User talk:Ched/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

This page is where I mostly ask for help while I'm getting started. It's where I get told when I mess up too, but I try to keep that to a minimum. Feel free to leave any notes, suggestions, complaints, or anything else. I'll respond to almost anything reasonable, and maybe stupidity if it's funny enough.

Right and Wrong

Do I need to put references on my User page? Is there a live chat on Wikipedia to talk to experienced editors?

Thank You Ched

{{helpme}} --Ched Davis (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, nope, you don't need references on your userpage. You may put any information you like on your userpage, as long as it doesn't violate your privacy. In answer to your second question, there are the Wikipedia IRC channels which may also be helpful.

Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ched Davis (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC) (sent thx to user talk page)

How to fix pictures used for TV shows and movies

{{help me}} I am trying help add to the Star Trek Voyager episodes. on the talk pages, I see the warning thing about fair use regarding a screen shot of an episode. when I click on the link ... it takes me to a page with the picture. there is an explanation for why it's called fair use. I've read a bunch of the links and fair use stuff. what still has to be done?

if it is ok, how do I add the done check box? (although I guess I can find that one myself) does anything else need to be done, if so, is there anything I can do? thanks, Ched

Ched Davis (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done sent thx to user talk page: Ched Davis (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

12/21/2008 Questions

{{helpme}}

note: I have tried to do these things or find these things myself first before I asked for help, and I don't expect any one person to be able to answer all the questions, but I do appreciate the help. Also ... is it better to get the IRC figured out for these types of questions?

  • Whether or not you use IRC is a personal choice. I've never logged on to it, but I know plenty of people who find that it is helpful in answering quick questions. I'm going to remove the "help-me" template as you seem ot have had your questions answered. Protonk (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC) said thx ...  Done

page tags

do the tags get posted on the article page ... or the talk page? (I've seen some of both, but which is right)? example: page tags

The tags you pointed to should be added to the article, either on the top of the page or below the relevant ==Heading== Unpopular Opinion (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your time, have a great holiday! Ched Davis (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done

change template

how do I change or discuss the change for the Star Trek info template? I tried adding a pipe and corresponding info, but it didn't change display. I also did a search for Infobox Star Trek Episode, but couldn't find the template. example:

{{Infobox Star Trek episode | name = Scientific Method | image = [[Image:Scientific Method.jpg|270px|]] | series = VOY | ep_num = 75 | prod_num = 175 | date = [[October 29]], [[1997]] | writer = [[Sherry Klein]]<br />[[Harry Kloor|Harry 'Doc' Kloor]]<br />[[Lisa Klink]] | director = [[David Livingston (director)|David Livingston]] | guest = [[Rosemary Forsyth]] as Alzen<br />[[Annette Helde]] as Takar | stardate = 51244.3 | year = 2374 | prev = [[The Raven (Voyager episode)|The Raven]] | next = [[Year of Hell (Voyager episode)|Year of Hell, part I]] }}

Its easy to find the template - just Google it. The template you are talking about is probably this one: Template:Infobox Star Trek episode. Use its associated Talk page to discuss changes. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, brain fart I guess ... I was searching inside wikipedia, should have thought of that. Thank you again, hope I did the talkback thing right.

 DoneChed Davis (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

add forms to edit buttons

is there any way to get the DVD, and episode templates into my ref and cite buttons on my edit bar? where can this be discussed? Sorry, but I've only been at this for a month, and the ref/cite stuff is a little more involved than standard formatting, so the "fill in the blanks" and buttons are quicker for me at the moment. example:

  • Cite Episode
  • Cite Video
    • I use User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar. There are installation instructions there. It doesn't have all of the template on it but I've used it more than almost any other "add on". Also, if you are worried about getting the particulars of citations down before contributing, don't! :) Just make sure you are clearly attributing information (even parenthetical citations and a works cited at the bottom are ok) and start editing. Protonk (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
said thx on user page ...  Done

Television episodes, etc

Hi Ched, just wanted to drop you a line regarding television episodes and their place on Wikipedia. I read your page, and the wiki subpage, and wanted to comment on the "community members prefering not to have individual shows listed" line. It really isn't a matter of not wanting individual shows...rather, it was decided a year ago or so that if television episodes were to have articles here, they needed to show real-world relevance and notability (along with reliable citations, as that is Wikipedia's policy) rather than just giving an episode summary, bits of trivia, and personal observations about the show in question. Anything, episode, character, etc, that displays that relevance and notability is welcome on the website. As Sgeureka has mentioned, there are several SG episode articles that are considered amongst the best articles on the site..."200" is a Featured Article, four are Good Articles, and one more is being proposed for GA status. If you want to write episode articles (for any series), use those as guidelines.

