User talk:Chergles

This is Chergles's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Resolving our earlier conflict

Your move: [1] :D

CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working at DYK

Hey Chergles, I saw your edit at Dravecky's page. Just in case you didn't notice....nope, you don't need to be an administrator for anything other than moving hooks to the template (since it's protected); in fact, much of the work (sometimes most of the work, although not always) in reviewing, copyediting, and vetting nominations is actually done by non-admins.

I designed this welcome template a while ago and never really get to use it, so I'll indulge myself now and post it here...hopefully you find some of the links and info useful! And sorry for clogging up your talk page :S

Welcome to Did you know...

Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing a lot of nominations at the DYK suggestions page. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! As you know, you don't need to be an administrator to review hooks or to move hooks to Preparation area, so your help is more than welcome.

You may already be familiar with the DYK rules by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the official rules and the supplementary guidelines. You may also want to look into some useful tools that can allow you to review nominations more quickly: the Cut & Paste character counter is a helpful JavaScript to calculate the length of hooks, and DYKcheck is a script you can install on your own Wikipedia account for more heavy-duty verifying.

The best way to learn is by doing, but here is also a quick reference of the things to check for each hook you review:

Quick Reference

Is the hook under 200 characters?
Was the article written or expanded within the past 5 days?
Is it over 1500 characters long?
If it's an expanded article, is the expansion at least 5x?

Does the article have an inline citation for the fact?
If there's an image, is it free to use?
Is the hook interesting?
Are there any other miscellaneous problems with the article?

Useful Links

Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at DYK, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at DYK. Now get to reviewing some noms! ~~~~

Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chesley Sullenberger

Dear Chergles

You recently bolded some text I added to the Chesley Sullenberger DYK discussion. I have removed that bold, because I feel it could give the wrong impression that I support the hook, whereas in actuality I don't. I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Thanks for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding a note above my comment, and I accept your apology. Why did you bold the text? Also, I have removed the note, since because it refers to bold text that has now been removed, I felt that the note was irrelevant as a result and could be erased. Terrakyte (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Article needs your help, quick!

I've cleaned the article up a bit, and I expect I'll be able to expand it within the next day or so. Thanks for creating the article. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ping

[2] I replied on my talk. Good question, RFA-grade. :) rootology (C)(T) 19:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		For your recent and much appreciated work on the South Dakota article, I hereby award you this barnstar. AlexiusHoratius 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, absolutely, moving into the top 5 editors in one afternoon on a fairly high traffic article will get you one of these. But really though, thanks for your work over there...it's always nice to get another pair of eyes on an article from time to time, and in my couple of years on Wikipedia, I can't remember anyone else doing a major copyediting job on the article such as the one you did. AlexiusHoratius 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the barnstar. Check out my response to your last post on my talk page, it involves a possible DYK. If you're not interested, that's cool, but I saw you had worked on DYK's before, so I figured I'd throw it out there. AlexiusHoratius 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chesley Sullenberger

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chesley Sullenberger, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NY 382

Its all we have. We can't make a current route map since NY 382 isn't a maintained route anymore.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic, but I actually like that aspect of Wikipedia. However, there also needs to be a line otherwise anything and everything will get on the site. My issue here is that the notability line has been very much compromised. And if you all like that aspect of Wikipedia than my opinions, even if not agreed with, should be welcomed, and not shot down and called a breach of wikiquette. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your move: WP:USSH defines the conventions used in the names of U.S. state highways. There was an arbitration case a few years ago related to this, so following those defined conventions is extremely crucial. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a reasonable and thoughtful person. That's why I didn't make any moves not counting one that I made and reverted back less than a minute later. The WP:USSH guideline might be reconsidered. I am trying to locate where the NYDOT calls it "New York STATE Route (number)". I haven't found any sources yet. Chergles (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brookings Register

It appears it was a new editor who may not be as familiar with notability guidelines. I removed the notability template, as the paper seems to qualify as notable. I'll keep an eye on it on my watchlist. --Bobak (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Nelson

Quite agree that that's rather valueless, except as a confirmation that he existed. (I prefer the earlier version that contained "He was especially well-known for his unusual fondness for hats.") There seems to be much more reverence for political figures in the USA than there is here in the UK. I suppose he achieved something be getting elected. The other one under discussion is a candidate. Anyone can be a candidate (within certain limits). The style of the article strikes me as inside rather than outside writing. It's too nice and cosy. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: new article

I've done a bit of cleanup. Hope that helps! Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009 snowstorms

