Hello Travelbird. I have noticed that you removed the Odra from the List of German exonyms for places in the Czech Republic, and in the summary you wrote that river is not a place. Well, names of rivers are the subject of study of exonyms, toponyms and other place names. See for example the toponym article, where the name of the Mississippi is discussed. In case you removed more rivers from this or other similar lists, I believe they should all be put back. Jan.Kamenicek
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
When we say "head office"/"headquarters" we mean the location of the building which houses the company's administration. The company may have a "registered office" which is the company's official address. But because the SWISS administration is located on the airport, which is in France, we will state that the HQ is on the grounds of the airport in Saint-Louis, France. BTW, as noted in the Swiss documents about the office location, the SWISS office is on the "Switzerland" side of the airport. If the airline gives the address given in the Moneyhouse source ("Malzgasse 15 4052 Basel") as its legal address, then we can say "The airline has its registered office in Basel"
Sorry: I'll have to change it back to Basel. The reasons are as follows :
1) All official documents show "Basel" as official site of the company headquarters.
2) The sites you mentioned do show an office at Basel-Mulhouse airport, but do not state that this office is the corporate headquarters. I cannot seem to find any other documents listing this as headquarters either. Any assumption that it is is OR.
3) [1] Swiss site even has Zurich-Kloten as "corporate headquarters"
We really need some reliable sources here if we want to keep Basel-Mulhouse are headquarters. It would be highly unusual and highly problematic (from a taxation perspective) for a Swiss company to be run as a corporation on a day-to-day basis from French territory - which any part of the Basle-Mulhouse airport is btw (even the former "Swiss" side). So unless we have very good sources stating that this is the case (and I can't find any) we'll have to go with Basel, unless you want to argue for Zurich based on the last source. Travelbird (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SWISS company addresses probably use "Basel" because Basel is the Swiss city directly accessible from EuroAirport. Remember that while the airport is completely on French soil, both countries are directly accessible from the airport, and until Schengen passed, both countries had their "sections" of the airport. The SWISS document says the airport is only accessible from the Swiss side or customs free road.
[2] from Airlinair explains "Basel-Mulhouse airport is a public organization governed by international law and the 1949 Swiss French Convention. Having its head office in France, it the only completely bi-national airport in the world. Thoroughly based on French territory, this pad incorporates a Swiss customs aera connected to Basel by a border road"
I'm not sure why [3] is saying the SWISS HQ is in Kloten. I think the press conference link is authoritative about the head office location, considering the annual results press conference was held there. Several SWISS divisions (the regional airline, the cargo division) do have their locations in Zurich, though.
We now have one Swiss air document stating that a "head office" is located at the airport while others states differently. Ideally we need an official document stating that the office is at the airport with a full address, not just a small reference to an office being somewhere.
Btw : The fact that press conference or even shareholder meting are held somewhere is no indication where the head office is. E.g. Daimler regularly holds such meetings in Berlin, but the head office is located in Stuttgart.
The EuroAirport does have a Swiss customs area. However this does not mean that the "Swiss" areas are extraterriorial. They are in fact treated very much like many duty free areas in airport around the world, in this case in such a way that French customs duties do not apply. But just as this does not exempt duty free shops from income tax this does not exempt Swiss from French taxes, were they to be headquartered in France.
We have several Swiss documents with conflicting info [4] (Kloten) & [5] (Blotzheim), plus the official registry which lists the head office as being "Malzgasse 15, 4052 Basel" (which is in central Basel)
The Baseler Zeitung had an article on the subject a while ago (German only), and states that despite rumours to the contrary the seat remains in Basel (and not at the EuroAirport), although the CEO indicated he was running most of the operations from an office in Zurich.
At the moment I really don't see how we can quote Blotzheim as the head office, especially as a Google search for "Swiss Airlines head office" and "Swiss Airlines Hauptsitz" turns up result almost exclusively listing "Basel". That together with the official registry at Malzgasse 15 means that we need really good sources to claim that the actual HQ is at Blotzheim and I don't see us having those at the moment. Travelbird (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained "Basel" is often used as a stand-in for EuroAirport, as the airport serves that city. A postal address for a Swiss office at EuroAirport would plausibly use "Basel" (the airport is directly connected to that city) so newspapers can informally say "the headquarters are in Basel" - In the United States many newspapers use simplified location names from USPS postal addresses, even though locations may actually be in other cities or unincorporated areas. For this reason I prefer having exact addresses and/or location maps when determining locations of corporate offices and other places.