I strongly recommend you continue with your editing...don't be discouraged because this one venture didn't work out (I can't tell you how many times my edits were undone or reworked when I first started here...that's just how we learn!). Take it slow; start with smaller edits across a variety of articles and topics to get the feel for things, and work your way up as you learn more about Wiki operations. I'm more than happy to help out with any questions or problems you may have, and many others are willing to do the same (as you've learned by using the {{help me}} template). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL @ "so I KNOW you ain't in it for the money"...isn't that the truth!! Good to hear from another emergency services person. The basics of my user page was built by another editor who is no longer here...feel free to copy any code you want, from my page or anyone elses...that is the beauty of an open project like this :D Also, don't worry about "staying off the grid"...interact and diversify! It will make your stay on the site far more enjoyable and personally rewarding than if you keep to the shadows. Myself, for example...fully 20% of my edits have been to article discussion and user talk pages. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Communication

Hey, just read the Communication subpage you created, and I just wanted to say it is absolutely fantastic! Very appropriate and truly accurate. I really hope others (both new here and "old-timers") will find and read that essay. If nothing similar exists in terms of Wiki essays (and I don't immediately see anything), I may have to get you to prettify it, move it to the Wikipedia: space and place it in Category:Wikipedia essays. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, any time. You've obviously got brains and drive, and that is very welcome around here. Before tucking it into the main essays category, it should probably be looked at by a variety of others to pull additional opinions. Do you use IRC? Wikipedia editors/admins/lurkers have a strong presence on Freenode...you can get a lot of second and third opinions there. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha, I wouldn't know how to change those piston rings with a NAPA manual, step-by-step instructions, and ten certified mechanics yelling at me. I haven't even gotten into the mailing lists, and I've had an account since 2004!
As for alignment, there is no specific wiki mark-up for left, center or right, and for good reason...we want to keep prose naturally aligned unless there is a critical reason otherwise. In fact, prose should generally avoid most formatting, save for bolding, italics, wikilinks and some templates. Strive for simplicity...not only in display, but in code as well so others can easily edit. Only two reasons come to mind when text should be centred in the normal prose: long quotes, in which case use the {{cquote}} template which will auto-format everything for you; and tables, which can be manipulated in various ways (see WP:TABLE). Wikipedia respects HTML (including <center> and CSS, and is very easily malleable, as Help:Wikitext examples shows (lots of good stuff there). CSS is, in fact, heavily used in tables, templates, and many other locations...even more than normal HTML.
Okay, that was way more than you asked for, sorry. And please forgive me if it sounds like I'm talking down to you or covering ground you are already familiar with. There are so many things I could discuss, from how to handle regional spelling differences to a warning to AVOID AT ALL COST the discussions at WP:MOSNUM (lulz). Wikipedia is tremendously complex, and approximates a living thing more and more each day. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Say, I can reduce that paranoia re: wiki admins :D Just go to User:Ched Davis/monobook.js, and add the following lines to that page:
// Admin name highlighter; [[User:Ais523/adminrights.js]]
importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights.js');
Once you save the page, you'll need to do a hard refresh, as it mentions at the top of the saved page. Now, anywhere a user name appears, whether in a signature, or edit history page, etc, the name will be highlighted in a bright blue box. There's a vast number of useful scripts and tools that make editing easier...check out your My Preferences page, and click on the Gadgets tab to see a handful of the most used ones. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