Cheers for the comment. It's not been too cold in Dorset but there has been a lot of snow and I got a couple of days off school. Well done for starting the article and I hope that I have given you some ideas with the subheadings. If you wanted to add some more information, the BBC has region-by-region summaries that could be summarised on WP (see the external links)/ Some information on severe traffic problems will also need to be added. 03md (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Leo

No offense but i find it highly unlikely that Pastor Leo is anyway a member of the church, he have used 2 diffrent newly created user accounts, Pastor Leo and JohnofEngland, an a IP nr to add claims that Pope John Paul II is a satanist and christianity is fake, he appear more intrested in adding roumers then fact to Wikipedia. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Im a atheist but dosent stop me from preventing vandalism such as this on Wikipedia.

A thought of mine is that he belived he get away with the vandalism if he claimd to be a member of the church in some way. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Enucleation (surgical technique) as a disambig page

I agree that there should be a disambiguation page. However, I do not think this is that page. Enucleation is not only a surgical technique; it's a general term meaning 'removing the nucleus of something'. There are quite a few pathology articles which briefly refer to enucleation as a treatment option, but there is no article on the surgical technique to refer to. That is what I intended this article to become.

The other usages I found so far (in additional to the surgical technique):

The microbiological usage of enucleation of cells, such as oocytes (reproductive research) and studying the interaction of infectious :microbes and animal cells.
Record label known as http://www.enucleationrecords.com/

Unfortunately, the current enucleation page was taken to only mean eyeball removal, instead of the more general surgical technique. I think the current enucleation article should be renamed Enucleation of the eye and referenced on this page (as I started to do). Enucleation should then be the disambiguation page and refer to all the usages. Do you feel this is reasonable? --InsufficientData (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: Enucleation (surgical technique) as a disambig page

You said:

Wikipedia should not give instructions on how to do surgery, just as Wikipedia
should not give bomb making instructions or how to kill someone with an axe.
Therefore, enucleation (surgical technique) is an inappropriate title because
it could lead to article creep and eventually tell people, including insane 
people, how to remove their eye.

I neither suggested or said that Wikipedia should give instructions on actually performing surgery. I think you are putting words into my mouth.

If you bothered to look at the surgery article, you would observe that several surgical techniques were listed, such as excision, resection, ligation, debridement, etc. You will find quite a few more in Category:Medical_treatments. There are articles such as curettage which are not listed here, but are surgical techniques in their own right. There are multiple meanings for enucleation. So I chose the most straight-forward specifier.

Are you merely enforcing your own preference (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT)?

You said:

This should be a disambiguation page.

This is the general purpose disambiguation page. You should also use Template:Disambig for disambiguation pages (see WP:disambig), which ensures that disambigation pages get added to Category:Disambiguation pages category. I do not see the point of having a sub-disambiguation page.

It could direct people to the different articles, some of which are red linked.  I will show you what I mean.

I understand the concept of red-links. Enucleation has them.

When I do so, it is not an edit war.  It's just that seeing it is easier than a long, long description 
(and so far there are not other editors - if there were 50 editors then it would be unwieldy to 
demonstrate like I will be doing).  Thank you for your patience.

I did not take this as an edit war.

Also:

enucleation (oral pathology) doesn't really make sense
Leiomyoma is not enucleation when applied to a uterine fibroid. It is another name for a uterine fibroid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InsufficientData (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: Re: Enucleation (surgical technique) as a disambig page

You said:

I've renamed it "Encleation[sic] (concept)" . This is actually describes more of what you wrote rather 
than surgical technique. With this, the page does not have to be a disambiguation page. There can
be sections for leiyomyoma, pathology, etc. Good luck on writing it. If you need help, I am willing to help.

Actually, no offense, but I think it would have been better if you had just left it alone.

I understand your concerns and have tried to allay those fears. I was not trying to write a how-to article on surgery (see WP:NOT). Nor do I think that anybody else would have filled in the article with a step-by-step guide. And I gave you examples of articles which already existed which would have been like what I wrote. In reality, we could rename curettage -> curettage (surgical technique), dissection -> dissection (surgical technique) and so on and it really would be more accurate. You never answered this by the way.

I think you were being overly cautious for no good reason, even after I expressly told you my intent.

I think having enucleation, enucleation (concept), enucleation (microbiology), and enucleation of the eye is disorganized and confusing. Just looking at the name, there is no apparent difference between enucleation and enucleation (concept). Enucleation (concept) was about surgery. Somehow this isn't getting across. But I will leave it for now.