In the "Baseler Zeitung" article you linked, which passage explicitly states that the "seat" of the company is in Basel, but not in the offices at EuroAirport? I used Google Translator to see which passage says so, but I am having trouble determining which one. The article itself says "Beim EuroAirport in Basel" so it is possible that, in the article if someone says that something is in Basel, it could be referring to the airport offices. If a passage in the article refers to a separate Swiss office in central Basel, please state which passage it is. Also "Die Verteilung der Abteilungen auf zwei Standorte kostet" is referring to office space in two (zwei) locations (Google Translate: "The distribution of the departments at two locations costs"). If Swiss had an office in central Basel, then there would be three locations.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/German/Rechtssitz says a "Rechtssitz" is a place of legal domicile. Essentially SWISS had the Malzgasse address as a "Rechtssitz" - Essentially a registered office. But the head office is where the administration is actually based out of, and it appears that SWISS has no significant employment base out of Malzgasse; all of the Basel-area workers work out of the airport.
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS04:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Taj Mahal, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please do not delete the information that is properly sourcedRanjithsutari (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the text added to the section does not make any (coherent) sense. That is why I and others deleted it. For the moment I tagged the section as unclear - however if the whatever the person adding the text wanted to express isn't properly phrased soon, it is likely to be deleted again. Travelbird (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I removed the text again. As I said earlier, the current text is incoherent beyond repair and the sources that were given were to another wiki-type online dictionary and a private photography website - neither of which are reliable sources. If you feel that a section on the purported controversy is warranted, such a section will need to provide reliable sources stating that this is being taken seriously by at least some parts of the scientific community and is not just another internet/urban myth. Plus the text will actually have to consist of sentences that reader will be able to understand. Travelbird (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert was incorrect.
Travelbird - Please be aware that March 16, 1751 in new style dating (the style that is used today) is March 5, 1750 in the Old Style date. This is because prior to the calendar reforms of 1752 the American colonies used the British version of the Julian calendar and the year changed on March 25 (Lady Day) instead of January 1. For this reason a calendar on the wall at James' Madison's birth would have read March 5, 1750 even though Madison's birthday based on the current calendar is March 16, 1751. Four presidents (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison) were born prior to 1752 and thus have both old and new style dates. Only Washington and Madison, however have birthdays earlier in the year than March 25 and thus their year in the Old Style is also 1 less than the New Style year. Wikipedia correctly uses this date for its entry on Washington (listing his Old Style birthday as February 11, 1731 - his new style birthday is February 22, 1732). I strongly suggest you revert to my edit as March 5, 1750 is the correct Old Style date - reference both Irving Brant's (page 5 in my version) and Ralph Ketcham's biography to verify this.
If you contend that this is true you will need to provide a reliable source stating the other date. I am not saying that it isn't but if you change dated and facts you really need to provide a reliable reference that can be easily verified. Books are generally okay, but with very famous people you probably also have to demonstrate that the respective authors are reliable, established historians. Travelbird (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits
Welcome back! And please don't retire anymore, :-). I also tried but didn't succeed. Once a wikipedian, always a wikipedian, gotta recognize it. --Sulmues(talk)16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was that the article says that the guy's name is Nigel Patmore and so does the only reference provided. So that is where the article should be at. If there is any specific reason why the article should be at Nil Patmore despite of the article stating that his name is Nigel then this needs to be explained in the article. Travelbird (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of colonies
In the absurdly long titled List of dominant sovereign states and their servient territories if I read your comment correctly you were saying that territories should not be listed unless they are still a colonial or servient territory. I haven't checked what was done at the time, but currently each entry has a date range after the entry which should clarify whether it's referring to an historical or current subservient relationship. Can you offer an opinion on the need for such an article? I can see a need which is not serviced in the colony or colonialism articles, and I would say the UN List is not a list of all colonies present or pass but is a list which the current members of the Decolonization Committee approve of.Daeron (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for tagging Sonnie Lydie Beckham Petreye just now, but after you tag a page for speedy deletion you should copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you on the speedy template, towards the bottom. Otherwise the newbie author doesn't know what's happened, thinks he pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Also, if it's a new contributor who has never had a Welcome message, it's useful to give one before the speedy warning - it makes it less BITEy, and gives useful links that may help him do better next time. {{subst:firstarticle|<article name>}} is a good one. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings!