re: AVG vs. Avira

I speak lowly of AVG mostly due to it's poor detection rate. Avira's one isn't exactly exemplary either, but from practical experience working with malware removal I find that Avira is the best free antivirus to reccomend. Comodo I find to be a good choice of firewall simply because it does what it says on the tin. It doesn't require a ton of resources (as with Avira), and whilst it is very vocal about what is going on and wants input quite regularly, I find this to be a positive thing, not a negative aspect. I agree that Avira is a pain to remove (not tried with Comodo yet), but if someone wants to get it done it can be achieved in a relatively short period of time with various tools which can automate the job. I guess ease of use isn't really a factor in my judgments. I hope this makes sense, and all the best for the holiday season to you and your family and friends too. :) — neuro(talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!
Christmas medley
A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Ched, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page.
Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :(
— neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Haha, it's fine, if you want to add me on Trillian I am (removed to protect user ID) but I don't go on it as often as I used to. As for the little one, it's not mine - I am a romantic of the 'hopeless' variety. ;) — neuro(talk) 01:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Just realised, you asked about the 'online' thing, I use this. — neuro(talk) 10:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear. Did you get anything nice? — neuro(talk) 14:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, aforementioned love interest baked me a cake, which was nice. I also got a new GPU - one of the ATI HD series, forget which. :) — neuro(talk) 16:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles
A cat to ease all of your troubles
 Happy New Year!
Hey there, Ched! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re;Joyride

Hi Ched - basically if the article is very short, you add a stub template at the bottom of the article (either the plain {{stub}} or one of the more precise ones - if you simply add {{stub}}, a stub-sorter will change it to a more precise one soon enough, but if you can even make it a slightly more precise one it'll save work later). Usually if it's that short, then it'll be pretty obvious the sort of thing that the article needs.

If it's a longer article but still needs work, and you're less sure that it's easy to see what still needs attention, add an expand template at the top instead, and put details on the talk page. The difference between "short" and "longer" is pretty arbitrary and depends a lot on what the subject is (I've got a short essay on that at User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs), but if it's more than a couple of screens-full of information, it's usually beyond being a stub. Hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia - keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 01:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

M Keaton

Hi there. It doesn't matter; an article about M Keaton should be entitled M Keaton, not as Author M Keaton, and the article itself has since vanished. Not at my hand. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI M Keaton is the legal name of the author in question. His checks are made out to M Keaton, his conference appearances are billed as M Keaton, and his biographies state same. Wikipedia is not the place to out people who have an interest in keeping their online identities consistent with their professional pen names. Moving the article sent up red flags all over his fan base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.35.21 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replied here since there is no sig, or corresponding talk for the IP. Ched (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tags page

Hello Ched,

I removed the hangon template from User:Ched Davis/tags. Having the actual template on your subpage put the page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which is used to patrol the category. The other maintenance templates (wikify, unsourced etc) will also put your page in the relevant category pages, though those categories aren't dealt with as regularly.--Kubigula (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries and no harm done. Ironically, I made a similar mistake to put this page into CSD too.
Don't sweat the policies and guidelines too much - you eventually learn them as you go along. There are a lot of them, and certainly no expectation that newer users need to learn them all - in fact, we have keystone principles that you should be bold (WP:Bold) and worry less about the rules than simply about improving the encyclopedia (WP:IAR). Kinda funny if you think about it - we have so many policies and guidelines that we need more pages to tell you not to worry too much about them.
To actually answer your question, Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is a good page that actually shows how the article cleanup templates look. /Cleanup is part of the larger Wikipedia:Template messages page that links to all the various template collections.
Feel free to ask me if you ever have other questions - I'm happy to help, though I can't always promise the right answer.--Kubigula (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

I've been on here about 4 years now, and I've had my share of outraged moments, but I've decided that there are better ways to handle things. I try to keep a sense of humor, and have learned to work within the rules to deal with POV-pushers and vandals, rather than edit-warring with them, which is a waste of time and emotional energy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: just a note

Somehow I managed to not respond to your message on my talk page, which means I'm even less timely in my holiday greetings! Have a great 2009 :D — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Star Trek

oh no, you didn't interfere at all. I was using Huggle to do the reverts and if someone beats me to it, the program automatically cancels the request. Thanks for helping keep the vandalism down btw. Happy editing! Thingg⊕⊗ 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, first time I was actually "there" during such stupidity. Vandalism / edit war ... wow ... what a colossal waste of time, energy and brain cells. No wonder admins get ticked off sometimmes. Ched (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fred Moosally