Really, it feels to me that you're not really getting what I'm saying, since you don't reply to specific parts of my messages. Are you actually reading my replies in their entirety? This is frustrating to me. I feel like either I'm not expressing myself very well, or you're just not understanding what I'm saying.

--InsufficientData (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comment on your comment

You said:

Sorry, not trying to argue or be difficult. Will clarify anything you wish. Specific part that
I didn't answer. In short, I'm very uncomfortable with enucleation (surgical technique). 
I'll think of an alternate name that is mutually acceptable. Chergles (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you have an objection to ending a title with ' (surgical technique)', when it is indeed a surgical technique?
What particular is wrong with calling a surgical technique a surgical technique? How will this cause the eminent end of the universe?
What is your issue with surgical techniques in general?
What logical connection does crazy people removing their eyes have with 'enucleation (surgical technique)'?

When you said:

Therefore, enucleation (surgical technique) is an inappropriate title because
it could lead to article creep and eventually tell people, including insane 
people, how to remove their eye.

As I said before, this makes absolutely no sense. Despite being a straw man that has nothing to do with the original article, one of the two guys you mentioned who tore out their own eye was on death row. Do death row inmates have access to Wikipedia? I think not. The other guy from UK already had family problems and a history of self-mutilation. I don't think this was Wikipedia inspired.

Using your logic, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about:

Hydrogen cyanide - it contains instructions (e.g. the reaction) to synthesize it; some crazy person could commit suicide with it
Self-induced abortion - somebody could use this as a how-to guide on how to abort a fetus.
Assasination#Techniques - some crazy person might try use this as a how-to guide to murder

And so on and so on. Should we go through Wikipedia and remove everything a crazy person could do that would harm themselves or others?

You failed to address my challenge to the reasonableness of your original assertion. You failed to demonstrate how this was anything more than your own personal preference. You failed to address any of the Wikipedia policy pages I mentioned in my replies. You failed to list in particular any Wikipedia policy violation that I had made in naming said page enucleation (surgical technique)'.

Wikipedia should not be sanitized because some crazy person could abuse the knowledge contained therein. I think this borders on censorship and I think you are out of line and should stand down.

--InsufficientData (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, rename it to Enucleation_(surgery). Then please go and fix the 4 or 5 articles that link to it so they link directly to the new article. --InsufficientData (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request

Thanks for the request! I'll see what I can do to fulfill it. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MENTORSHIP

Thank you for your kind offer. I would be happy to work with you as my mentor.

Thank you,

[email protected] (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MD-90 photo upload

First off thanks for contacting me; is there a direct upload to Wikipedia? Am not sure of the steps but what I understood is that I need a Wiki-commons account, something like that. I'd prefer to upload here if that is possible, got no problems with making an account with commons, thanks again. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload directly to Wiki? Yosef1987 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips, I'll do it as soon as I can and let you know about the upload. Yosef1987 (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for the tip. CallMeAndrew (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

There's nothing to restore; the entire content was "#REDIRECT Talk:New York State Route 382" -> so anything meaningful will be at the target. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore it, but you could just create it yourself. You did know that didn't you? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water fluoridation

Thanks for the comments on Water fluoridation. I made some changes and followed up with a few questions; please see the FAC review page. Eubulides (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aviation people

I completely understand your position; we are left to interpret an ambiguous guideline that doesn't actually explain wether simply being registered with a commercial company counts. Once that AfD closes, we should really overhaul the guideline. This AfD is a difficult one and I am worried that by constantly having to offer my comments on things I am coming accross as somewhat confrontational. I will drop a note in at the aricrash task force about the AfD, then maybe we can work out where to go next with it. Sorry if I seemed a bit aggressive. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for J. Bonnie Newman

On February 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. Bonnie Newman, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Beverly Eckert

The article as it currently stands is well-sourced and establishes notability prior to her death. I don't see what good reopening that AfD would do. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fluoroquinolone toxicity

Thanks for the "good luck", but I don't think "give up and let people with possibly hidden agendas go about their work" is really an option!! We shouldn't give up that easily. I don't say I never shun away from difficult articles (which are abundant enough in medicine), but somebody has to do it. cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptees

Hey Chergles, nice to hear from you. It seems that we're twins, but it looks like you're already a pretty experienced Wikipedian. I'll let you know if I need any help. Vantine84 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas

Muscotah is on my watchlist :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion related the pic caption in Water fluoridation

See here. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lent proposals

I read that some Facebook users are not going to visit Facebook during Lent as an exercise in sacrifice. I am considering it for Wikipedia. Some ideas include"

1. Not editing WP but looking at it.
2. Not looking at WP.
3. Only edit needy articles, like African geography (credit to Durova for the suggestion).
4. Only do the most positive edits, like support votes for RFA.
5. Choosing a non-WP sacrifice.
6. Mainspace edits only with no talk page or WP-space (but then only the most non-controversial, grammar edits can be made).

