit unkempt for general viewing and needed some better explanation. All the best, Wikidea 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Songs or albums or recordings or other creative works cant be deleted via speedy as non notable, per WP:CSD#A7/.DGG (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? --  Chzz  ►  04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

DGG was likely referring to They'll Know We Are Christians. I have changed or removed a few of the speedy tags as well, because the articles did not fit the criteria. I think you need to be a little more careful when tagging, and perhaps review the criteria at WP:CSD. Cheers Kevin (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me which articles so I can work out where I went wrong, thanks. --  Chzz  ►  04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (I will look at the one you mentioned) --  Chzz  ►  04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sonnax - you tagged db-bio, which does not apply to companies. You should use db-corp instead.
• Ken Rogers - the article stated ...was awarded a Billboard (magazine) MUSIC AWARDS in 1994..., which is an assertion of notability.
• Emerging Capital Partners - same as for Sonnax.
• Carrier (software) - there is no speedy deletion criteria for software.
• Lúcio Cardoso - this was tagged for no context. It does have enough context to know what it is about - Lúcio Cardoso is a Brazilian writer (condensed slightly).
• The Perfect Melody: Platium Status Edition - there is no speedy deletion criteria for an album.

Some of these, particularly where the wrong form of WP:CSD#A7 is picked may not be a problem for the deleting admin, but they don't help the author to know what is wrong with their article. Does this help? Kevin (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. They'll Know We Are Christians - if that was the article - twinkle, under 'unremarkable band', it says "Article is about a band, singer, musician or musical ensemble that does not asset the importance or significance of the subject". That looks appropriate to me. In WP:CSD it says "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." - again, that seems appropriate. Please explain why you don't think it is? --  Chzz  ►  04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:DGG untagged that one, but I would have done the same. A song is neither a real person, organisation, band club or a company. Kevin (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't help, no, but don't worry about it. I'm gonna stop checking any new pages. I get different answers from different admins; everyone has their own ideas about what the criteria represent - so I give up on it.

Thanks for your time, --  Chzz  ►  04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want you to give up - you are doing good work, and I'm happy to spend more time helping. Perhaps if you pick one example and explain why you feel it fits the criteria in a bit more detail, and we can go from there. Kevin (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your intentions, but I've decided; I don't want to contribute further to WP. I'm sick and tired of the administrative bullshit. No fault of yours, I know.

Cheers,

My last sig > --  Chzz  ►  05:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Chzz, that would be terrible! I sympathise completely, and maybe I just haven't been driven to feel quite the way you do yet, but you've done some great stuff! Nil carborundum! Don't let the bastards grind you down! Just avoid the temptation to meet the obvious idiots head on...? Let them play their stupid political games - meanwhile, the rest of us know we're doing the real work, and can ignore their online mutual masturbations! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder about the Lúcio Cardoso page. I have now made a first attempt to expand it and I hope you like it. Yours, Eve.b.i (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will be working more on the page over the next few days. If you do not mind, I will let you know when I think it is ready for another look. Thanks again for your help! 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you. I will change the reference template I use to add new data. You didn't make a mistake, at that time the language was still officially called Serbo-Croatian. I do have a question for you: how can I save a page onto my user page? I created an article which is likely going to be deleted, but I would like to keep it as a sub-page or something like that. Thanks again. PajaBG (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Chzz will forgive me if I step in here, as the questions are piling up...? Chzz has signed off as a WP editor, as per the preceding section "Songs" (q.v.; note also that Chzz has, unusually, been inactive since the early hours of this morning). Personally, I hope for a change of heart.

I can't comment on the questions that have been added here today, except to suggest that PajaBG clicks on the following link, makes the required edit, and then saves the page (thus creating a personal Sandbox): User:PajaBG/Sandbox (done). Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I improved the article a bit so that it wouldn't be deleted. Tell me about it later.

User:Lususromulus

I'm flattered you like my design, but could you at least show some originality and choose a different colour scheme and symbol please! I've been using the same theme for the last two years ever since I became a Wikipedia:Administrator, so it's a bit of a personal trademark. = P --  Netsnipe  ►  14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've a feeling your design is safe - for now, anyway - Chzz signed off as an editor a week or more ago, and hasn't been active since - see my comment above, under the section "All"! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Galonga (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

this is my 1 cent contribution to the possible deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kviar

problem is the company is brazilian, and therefore not known by the administrators (understandably)

however, some of the sources cited (FOLHA DE SÂO PAULO for example) are VERY known newspapers in Brazil

that means that the company DOES have notability

I´d suggest just editing maybe some parts like "At the end of 2007 the company opened its first physical store and started a franchise system", which is kinda pointless

well, there you go: hope it was useful :)

As I said on the discussion-page of this articles, there are mechanisms to verify the article. In my opinion these are sufficient, and I do not see why there should be more references. By the way, the proposal-for-deletion-tag was already removed at May 5th, so I do not understand why you sent me your message at June 3rd.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I am happy to inform that the article has been promoted to the GA status. By the way, I have renamed it as Polyclonal B cell response as I thought that sounded more appropriate.

Thanks for the support, suggestions, effort and interest.

Bye. Take care.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 08:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award you for the support, suggestions in promoting Polyclonal B cell response to the good article-status, and providing valuable guidance in using IRC. Enjoy! —KetanPanchaltaLK 11:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Image:Gregg doyell.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Gregg doyell.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Melesse (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company, I cleaned it today and removed your article issues tags. Hopefully I answered your questions. Best O Fortuna (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you voted a while ago in favour of some mention of Glitch City in the Pokemon Red/Blue article. Unfortunately, despite admin saying a Glitch section would be ok, the main editor of the page is turning it into a war, constantly deleting it despite sources and Pokemon-culture relevance. If you have an interest in keeping this kind of interesting information in wikipedia, please come over to Pokemone Red and Blue and help get the small Glitches section reinstated. Regards, MKULTRA333 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)