I hear Cyprus is very nice this time of year. Thank you for noticing me so soon, even after my first article isn't even finished! I would love to chat with you on the history of the Cyprus wars between the Greeks and the "other guys" some other time. I would like for you to understand that I am not a newcomer to this game, and I was just here to let you know that. Please refer to my discussion on Guy O'Connor. Islesphotos (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. The Thing // Talk // Contribs12:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. When you patrol new pages, all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled, whether you marked them for deletion or deemed them acceptable, unless you are not sure. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thank you. Morgankevinj(talk) 13:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRAVEL BIRD. I NOTICED YOU DIDN'T LIKe MY ULTRAKEY PAGE. YOU DELETED MY CHARMING WORK. WHAT I SAY ABOUT ULTRAKEY IS TRUE, SO PLEASE DON'T SEND ME THREATS OR DELETE MY PAGE. THANKS FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND NEXT TIME YOU DO THAT I'LL COOK YOU. User:Shady Kid
Unfortunately your page was an attack page disparaging a subject. If you add such a page again, it will be deleted once more and you may be banned from editing. Travelbird (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two creators of the page protest to the speedy deletion. Brian kiernan is a respected figure and artist, not only in his and our area but more abroad, he is cited and referenced properly and numerously. We agree about informal talk and opinions, he requessted we make the page for him and he and us underestimated how serious it had to be and are willing to edit the page and negotiate to recieve full wikipedia publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjsimonelli (talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Albanian exonyms, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
visa policy
He Travelbird,
My apologies for assuming to soon that the info was duplicated from the future changes section. Indeed the setting you chose will (hopefully) hold of the herds of people trying to introducing it in the main list until november...Rgds! L.tak (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Petra Olli. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. StrPby (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Travelbird. I saw the level-4 warning you just placed on User:Findingdreams's page re. removing AfD templates. Obviously that's something the user shouldn't have done, but I think it would be possible to de-escalate the situation here. This is a brand new user, who I believe is trying to contribute in good faith (not necessarily contributing material suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia - but that's not something we should expect new users to understand straight off the bat). I believe the first warning you gave him/her was a level-3: it would be preferable, I think, to try and explain Wikipedia's rules to the user with a little more patience, unless and until we get clear evidence that s/he's not prepared to listen. If there's something I'm missing here (maybe deleted edits I can't see?) then I apologise; please do let me know. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that he's been persistently deleting AfD (and speedy notices prior to that) and does not seem to react to any of the warnings. The AfD tag deletions have been going on over a time spam of several hours - so this is not a case of "in the heat of the moment". Travelbird (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Travelbird, I do not wish to do anything other than help Wikipedia. I am new, and learning the ropes. It is very hard for me to learn anything, when my work is removed before I can edit it. Is there anything we can do to resolve this? Thank you so much for your time finding dreams 14:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs)
Finding Dreams
I did not make the subject of the article you wish to delete, but just about me. I want to make sure you know I'm trying to "use my own words" and be resourceful. Do you think maybe you could help me to understand why you spend more time flagging people, than writing? Are you just more talented in this area? I'm more of a writer. I'm trying to follow the request to edit work, and pages Wikipedia suggest. Thank You So Much. finding dreams 14:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs)
I am NOW reacting to the warnings. Thank You. : ) finding dreams 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs)
The article as such has fundamental problems. I would suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:Your first article, on what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT on how to create articles and the reasons why articles get deleted on here. Especially the guidelines on notability which are discussed at length at Wikipedia:Notability. We certainly welcome new contributions here, however with thousands of article being created every day editors monitoring new pages must make a fairly quick decision whether an article conforms to these guidelines or not. If they feel that the article does not, it is either tagged for speedy deletion or for a deletion discussion. However we ask that you do not interfere with this process by simply deleting tags. In 99.9% of cases this will not need to the article being saved and will just annoy others, which are working to keep self-promotion and avertising out of Wikipedia.