Any other suggestions welcomed. Chergles (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have a mentee, rms so I can observe Lent but still have to be available for him. Chergles (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Block_of_User:Chergles — Rlevse • Talk • 13:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

Please note that my user page has false information. I have not been banned by ArbCom, merely blocked.

ArbCom is afraid that I will become an administrator. They said it themselves. Now that they have expressed fear, there is no way I could become administrator, even if I wanted to, which I don't. With that issue out of the way, my editing would be beneficial to Wikipedia. Looking at my many edits will show high quality edit. This is what Wikipedia is about.

The Archtransit issue is tangentially pertinent. ArbCom removed Archtransit as administrator but did not ban the user. ArbCom objected to users that Archtransit blocked whom ArbCom claims were Archtransit socks. This is very odd but not destructive to Wikipedia. Immediately after this happened, there was hysteria about banning Archtransit and discussion was prematurely ended after a few hours resulting in a community ban, not an ArbCom ban.

The useful thing for Wikipedia would be to end the community ban of Archtransit because it hurts, not helps Wikipedia. If this is to happen, then there would be ample justification to unblock me. ArbCom's only stated concern is that they think I am Archtransit. If Archtranist is un-community banned, then Arbcom's complaint would be settled. Arbcom's other concern about me running for administrator would be resolved because I won't do it and won't have any chance of passing even if I did.

Again, the community should stop this sock hysteria and look at my fine edits. The community should also be aware that sock accusations can be hysteria. 2 year ago I was falsely checkuser proven to be Anacapa's sock. Since Wikipedia dogma is that checkuser can't be wrong, they have dispensed with the checkuser (If the checkuser now says I am Archtransit, this would be unreliable self-serving evidence but would also prove that the checkuser is 50-100% wrong; 50% wrong if they say I am Archtransit but not Anacapa).

The bottom line for the community is to consider the fine edits, featured and good articles that I've contributed to, and my willingness to contribute to the Wikipedia body of knowledge. I have not looked at Wikipedia for a few weeks which should satisfy some who want some punishment.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chergles (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request unblock with conditions. Those conditions are that I am allowed to post in the appropriate noticeboard for unblock. I have no plans to edit outside of those conditions. If denied, a gentlemanly thing to do would be to copy the above text to WP:AN for consideration. The request is very reasonable. The savage thing to do would be to write some sarcastic denial or passing the buck. Seeking consultation in a neutral and calm manner with WP:AN is the honorable way to go.

Decline reason:

ArbCom's ruling is very clear. By the evidence they have reviewed, it is very clear you are a sockpuppet of a banned user, and thus banned yourself. The ruling further continues to state that any appeals must be sent to them directly at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. We are unable to even conditionally unblock you without their approval. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hersford got here first, but I was also about to decline this request. Chergles, you have been linked authoritatively to users with a deep history of disruptive sockpuppetry. If you are going to be unblocked ever, it would be a major undertaking just to assemble and understand the whole of the evidence. In my opinion, you'd have to be a much more accomplished editor for that tradeoff to seem even vaguely plausible. Plus, Arbcom insists that you make unblock requests to them directly and no admin is going to disregard that. Mango juice^talk 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser evidence shows that I am the sock of Anacapa, not Archtransit. If Mangojuice needs editing proof and accuses me of being Archtransit, then look at Archtransit who has been cited for being a strong editor (see the RFA for the quote).

Hersfold and Mangojuice, would you then copy the above text (over the unblock request) for the end of the community ban of Archtransit. That seems to have been done out of hysteria when the original ArbCom decision was simply to remove administratorship, not editing ban.

Thank you for your consideration. Please look for a way to unban rather than trying to think of an excuse to deny. The easiest way would be to transmit the original request to WP:AN for consideration. Just to thinking of an excuse to deny is not very nice. Chergles (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has not prohibited discussion of the community ban, which was done very quickly and out of hysteria, after they removed adminstratroship from Archtransit. I think Archtransit resolution is the key to my unblock even though it shouldn't be that way.Chergles (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]