Deutschgirl
|
Translating from German Wikipedia - your query on the Germany project page
editI don't think these are likely to be deleted.
See here for criteria for speedy and normal deletion
The main reason for deletion would be lack of notability, and this is unlikely if the German article has been around for a while. If references are missing, parts could be blanked, possibly reducing the article to a stub, but this is unlikely to be done without a chance to fix the problem. Removal is more likely for biographies of living people, where the rules are stricter, for obvious reasons. To improve the chances, I would recommend making sure that the first version of the article you create includes the link to the German article (this is easy if the German article already links to articles in other languages); this indicates to reviewers that the subject is likely to be notable, even if not well-known in England or the USA. Also make sure that the first paragraph of the first version establishes notability. You should also create the talk page and add {{translated page|de|source page title|version=|insertversion=}}. Many German articles do not have a lot of citations, but sometimes sources are given in the edit summaries. When the German article contains references, you should check them before adding them as citations in the English Wikipedia (copying references that you have not actually verified yourself is sometimes considered a mild form of plagiarism). You may want to use the citation templates (which seem to be less popular on German Wikipedia). If you do use them for German language references, you should use the language=German parameter. Examples are {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}}. --Boson (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bosun has covered most of the key points. Do check out the translation convention which is evolving to provide guidance and consistency of German translation. Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Smile!
edit
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Set Sail For The Seven Seas 312° 4' 45" NET 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
British 125cc championship
editHi, if you look at any motorcycle racing article about a year of racing it is mainly tables about who is where in the championship, that is the information of racing, there are notes in-between the tables which explains why things happened, if you look at the moto gp articles and superbike world championship articles they are of a poorer quality. I have expanded the opening to include more information about the ACU academy cup class in the intro. This intro is actually longer than most of the motorcycle racing articles as it stood, but i will try and expand more on this. Cheers Xrateddan (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- My biggest concern was more that the words "motorcycle racing" never appeared in the intro rather than the length. When someone like me who has no experience with the sport quickly glances at the page they have no idea what sport the article is about. It's still a bit vague but definitely looks better. Thanks for taking the time to expand it. Feel free to remove the tag if you think the article is good as is. --Deutschgirl (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That page
editYes it's linked to in error from a doc page. I'm in the middle of deleting it. Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
You speedy-tagged it way too speedily. (Pun intended).
It is under construction, and now has a construction tag.
It conforms to the format and scope of other outlines. See Portal:Contents/Outlines.
The Transhumanist 02:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless you shouldn't have removed the speedy deletion tag yourself since you created the article. You should have added the hang-on tag as the policy states. That being said I didn't re-tag the article since it does seems to follow the outlines, guidelines, something that I was not aware of before now. Seems like a strange policy to me since it's just duplicating information but that's not my place. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 02:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please edit my contribution for neutrality
editI'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not exactly sure how to make my contribution compliant and also avoid deletion. I received your message that it needed to be edited for neutrality and that you could do that. Please do, the information has links attached that should verify what has been written.
Thank you, Kate K8cosgrove (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I edited the article, mostly for style but also for COI and NPOV. The big COI thing was the link to your website, which I had already removed. Wikipedia is not for advertisement. Right now my biggest concern with the article is notability. You can read the specific guidelines for people here WP:PEOPLE. The quick summary of it is this:
- "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
- If you can show me a reliable third party source, or name a specific notability criteria, that you think justifies the article I can help you cite your sources to establish notability, and then the article should be on it's way to becoming an excellent stub!
that kinda stuff is an "attack-page" (G10) and should be immediately blanked. Cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article didn't seem severe enough to me to qualify as an attack page which is why I tagged it as vandalism, but I'll be sure to judge more harshly and and use G10 next time. Thanks for the info --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 04:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: David Akiba
editHello Deutschgirl, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of David Akiba, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: that the artist is exhibited "widely at galleries around the world" and is "part of several permanent collections" is a claim of notability sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
from nicolesprinkles
edithi! don't mean to be annoying - we're new wikipedia!
can you please offer some guidance about what is viable information and what is not? to us, the facts that sprinkles created the first mobile cupcake truck, uses social media in a novel way, contributes to its local communities, etc are all sourced and arguably informational. just wondering where the line is drawn (i.e. why is the fact that barbra streisand sent oprah cupcakes encyclopedic information?)
thanks for your guidance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolesprinkles (talk • contribs) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Nicole, thanks for being willing to talk about the article. The problem isn't quite that the information is bad and has nothing to do with the sources provided. The problem has to do with the tone of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, and the tone in a lot of what I removed was quite promotional. Check out a featured article for a company ie. Microsoft. Can you see the difference in tone? Take for example this sentence from your menu section "Sprinkles Cupcakes are baked fresh in small batches throughout the day from the finest ingredients, including sweet cream butter, bittersweet Callebaut Belgian chocolate, pure Nielsen-Massey Madagascar Bourbon vanilla, fresh bananas and carrots, real strawberries and natural citrus zests. Sprinkles Cupcakes contain no preservatives, trans fats or artificial flavors." This is not encyclopedic content. In need to be written in a neutral point of view. Have you read WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. They might help some. Hopefully this has helped make things clearer. If not let me know and I can try to explain this better. Cheers --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 00:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Florencia
editI've just reverted you and Revision Deleted your edit. Please don't copy BLP violations to talk pages, BLP policy applies in all namespaces. Thank you. Courcelles 09:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Got it thanks. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 14:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Article Draft - Lost?
editI used the Article Wizard last night to create a MigreLief page. I worked on it for hours and then clicked on "Save Draft" or whatever the link said. I used the user page feature so I could go back and work on it the next day before submitting for advice and review.