I just wanted to say that I noticed a LOT of hard work you have put / are putting into this article. I admire your dedication, efforts, and writing abilities. Ched (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful edits you've made to the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, we're always happy to have new members. I'm sure some other projects have welcome greetings though. Just as a heads up, you'll be getting a link (along with all of the other members of the project) for taking a survey about the project. Feel free to take a look around the project and answer the questions if you wish. If you don't feel you want to take the survey since you're new to the project, no worries. Again welcome to the project, and if you need help with anything let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ched Davis/Black Tiger at Le Mans

User:Ched Davis/Black Tiger at Le Mans, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ched Davis/Black Tiger at Le Mans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ched Davis/Black Tiger at Le Mans during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ched (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ched Davis/archive/sg1-1x3

User:Ched Davis/archive/sg1-1x3, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ched Davis/archive/sg1-1x3 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ched Davis/archive/sg1-1x3 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ched (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Should you have any more to do please use {{Db-u1}} instead. Less red tape. Agathoclea (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes just copy the {{tl|Db-u1}, obviously only on pages in your userspace, where criterion U1 applies. Agathoclea (talk)

Your Question

Hello, Ched. You have new messages at BigDunc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

British and American spellings

Hi -- I see you've been doing spelling corrections; a much-needed job. You might want to take a look at this page; when an article is clearly tied to one or other side of the Atlantic, it uses British English or Canadian English as appropriate. For other articles which don't have a tie, the rule is that they stay in whichever variant they were first written in -- so an article on Mozart or coral reefs would stay in British English if it was originally written in that version of English, and would stay in American English if it was written that way. I do see in your edit history a couple of pages that are clearly British so you might want to take a look at those. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Mike. I'll start adding those British spellings to my dictionary. Hope I haven't offended any of our friends across the waters. Ched (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If you use Firefox, you can easily download British, Canadian, and Australian English dictionaries to more easily spell-check articles. I use those, plus Spanish and German, and it makes life so much easier. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting; I use Firefox. Can you provide a pointer? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A link would be useful. They are just addons, located at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:3. After installing them, you can right click in any text box and select the appropriate dictionary under "Languages". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I 've installed them; thanks -- very handy. Mike Christie (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated .. anything that cuts down on my mistakes is a good thing .. thanks ;) Ched (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CCNB

Leave a message for him/her on their talk page, as well! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Malware

Thank You for your interest in WikiProject Malware! I must inform you however, that WikiProject Malware is now under the imperium of WikiProject Computer Security. All Malware articles are currently being transfered over to the new project. In any case, we welcome you to join us at WikiProject Computer Security! Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge help