The main problem with your article is the fact that it does not have a clear subject. From what is currently written it could be the Robin Kirby (the person), Robin Kirby (a music genre) or a general discussion of independent music. You should focus only on one subject per article. These articles are not a discussion board. If Robin Kirby is the subject, then the article should be at Robin Kirby. However before creating such an article, please carefully read WP:PEOPLE on what level of fame a person much have achieved before being allowed an article on here. If you want to cover independent music, please be aware that there is already an article Independent music where you can contribute. Travelbird (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Travelbird, as a reply on that talk page you wrote "you can put forward a proposition to change this naming convention", but did not give a link to the wikipedia convention. Is there such a convention? If it does not exist, it can hardly be changed, can it? 93.97.143.19 (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is referred to (albeit vaguely) in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Multiple_local_names where it refers to Google searches as an example of how to determine the most widely used local name. But even if is not expressly stated, you are welcome to put forward a proposition to those rules listed there stating something like "If there is no name in common English usages them the name used by the majority of the local population should be used." or similar. Travelbird (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply (sorry I didn't sign when I asked my question). The discussion that Tuscumbia has linked to is heading in the direction of producing a convention suggestion. I think having a convention that applies throughout Wikipedia would be the ideal solution, just having a "consensus" that such-and-such should apply to one particular subject area would be the worst solution. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, when tagging pages with A1, you should wait at least fifteen minutes after the article was created, they could be still writing the article, and having that tag on it (to the new editor) makes no sense. Tofutwitch11(TALK)14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I usually do. However if a page is created only with a deletion tag or "hang on" tag as sole content that almost invariably means that the page has been deleted previously due to another CSD so in this particular case I tagged it right away. Travelbird (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was a bit quick :¬) - I am in the middle of a massive copy edit on the main page Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya for the GOCE January drive and will not have time to look in more detail at the page until tomorrow.
Can you please ensure that the page is notified on the Indian project noticeboard?
Sorry I hadn't realized that you were copying the material from elsewhere on Wikipedia. If sources/refs are added within the next week then this AfD will just be closed as "keep" and that'll be the end of the matter. Travelbird (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi!Travelbird ! I am trying to create some research content on Lewis Nkosi the South African writer, i have made only a beginning very sooni will contribute with references and sources. But i don't why my article needs to be deleted, please suggest changes to keep it.Somanchisaikumar (talk)somanchisaikumar —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
There is already an article on Lewis Nkosi at Lewis Nkosi. That has been around since 2005 and will not be deleted. You recently created several articles on individual books of this author, such as Mandela's Ego. Individual articles on books are only permitted in special cases where a book passes a set of criteria to establish that it is especially notable. These criteria are outlined at WP:BOOK. As we are not a library catalog, we don't have articles on every book ever published. Only when a book is deemed particularly notable should it have it's own article. Otherwise any info on books can be added to the author's page. Travelbird (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hilton hassell never sold the rights to most of his work (book covers,cards..)
my family owns the reproductive rights so it is not a issue
If you own the copyright you can donate it via a process detailed at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. However for this to work you (and you alone) must be the sole owner of the copyright. If multiple people own it, then all these people must either give you power of attorney or consent to you giving that right up.
Hi, you placed template of Speedy Deletion on ISKCON New Delhi page. As taking necessary actions, i renew the page strictly according to Wikipedia's Standards, and removed all infringements of disputed link. So, it will be appreciable if you remove that template from page as-soon-as possible. Bill william compton (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text is still essentially identical to the one you took from the other website. Contrary to popular belief, changing a couple of words does not mean that it is no longer a copyright infringement. The text needs to be your own work in its entirety. I will remove the copyrighted sections and leave your own work. Travelbird (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but i think you didn't compare the website material & that which i wrote. Almost whole portion you remove, is even not mention on that website, it was entirely my work, also if anything is mentioned on website, it doesn't mean it won't be use in article, yeah i admit we can't do copy-paste but we can use that info in our own way with proper references. Its really shocking, you even didn't evaluate the problem constructively. Sections you removed were universal news, not limited to temple's COPYRIGHTED WEBSITE , I even didn't use that website as reference. Tell me, how you'll change temple's actual divisions like- Main Shrine, Museum,etc. tell me how you'll change history of anything if it is mentioned on several places. I changed the entire sentences by mine and for that i gave several valid references, than how it was infringements from dispute website.