I can not find it but then again...I am not sure where to look? I typed in all sorts of things in the search bar including User:Sallybass/MigreLief etc. Is it gone or am I just overlooking it. Please advise.~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallybass (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like you submitted it to AfC instead of as a user space draft. It's right here. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MigreLief. On the top of wikipedia right next to log out there is a button called "my contributions". This shows every edit you made (unless it was deleted by an admin). You can always check there in case you forget where you made an edit (happens to me all the time). Good luck with your article. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me. That was my original submission about 6 months ago. I attempted to do a draft for review and advise last night...it didn't save for some reason. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallybass (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh sorry about that I didn't check the date, yeah if it's not listed in your contribs then it didn't save. It's very unlikely an admin would have deleted it from your userspace. Always check to make sure things really save, wikipedia can be weird sometimes --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
RB
editYou are now a Rollbacker. WilliamH (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Great thank you --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 October 2010
edit- News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced
- In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news
- WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?
- Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Hi - Feedback on your actions on Florencia Daud
editI'm an active member in the Buenos Aires expat community, and so I've enjoyed the discussion on the BAexpats forum concerning Florencia Daud. Not 1, but at least 2 upstanding members of our community have come out with very specific denouncements of Florencia, including torrid details of dates, times, etc.
While I use Wikipedia all of the time, I'm not at all familiar with the administrative portion. I've been reading a little bit today, but I still have a lot to learn.
Even so, I feel disappointed in your own response to the edit made to her Wikipedia article, where the editor added the claim that she has scammed people and referenced the BAExpats forum post. Don't get me wrong, the editor who made the edit was probably in the wrong. But, I feel that your response was wrong as well, and it didn't help those of us who know little about Wikipedia.
The fact is, there is overwhelming evidence on the BAExpats forum that Florencia is a sham. Furthermore, if you read her Wikipedia entry even without this evidence, you realize that there are no references or facts to back-up the claims, and that it could be a sham. Couple this with the evidence on the forum, and it seems cut and dry that the page should be deleted.
So, rather than just undoing the edit, maybe you could have helped us out on removing this ridiculous Wikipedia entry?
To go the extra mile, I'm going to even argue your removal was not in compliance with BLP:
You cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP. Well, I read it, and it says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I, for one, do not believe the material was poorly sourced, and I do not think you should have removed it without waiting for discussion. (Of course, the editor really probably just wanted the page to be deleted, which brings me back to my point above. You should have helped with that).
In any case, please excuse my rant. It's not a big deal. I'm sure her page is going to be deleted shortly. Have a good day :)
Sincerely, Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonphos (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- You cited the exact sentence from the BLP that I would use to justify my action. The information I removed was quite clearly poorly sourced.
- "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources. (from the WP:BLPSPS.
- The source cited was a blog/forum post and is not verifiable.
- I am sorry if you or others have experienced trouble with the person in the past but Wikipedia is not a battleground. If the claims cannot be supported with reliable source then the BLP makes it quite clear that the information may not be added.
- Furthermore I was not trying to make changes without discussion. In my edit summaries I made it quite clear why I was removing the information, and I left another note on the talk page. I also reported it to the BLP noticeboard for a third opinion [1]. If someone wanted the page deleted there was multiple places that they could have gone for help. I understand that Wikipedia and all of it's policies and procedures can be confusing for new editors, but it is inappropriate to add unsourced claims to an article hoping that it will be deleted. There are multiple places where one can get help with using Wikipedia and if someone had asked me I would have been more than happy to help them through the AfD process (the deletion process that the article is currently undergoing). Instead the ips just readded the information with no discussion anywhere. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 01:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi - Thanks for the response. It did teach me several things about the Wikipedia procedures that I didn't know. I appreciate your time, and I apologize if I caused you any stress or harm, you did the right thing. Jasonphos (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Bike Shaped Object
editAnd what could possibly be your reason for wanting to AFD Bike Shaped Object?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please read my explanation on the AfD page. I feel that it fails WP:NEO and the sources provided do not establish notability. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't tagged it for speedy deletion so I'm going to remove your hold on tag on the article. No immediate action is going to be taken. The article will be disused by editors for one week and then an admin will close the discussion and determine what the consensus was. Check out WP:AfD to learn about it. You should explain why you feel the article should be kept right here. You can edit the article to improve it and address concerns during this process. Let me know if you have any question about AfD. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 17:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 November 2010
edit- In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric
- WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey
- Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails
- Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days
- Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news
Under-reversion
editHi Deutschgirl! Thanks for helping to clear up the vandalism on Scatman John; just wanted to pass on a friendly reminder to check the history and make sure the version being reverted to is not another vandal's version :). Thanks & keep up the good work!
-- Joren (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Got it thanks for the heads up. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 01:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Bad Dabs
editHi, regarding this pair of edits, several dabs are incorrect. Deal, Kent should have been Deal railway station, and Purley, London should have been Purley railway station, because in railway-related articles we normally link to stations not places; whereas Ashford (Surrey) railway station should have been either Ashford International railway station or Ashford (Kent) railway station (the latter is a redirect to Ashford International), because Ashford (Surrey) is approximately 100 kilometres (62 mi) from Ashford (Kent). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see that now thanks for pointing it out and fixing the problem. I'll be sure to slow down while fixing dab links in the future. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 23:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
edit New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Deutschgirl! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
New deal for page patrollers
editHi Deutschgirl,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)