{{helpme}} I was looking through unpatrolled pages, and came across List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations. I saw that it was related to the movie, and thought, well it should be merged with the movie article. I added a merge tag (I think it was the right way to do it) .. and saved ... then I realized it was a FL. I immediately removed the the merge tag. I don't understand how an article that makes FL, is unpatrolled. And did I do the right thing by reversing my edit? Sorry for contributing to the workload, still learning here. Ched (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was about to come over and ask you why you were suggesting merging the list because it is a featured list and then saw you had removed it. The list was made because the extensive number of awards and nominations were of interest beyond the scope of the film itself (acting, directing, screenwriting, editing, cinematography, etc.). The complete list would overwhelm the rest of the article and wouldn't allow for the details contained in the list. No Country for Old Men (film) is 55kb in size, but when the two are combined, you would get this note: "This page is 85 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." The suggested article size is around 50-60kb (although I wouldn't advise trying to enforce that! :) ) One of the discussions WP:FILMS had was possibly to begin to table what would be extensive amounts of awards on articles. This was done as an example and then I realized that the content and referencing was sufficient to achieve featured level and took it through that process. The list was created on December 20, 2008 and passed FL on January 4, 2009, which is fairly notable for its quickness. I don't know why or what gets put onto patrolled lists or why. Perhaps that has to do with vandalism and its potential? I think you were correct to remove your suggestion but then I created the list. Perhaps something like that would be better broached on the talk page first, although I don't normally make too many merge suggestions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Special:NewPages has a bit of backlog, and this would be one of the articles that has been missed. Nothing unusual there, but kind of embarrassing that it wasn't spotted when it went through an FLC. The reasons for not merging are given clearly by Wildhartlivie, and there was nothing wrong with you reversing your edit. Don't worry too much about making mistakes, just be bold and edit - things can be corrected around here :) Cheers. Chamal talk 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd blush and scuff my toe in the dirt but the effect is lost in writing. I was quite proud of the list, it's the first time I've bothered with featured, although I helped bring Gene Wilder to good article status. I don't yell ... much, unless it's one of those situations. You'll find them as time goes on. I work quite a bit on crime related biographies and a lot of time on WP:ACTOR. I've been involved in a side project with another editor, assessing and fixing issues on actor biographies. It's a long-term project, there are multitudes of articles in that category. I've been here forever, could be an administrator, don't want to be, so if you have any problems, please feel free to ask. I am a bit of a Trek nerd myself btw. I have an autographed copy of the Star Trek Technical Manual published in 1974 and signed by Leonard Nimoy (I got that myself from him in Indianapolis, after he said to sit in the back of his limousine because it started raining). Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was extremely cool. We'd gone to a Trek convention and I took the book, hoping he'd sign it and they announced he wouldn't be doing a signing, so we proceeded to the parking lot when I spied the limo and took a chance. It was talked about amongst autograph collectors at the time - the only person to get Nimoy to sign at that convention. I have it, I've debated trying to get it to William Shatner to sign, but I'm afraid I'd never get it back. Nimoy sat and looked through it a bit and said he'd never seen it. Nice day. My dad used to race at Winchester when I was a little kid. It scared me when I was 8. You must be near. Don't worry, I won't accuse you of wiki-stalking! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
To paraphrase, these are the edits that try women/men's patience. Thanks, and I'm sure Ann B. thanks you as well. I don't know why that is so important to whomever that is, but it doesn't belong in the actress' article. I don't know what browser you use, but if it's Firefox, Safari or Opera there are some tools in the My preferences section under Gadgets that you can turn on to help in editing, tagging and reverting, and adding persondata. If you can, I'd urge you to enable these, they are hugely helpful! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If ever there was a working example of the needs of the many, Wikipedia would be that. I haven't much followed stock car races, though I hear about it from others, so I know a bit. I didn't go after my dad died. You should wait until you have about 1000 edits, which shouldn't be long, according to this. I'm going to watch That 70s Show and get to bed. Good night! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