It will be really best if you recheck, don't take actions in hurry, specially if you don't have any knowledge of subject (here subject is temple) Bill william compton (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In short: you may not add any text from any other source unless that site specifically states that it allows you to freely use the text. Almost no websites allow this. In this case the text was taken from http://www.iskcondelhi.com/ and http://www.culturalindia.net/ both of which clearly state that the reserve copyright for any content. You cannot use these texts on Wikipedia. Travelbird (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While JETT customer experience definitely needs some work, and might not survive an AfD in its present form, I didn't see it as so obviously bad that it should be CSD'd. The article has several references; I haven't reviewed them in detail, but some seem independent of the source. It's definitely on the spammy side, but has potential. My suggestion is give the editor a few days, and if it still doesn't seem salvageable, nominate it for AfD.--SPhilbrickT19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
de jure, etc.
Very well put. Do you have any suggestions on how to ask for and find consensus on the broader philosophical point? I'm clearly having trouble keeping the partisans out of the fray. If you have any ideas, I'd be glad to halt my proposal and retract the RfC. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately these discussions always tend to get taken over by editors with a vested interest in one particular part of the issue. In this case that is Nagorno-Karabakh. I've repeatedly tried to shift the focus more to a discussion of partially-recognized countries as a whole, but I don't seem to be having any luck. At the moment I don't see any way to get a sensible result out of the debate so I would suggest abandoning it for the moment and then re-introducing a new proposal in the future independent of a current debate on a particular page about that page's name. Travelbird (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've created my first page and it was speedily deleted. All the information in this new article was from another Wikipedia article (Kruger National Park). The idea being to to start somewhere and expand from there. Apart from the introduction, about 80 - 90% of the new article was in my own words since I contributed it to the original Kruger National Park article. I've also provided references. Can you please point out the offending parts? Or must I start from scratch using the same references again? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salitje (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot about signing Salitje (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the text was taken from another Wikipedia article it has to be deleted there also, as it was taken word for word from a third party source. Travelbird (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hello my page elizabeth lavenza was deleted. this is constable as it is a article about a fitional character in the book Frankenstien by mary shelly wikipedia requested a new article and i filoled the criteria. what are you doing? the article is from other wiki sources as well can you please tell me where i went wrong.
Imapoo123 (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page was considered to be pure vandalism, i.e. the content must have been so ridiculous that it was deleted on site.
If you add new pages on fictional characters you must 1) provide references and 2) show how this particular character is especially notable to warrant a separate page. Most minor characters from TV show, novels etc do not warrant their own page - instead info in them should be added to the main page on the book. Travelbird (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as I explained in my edit summary (I was under the assumption that that was the reason edit summaries existed), I am working on the article. I hope you can bring up the patience to let me :) Thanks! effeietsanders13:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking you should not create articles until their are at least semi-finished. If you must copy-and-paste a foreign language article to the page first to translate it later you might want to add "will translate it soon" to the edit summary. Travelbird (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I paste the foreign version to make clear where I'm coming from and clear the copyright situation. That helps tracking information to a source later on if that is necessary. As I added in the summary, "to work from" :) (although that could perhaps, in hindsight, be more explicit) effeietsanders13:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: I'm note absolutely certain that the copy-and-paste move is compatible with the license of the original article as it was created in 2005 and still licensed under GFDL which normally does not permit a simple copy-and-paste. Travelbird (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is because of two reasons: the original source for the Dutch article, has a license similar to CC-BY, and secondly because of the update in GFDL 1.3, allowing transfer to CC-BY-SA retrospectively if the WMF agreed to that (which it did). Copyright-wise there is no difference between editing an article on the English language Wikipedia and copying an article from one language version to the other. effeietsanders13:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough checking :) As you can see on [6], I entered a link to the source I took it from, making a copy to clarify which version. I also stated which license I used for that. At the link, you can find all information, like you did, regarding the original authors. The Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation, which you can find at their website, option a) for attribution is a hyperlink to the source page for online re-use. This is exactly what I did.
