Henry chianski

Welcome!

Hello, Henry chianski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 03:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Great American Novel. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. The reason I deleted was there was no info beyond "Yale.edu" which is pretty broad, and googling search terms didn't come up with an alternate link, so how could one verify the source? But now I know Wiki's policy on it. Henry chianski (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the re-write of the Lost City of Z. However, I'm a little concerned that in doing so, you have deleted references to the 1753 city - which was Fawcett's secondary destination and the city named in the document still in Rio. Could you possibly make mention of this, rather than me editing your welcome corrections? Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi David! The 1753 and "Manuscript 512" is still in there, first paragraph. The wording was confusing to me the way it was written (ambiguous which "city" was being referred to at various points) thus the rewrite. Does the 1753 city have a name? If so it wasn't in the article. Maybe it's in the source material but unfortunately I don't know Portuguese. If you want to cite the fact that he had two different "destinations" then by all means add that back. The way I read it, he thought the 1753 city was Z, as per the New Yorker article. Henry chianski (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Henry, many thanks for your reply. As far as I know, there is no name for the 1753 city - apart from Brian Fawcett's map in Exploration Fawcett, where it is mentioned as "Raposo's City of 1753". I have added a short line in the article mentioning that this was the final destination for the expedition. Trust this meets with your approval? Have a good Christmas and New Year. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the style looks fine to my eye, but where is that info from, the Brian Fawcett book? Can you add a citation with the page number? Merry Xmas to you, too. Henry chianski (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Henry, apologies for the delay in replying, things are a bit hectic here! The map is in Percy Fawcett's book "Exploration Fawcett" which Brian edited after his father's disappearance. There is no page number, as the map is before pagination stars. In any case the mention of the book in the text is enough reference. Do have a lively holiday break. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Faust

Is there a reason why you removed so many entries from the Faust template and yet left the template on all of those pages?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No, my mistake. I'll go through and do it now. Brain fart. Henry chianski (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Flinn in Chorus Line

Hi Henry, Reverted your edits because they were incorrect. Denny was my uncle, so obviously I'm pretty aware of the details, just FYI. Cheers --gobears87 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your interest in the article. Wikipedia relies on published sources, preferably third-party. Please see the explanation about Original Research for more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research If you think the information published in that source is wrong, then look for a published source that has the correct info. Thanks! Henry chianski (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

1. The provided source is INCORRECT.

2. He was my uncle, so my personal information is correct. 3. Not all sources are correct just because they are on the web. 4. The touring company toured long before the internet so there is unlikely to be a source for this.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobears87 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC) 

Hi, I found a second source (Variety) and rewrote accordingly. Please review Wikipedia guidelines WP:SOURCE – sources must be published, and "personal knowledge" is not deemed a reliable source. Feel free to find other sources if you think that both Variety and Broadway World are incorrect, but do not alter statements that are backed up by published sources. Thanks! — Henry chianski (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Zlatko Topčić

Hi, I've made some changes on the pages Zlatko Topčić and The Abandoned (2010 film) according to your changes. I hope it's okay now. Please do not make any changes to this pages anymore because you are overloading pages history. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastet (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note and for leaving the Citation Neededs in place. I am once again removing the peacock language from both articles. "Internationally acclaimed" and "prestigious" are subjective, and are not necessary adjectives to understand the article at hand. They meet Wiki's definition of Puffery; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipuffery ...especially given that the Remake claim is not cited, nor are most of the film festival claims in The Abandoned. Wikipedia strives for neutrality. The phrase "the internationally most awarded play in the history of the Bosnian theater" is quite bold, not to mention ambiguous, and an unsourced claim like that violates Wiki's "verifiability" rule, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability ...I am also removing (again) the "Bulgarian, Macedonian, Swedish" translations of Topčić's works since the given source, Balfour, does not mention these languages and so the claim remains unverifiable. Also, "overloading pages history" is not a thing, to my knowledge. Thank you for your work on these and another pages. Once you brush up on the standards of Wikipedia, I have faith that your contributions will tend to stick more permanently. In general, find the source first, then add the statement with the proper citation. —— Henry chianski (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I made some changes and added sources. I hope it's okay now. —— Lastet (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Remake