truth

If this helps, put it this way: while you and most other editors may believe there is only one truth, put all of you together and we end up with "many truths." NPOV says that we have to include all significant views ... so it is likely several articles will not only included different views claiming all to to be the truth, but some contradictory views claiming to the the truth. NOR says Wikipedians have to keep their own arguments out of Wikipedia, so there is no point in different editors arguing which truth is right. So how do we decide which claims we have to include, and which ones we can leave out? If you have followed my reasoning in the first three sentences, you will understand why screaming more and more loudly that "this is the truth" won't get us anywhere. That is where "verifiability" comes in. I hope this makes sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure to meet you too. When it comes to Larry Sanger and Citizendum ... just remember, there is a world of difference between an essay which anyone can write, and say almost anything) and a policy (which only exists by virtue of community consensus, is meant to help explain how things work to new editors, and are very important when editors come into conflict. It is true some essays are generally well-regarded and you will find many policies or WP guidelines that link to essays. And Larry Sanger is in a unique position because he and Jimmy Wales worked out the essential rules for Wikipedia at the start. But an essay by him is still just his POV; it may be thought provoking or useful or you just may want to skip it. Policies however deserve serious attention, always.
I think you will find that most editors are not professors (and many people who write ass if they taught at a university actually do not!). Academics have an advantage in that they work at a place that has a great library, and they have already read a lot of stuff ... both are most important when it comes to complying with a crucial part of NPOV, which makes us distinguish between mainstream, majority, and minority views (all of which go in) and fringe views (all of which stay out). In some cases (the world is somewhat spherical vs. the earth is flat) the difference between a mainstream view and a fringe view is obvious to pretty much anyone who made it past grammar school. In other cases (why did the NAZIs come to power in Germany in 1933) you need to read a lot more to know the different major views, at least among historians and other scholars. Here, a college professor has an advantage but it is only an advantage. Anyone with a good high school education, access to a good library that has lots of books and scholarly journals and a good dictionary, and lots of time to read, is pretty much equal to a college professor in what they can contribute. And of course there are plenty of topics where a college professor has no particular advantage. But even if you are writing about fly-fishing or different kinds of motorcycles, it is generally important to provide verifiable sources. I am guessing that people who love fly-fishing or motorcycles have plenty to argue over, and if there is anything all fly-fishermen agree on, I bet it is in some book. Or if many fly-fishermen go one way, and many the other way, that will be in a book, or two books. Anyway, citing the books does a lot to stop arguments here. And finally - citing verifiable sources is good for someone reading the article who wants to learn more and doesn't have a friend who has been fly-fishing twenty years and doesn't trust the guy behind the counter at the local sporting-goods store for advice. If you can find it in your library, probably someone across the country can find it in his library ... and learn more than will fit into a Wikipedia article. So it's a service to other readers.
Well, good luck editing! I wouldn't worry about ArbCom. Keep reviewing the Wikipedia:Five Pillars and just write or contribute to good articles and focus on collaborating with other editors in good faith and you will do a lot for the project! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually what I was attempting to reference was a BLP of Sanger here, rather than an essay or interview; but, it's a minor point to the topic "truth" which is being discussed. Thanks to Slrubenstein for his/her time and input. I've found it very useful and educational. ;) Ched (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh! Well, I can offer some insight. The basic concern is that Wikipedia is not as high in quality as many people wish. Put crudely, there are more detailed articles on the various characters in Star Wars, or articles on computer programming languages, than article(s) that cover various debates among sociologists, economists, and others on trends and causes of poverty in the US, or Arabic poetry. In my opinion, there are three main reasons for this: first, the make-up of Wikipedia editors, which is skewed towards people who feel very comfortable using computers (computer programmers and people who love computer-based role-playing games are just a couple of obvious examples, but also a fair number of mathematicians and physicists). We just don't have the same proportion of editors who are already expert on many other topics. Second, most editors who are happy to learn new things and write articles on topics they are not experts on too often do all their research on-line (rather than investigating the most well-considered books on a topic, or articles from scholarly journals not available on-line. Unfortunately, the information on th web relating to many important topics is either superficial or biased, resulting in articles of questionable quality. Finally, ArbCom only mediates disputes relating to violations of personal behavior policies. It doesn't judge content as such. When two editors come into conflict over content, Wikipedia just relies on the hope that lots of editors over time will fix all mistakes. This brings us back to problem #1.
Several years ago on the list-serve people discussed various solutions to this problem, e.g. an ArbCom specifically for content disputes, or panels of in-house experts to vet articles. These were all rejected (not by Jimbo - they were either rejected by the community or never found enough supporters).
In fact since that time the community adopted a range of different responses: the process for FA (featured article) as well as templates for "grading" the quality of articles by other members; the creation of wikigroups and projects i.e. groups of editors with expertise or serious interest in different areas, to promote better articles. People also worked to strengthen content policies like V and NOR, and RS (reliable sources) was created and over time given more and more weight. Great articles written in 2002 or 2003 that had no citations don't last anymore (perhaps with good reason - even if I think the author of the article really knew his or her stuff, there is no reason for you to have blind faith; adding citations shows that the author/s did serious research, so you can see why V became even more important).
Personally, I think 1 and 2 remain real problems. One hopes that as the total number of editors grows, these problems will go away. But this would only work if many of the new editors are either (1) experts on a wide range of topics currently under-represented here or (2) non-experts who have the sincere desire to learn, without any agenda or personal bias, about new topics and have the time to do a lot of reading in a real library. I am not sure this is what has happened.
Jimbo has faith that as more and more people become Wikipedia editors, these problems ill be resolved and quality will go up. Larry wasn't so optimistic, or is less patient, which is one big reason (but maybe not th only one) he left to form a new project.
Sorry if I bored you with stuff you already knew! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re

No problem, I was testing Huggle out and I just randomly reverted that users/IP's edits. Eh, yeah you owe me two :P (You cheated!) But yeah, its crazy over here, too many parties and commotion, but all for the great :)--TRUCO 02:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tigers

Thanks for the nice comment on my essay. I glanced at your recent edits and noticed your comment to Aether about passion; you might also like this essay. Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I hope this means great minds think alike. I JUST read that a day or so ago. Thought it was great! -- Ched (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually 2 questions here: {{helpme}}

  1. Would it be proper to tag this: UltraSurf with the {{advert}} tag?
  2. Where is the right place to ask this kind of question? (help desk, talk page of Wikipedia Spam, an individual admin ... other)?