Further, the original source I referred to was www.parlement.com (not myself), but it seems that this is true for many articles on Dutch politics, but not this specific one, so please ignore that. effeietsanders14:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A hyperlink with attribution, e.g. "This text was taken from http://xyzabc.com" is okay, but adding just a interwiki link without attribution isn't really enough. The attribution should be in the article, not in the edit summary, otherwise the hyperlink doesn't work and isn't of any use. Travelbird (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia all text attribution happens in the edit history tab, that would be the obvious location to look for it. Using the edit summary would bring the attribution in the history tab (As I did) and therefore present it at the location where it could be expected in the Wikipedia environment. Especially considering that the original stems from a Wikipedia environment with the same mechanism, it would be no more than reasonable to follow the same procedure here. For the record: many people take these articles and just add "nl:Kabinet-Gerbrandy II" in the summary or not even that, and nobody really cares - I think that mine is an extremely careful and appropriate approach, mentioning both the source and license :) effeietsanders14:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there are a lot of possibilities - I never wanted to imply other options were impossible. However, a few details: the example you give is not a copy, but uses it as a source (big difference, regarding copyright), and secondly, when I want to know who wrote an article, I will not look first in the text, but rather in the history tab, where all copyright information is stored. effeietsanders12:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Magherintemple - Machaire and Teampaill
Hi, I am the writer of the page that is getting all this attention... I have not contributed to this site before. The article is and abbreviated version of a paper I completed as part of my MA in history. It is pasted. It is accurate and it is not anyones work other than my own... There are no other articles on this area I believe I am the only one to do so. I believe as such it should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Cúl Ghear (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick thanks for tidying up my duplicated entries on the above. Will also see if I can improve with links, but that will probably also involve cleaning up another messy article on higher education in Australia. Denise Bradley is best known for the Bradley Report into higher education in Australia.
Hello. The problem with above articles is that you did the research yourself. Essays and research papers are not permitted here because they violate Wikipedia's policies - see WP:OR for more details. The reason for this is that we have no way of checking every user's credentials to see if they are qualified enough to make the statements included in the article. I am not saying that what you wrote is incorrect or false - but we need to insist on having only facts that are well sourced by reliable third-party sources here to ensure quality & factual accuracy. Travelbird (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not created three articles - only two. Nexus Drum & Bugle Corps is shown as being notable for it's success in it's first year as a band, and also notable for the fact it draws band members from both Distant Thunder and Equinox due to a merger. It is also notable, as said on the page, for the involvement with Indoor Percussion and the Encore Junior Corps. Equinox is notable for it's historical relevance as Biggleswade Marching Brass etc. These are noted on both pages. Once again, I wish that the speedy deletion requests for this be removed as soon as is convenient. Joe O'Dell (Vie ascenseur) - :) (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of "The battle of Los Angleles (Movie)
Hi travelbird. Can you suggest how we can differentiate the difference between Battle: Los Angleles, and the yet to be released by of similar name. I think this article was important to show the difference between the documentary movie and the science fiction movie. Maybe instead of deleting somebody could edit the page in a manner that would be helpful.
Remy.range (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the article is that is is highly questionable whether this film is notable. Unless a film receives widespread coverage prior to release it is highly unlikely that a film should have an article before it has even been screened the first time. Travelbird (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I can understand your logic there. Can you propose a method to prevent the confusion of this "questionable film" and the battle"los angeles film. youtube is a mess right now due to the mass confusion between the two trailers.