I hope the article is ok now. I see that you constantly make new changes, even though I have all changed it. Please appreciate my changes because they have sources. You make unnecessary changes to the article and you pull out my sources. —— Lastet (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Unless I'm mistaken the only source I removed from your material was the one that was used to support peacock language, i.e. about Emina Zeča. Just because someone called her "an icon of traditional Bosnian music" doesn't mean it is necessary information for an article about a film — people can click on her article to read about her accolades. My changes weren't "unnecessary" in my view — they were bringing the article closer within Wiki guidelines of neutrality and verifiable statements (not to mention proper grammar). Why do you insist on removing any negative criticism of the film (i.e. Variety review)? This is not a promotion for the film, it's a neutral article about it. The article looks much more neutral to me now, except for the various claims that still require sources (see all the Citation Neededs). Thanks for your contributions! — Henry chianski (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not doing any promotion, I agree that it is necessary to maintain a neutral attitude, but you have removed some of my sources without explanation, but it's okay, no problem. Just one note, you do not need to refer to the Klix portal because it is not a portal for movie reviews. I'll add more sources when I have time. Thank you for contributions. —— Lastet (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You cannot expect each sentence to have its own source. —— Lastet (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Not each sentence but each statement yes, must be sourced —— that is the bedrock of Wikipedia. Sources can be re-used of course if they support multiple statements. — Henry chianski (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it is ok now, I have no objections. Thank you. —— Lastet (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for collaborating. — Henry chianski (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Melancholie

This is starting to reek of WP:OWN, because the anon is bent on reverting mine and your edits without making any significant improvements to the article, including the ongoing halfassed citation style mentioned in your most recent edit summary, and talk page content removal. The paragraphs were broken apart, which is good, but the plot summary is far too long to begin with. They again removed the citations tag and put the cites back into the section headers, which I reverted earlier today. Not that I'm losing any sleep over this, but I'm curious to know what you think. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh it's most def WP:OWN, no doubt, that person is practically the only one editing that article. The person looks like they have an attachment to that article and some related articles about the director, etc. I'm not sure about Wiki policies, are there measures that can be taken? B/c we're essentially edit warring with them now which sucks, but the article truly is a mess so we can continue trying to fix it or at least stem the damage. —— Henry chianski (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please kindly cf. my replies over at Talk:Melancholie der Engel and Talk:Marian Dora (same applies to Shira). I decided to forgo further work on said entries indefinitely, at least until you rearrange them to your liking.--79.182.133.116 (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Archais

Sorry about that. I misread the shipbuilding article. Thanks for catching it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries — confusing with ancient names, they kept reusing them! — Henry chianski (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Henry chianski. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Measure for Measure

Thanks for picking up my spelling mistake. I also take your point about too much attention in the article to this one director's production but, from the revision history, you will see that I was responding to an outstanding request for a ref. Perhaps most of this section would benefit from a trim? --217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note and for adding the sources. I don't feel strongly about it either way, but it stands out as unfair to only include criticism of the one production, and only negative criticism. My inclination is to mention the production, keep the sources, but omit the actor's opinion on it. — Henry chianski (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the steer. I think I'll transfer the comments to the director's page, when I get the time. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, with acknowledgement to you. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! — Henry chianski (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Message from TPercival

I have seen some vandals editing this page Elf (film), and I am imitated by this. How about you and I work together to fight vandalism and maybe improve the article. And also, please forgive me if my English writing confuses you. I am not that familiar with the US symptoms and how things are written. --TPercival (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing uncited material

Good evening,

A note to remind you that uncited material is supposed to be noted not deleted. However, in this case, the information was wrong so you were right to delete it. Got it? Good job!bobdog54 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Henry chianski. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)