I saw it on unpatrolled pages or spelling check, not sure which. I know it needs something, but not sure what's proper. Ched (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. The advert tag would be proper, in fact so would {{db-spam}}. I've just deleted the article as blatant advertising and totally unverifiable.
  2. Very blatant ads (like that one) can be marked with a speedy deletion tag. Less problematic ones can be tagged as you suggested, and it should get dealt with soon (i.e., eventually). If it's really bad, but not "speediable", you can also nominate it for deletion. And if you're ever not sure, this method or the help desk works too. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Still not understanding what you want to do?!?

The essay looks written, and it is currently in your user namespace, which is where it likely belongs. I would like to help, but I don't know what exactly you want to DO with this essay? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Morning Coffee 3/10/15

The unspoken political truth (my truth anyway?) is that many on the right side of the U.S. political spectrum will not admit what has been their major focus on "What is wrong with the US" is this --------->"...there is a black man in the White House."
They pledged (signed a petition no less) to work against him from his very first day in office. They won't say it but their actions and pronouncements over the past 6 years show it. Any success the President has achieved, and there have been many, have been in spite of them rather than with them. He has shown remarkable guile in not calling them out for their racist practices. This most recent act of communicating with foreign powers behind the presidents back is Treason. . Buster Seven Talk 15:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So, Ched, is this really okay with you? And it's tea for me, and do I really want to talk about stuff here that could potentially turn up quoted elsewhere in a discussion to "prove" that I have a conflict of interest in some particular topic? Wikipedia is a minefield, these are some of the mines. Or perhaps the field. Carptrash (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Carp. I see your valid point. For me, its not a problem. I don't hide my political leanings. I have been liberal-minded and democratic leaning since the day I arrived. I voted libertarian during my 20's but that was b4 Reagans brand of conservatism. Maybe I just wanted to balance my earlier bouts of humor with some serious discussion but, you are right correct. Maybe WP is not the place.. Buster Seven Talk 19:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not able to be online much at a stretch right now, but feel free to make yourself at home everyone. Anything that improves articles, or the project in general I am all in favor of. Hope to back more actively soon. — Ched :  ?  22:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Buster7:. It's been my personal experience that it's best (for me anyway) to not fall into any political or religious discussions on wiki. Suffice to say that I take great offense to some of the things you say and imply in your opening statement; but support your right to say it. — Ched :  ?  17:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ched:, @Carptrash: Just so we are clear...I think you both completely missed my point. Its NOT what I say...its what I hear being said...Its NOT what I believe, its what "they" believe. Its the unspoken message between the lines of Fox News, etc... Its what I hear the rare times I listen to Hannity or Limbaugh or other rabble-rousing TV/radio hosts. Its what underlies all the problems that some people have with President Obama and anything positive he does. I've been a Bahai for 30 years...I believe in the brotherhood of mankind as a core religious belief. I would never say such a nasty thing, so filled with hate and bile. I'm really surprised that you would think I would hold such a nasty comment as a righteous thought. Being misunderstood happens a lot on Wikipedia. Ive rarely been so disappointed. I'm speechless..... . Buster Seven Talk 18:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It did catch me off guard - sorry I misunderstood you. — Ched :  ?  18:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a bit of a conservative whose reservations about Obama are primarily about the current possibly negative economic impact of Obamacare, I regret to say that there is a lot of more or less race-based criticism of Obama on the right. Unfortunately, political pundits in general tend to take the most effective easy attack available, and race is still an easy attack. For Dubya, at least so far as I can recall a few years later, the attack tended to be on his being a recovering drunk and/or some sort of military service dodger. Both of those were, comparatively, kind of low blows too. And, unfortunately, in comparison to the case of the "Gene Newtrich" villain in the old Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman TV show and some similar events in what is generally hoped to be apolitical entertainment, at least in the cases you mentioned it is contained to pundits. I don't know myself, not being much of a TV watcher anymore, how many obvious subtle or obvious attacks Obama has gotten on TV dramas and comedies though. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ched/Archive_1&oldid=1138913707"