Remy.range—Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Honestly - that is Youtube's problem. Our concern here on Wikipedia is only that we included films that are notable. Independent films that have not yet been released and have only received coverage on Youtube and in forums are not likely to pass the notability bar. If and when the film receives coverage and attains notability, an article can be re-created. Travelbird (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A "work in progress" tag is fine for a couple of hours but if nothing happens then the article is likely to get tagged. It is proposed for deletion at the moment, so you have another 7 days to add more info and explain why this particular order deserves its own page. Travelbird (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted and then undeleted the article after realizing that the group meets criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC and therefore may be notable. I recommend taking the article to AfD if you wish to pursue deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved the citations, added some material. This has moved me from neutral to Weak Keep, but it's possible I'm starting to get too close to the subject. In any case, the initial AfD posting significantly understates her accomplishments: she's won several national-level U.S. fiddling competitions, has been the sole subject of one RS newspaper article, and also of 5-1/2 minutes of public television documentary (albeit metropolitan/state TV, not national.) Your input on the discussion (per WP:MUSICBIO guidelines) would be welcome; it's possible she still falls short. Yakushima (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Travelbird. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Brayden Olson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: CEO of a company notable enough for its own article is enough for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK20:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then how about just flagging it for needing more reliable sources? Filmtracks is referenced in enough on Wikipedia to warrant an article, even if my composition skills are insufficient. - jg2904 (Talk)23:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. When I did the search it found the text on a website. However it had apparently already been removed from there so that is why I posted the Google cache link. It seems to have been purged from that as well now, so we now have a problem proving the copyvio. Travelbird (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange. The text reads like it is copied, but I couldn't find it (although I didn't try very hard.) I sort of wonder what happened, but I'm not going to pursue it. I suspect it will go away for other reasons.--SPhilbrickT01:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I see an editor continuing to disrupt through continued recreation of deleted articles and want to pull my hair out. However, this time, while the Lil Tudor-Craig article is poorly written, the article can be developed and notability of the subject can actually be established through added content and references. I'll spend the next couple of hours working on expanding the article. Don't pull your hair out, please. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse01:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is. The only purpose of the article is to promote a "small game been developed by Isuru Edirisinghe(me)". But if you like we can AfD it instead. Travelbird (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion"-Cntras (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be fairly new to Wikipedia, so I'll try and explain this to you once again: The issue here is not the game, it is the fact that the article's author created the page purely to promote the game. E.g. A page stating " I just created the coolest game called ever. It's called ""Coolgame" and is really great." would equally be both promotional and borderline pure vandalism. Travelbird (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you for enlightening me on the CSD deletion process. This coming from someone who can't even create their own article without having it deleted.-Cntras (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for interrupting, but this is one of the more misunderstood issues in Wikipedia. (I wonder if we need to clarify our wording.) Many times, I see an editor challenge a removal for advertising with the protest, "But it's all true!" It may be an indictment of the advertising profession that truth and advertising are viewed as non-overlapping, but an article can be 100% factual, while still qualifying as promotional.--SPhilbrickT12:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CSD
Thank you for tagging Finlay Pratt as a hoax. I still have issues recognizing which is which. So, if possible, can you explain differences between attacks, hoax, no context and unremarkable person briefly?? Novice7 | Talk11:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure:
"Peter from London is a guy from the UK" would be A7 (No indication of importance)
"Peter from London is the best looking person ever" would still be A7 as the assertion of importance is not credible.
"Peter from London is the King of England" is G3 (blatant hoax) as it is obviously not true.
"Peter from London" would be A1 (no context) as there isn't enough content to establish what the article is really about and whether or not the subject is notable.
Thank you so much. So, if someone creates a page like "Peter from London killed (someone). He was imprisoned..," it is an attack. Right? Novice7 | Talk11:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources most likely yes. However in some instances it may be true, in which case the article may be nominated for deletion at AfD as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT unless this is a (very) rare case of the person actually being notable due to just this one event. Travelbird (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. I'm not 100% sure that the claim that he was editor-in-chief may qualify as an assertion of notability, but we'll let an administrator decide whether this qualifies for a speedy delete. Travelbird (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help. And if you can completely remove all files related to the typo-version (named as in the title), I mean history, talk-page, etc. Greetings. --Robsuper (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Goldis Language Institute
How could you possibly name an introduction of a company as an advertisement? This is so lame. If you're worried about copyright, then what's the significance of placing reference or source in your article wizard?? Besides, if you're really worried about copyright, go stop Julian Assange or ban his page in wikipedia. You've got to redefine the word 'lame'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhadhamed (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Grant McFarland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
I was going to tag the article with {notability} as well as he's likely not suffciently so. As Imdb does show that this person acted in a number of films it might not be case of speedy delete but rather of AfD instead. However I have no objection to your speedy tag - and thus didn't remove it, as it likely wouldn't survive and AfD discussion anyway. Travelbird (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
