PeterChickenCampbell

Welcome!

Hello, PeterChickenCampbell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Darkspots (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gottenburg

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Gottenburg isn't used anything close to "frequently" in English-language texts, especially modern ones. If you can find a source detailing the origin or use of this spelling, then this would be good information for the Name section of the article. Knepflerle (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well it was simply that there were over 20,000 hits to it on a Google search and as it was mentioned in some recent professional correspondence about a conference there attended by my colleagues, I thought that it should be stated as common. Maybe it is only commonly spelt that way in Australia. How about simply "(also Gottenburg)" ? PeterChickenCampbell (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not common in the sense that out of all the references to Gothenburg in English language texts, it's an incredibly small fraction of them that use Gottenburg. A quick look through Google results using this spelling shows that pretty much all refer to historical contexts from times when several spellings were in use, so I think it's misleading to have in the main lead the simple statement "is commonly/frequently called". I think the information is much better placed in the Name section of the article, which covers several other similar alternative spellings - to put them all in the first sentence would be overwhelming and counter-productive. A source with more information about the origin of this spelling would be interesting for the reader too. All the best, Knepflerle (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS making the redirect was a very good idea though - if there are any other historical spellings you come across let me know and we can make sure the coverage in the article is complete and that all the relevant redirects exist! Knepflerle (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Canberra Choral Society

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A tag has been placed on Canberra Choral Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

June 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Canberra Choral Society, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Canberra Choral Society

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have seen your message on Peter's talk page about the deletion of the article Canberra Choral Society. I can perhaps help to clarify things by explaining that the article was proposed for deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7, because "the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant". The essential point is not that it is a club, but that there is no indication of significance. It would have been equally possible to have used a notice that said that it was an article "about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Likewise there are templates for articles about people, bands, web sites, and animals that do not indicate their importance. If there are newspaper reports or any other reliable sources that indicate that the society is notable then there can by all means be an article on it: being a "club" is no bar to an article. I suggest reading notability and reliable sources to see what is required. Also, if you want any further clarification you are welcome to contact me on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

'James' - thanks for that. I understand the clarification and accept the criticism, however I felt that I had provided quite a lot of argument for the importance of the organisation without simply stating "it is an important organisation". From an historian's point of view, the mere fact that a musical organisation has lasted for 50 years in Canberra, a city that has only existed for 100 years is enough to make it very significant and extraordinarily notable. I think I have a problem with the 'speedy' part of the deletion: if it was only in existence for one day, how was it possible for anyone to see it and make corrections and improvements? I had though that a collaborative encyclopedia might work that way - it seems that what is wanted is fully-formed articles without any need for anyone else to add detail that I may not know. Secondly, I guess I might question the purpose: I would like to use Wikipedia precisely in order to discover basic information about esoteric things, out of the mainstream that only a few people know details about; in other words, it was not significant enough to make it into the Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes they have to be reliable, and yes, I suppose there has to be a limit, but when the acknowledged expert on the topic creates an article which is removed before he has even had a chance to add some footnotes and expand some point (after consulting some files), then I have to admit that I was pretty non-plussed (particularly when I had actually consulted quite a few other choir entries already on Wikipedia while writing the article, and found them to have much less detail and to my mind much less indication of significance! It is only quality control if everyone is subjected to the same criteria. PeterChickenCampbell (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand everything you say, and I sympathise with a good deal of it. I am inclined to think that speedy deletion may have been a mistake: better to have given you a chance to work on it. It is not necessary to have an article fully formed from the start, but it is necessary to have something which indicates that the subject of the article is of significance. That is enough to stop speedy deletion, which is only supposed to be for articles with no indication of suitability at all, and then you should be given time to produce evidence of notability. If what you say about this choir is true then you should be able to produce an indication of significance without difficulty. Comparison with other articles on similar topics is something that is often done by editors new to Wikipedia, but it almost always a mistake, for two reasons. Firstly, there may be reasons why the other articles are more notable, which may not be evident to a newcomer. Secondly, and more importantly, unfortunately there are many articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and which might have been deleted if they had been noticed, but with all the work being done by volunteers it is not possible to check everything.

I suggest that, if you are willing to have another try at this, you may like to start by asking Peter, the admin who deleted the article, to "userfy" it for you. This means that you will have a copy of it, probably at User:PeterChickenCampbell/Canberra Choral Society. Since this will be in your user space, rather than out among the articles, you should be given a good deal more freedom to write it, without it being speedily deleted. If and when it is suitable it can then be released as an article. However, in fairness I should stress that the article will probably be eventually deleted (though not speedily) unless you can indicate that the choir has received significant coverage in independent sources. It is easiest for other editors if these sources are online, but not necessary. A couple of passing mentions will not be good enough, and mere announcements of concerts to come don't count for much. Feel free to consult me on my talk page if you want my opinion about particular sources and how useful they are. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peter, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and for raising the issue of my deletion of the article. The short answer is that I have reviewed my deletion of this article, and decided that it was mistaken - it clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion under A7. Therefore I have restored the article. A few others points to explain/help you:

The reason I deleted it was based on me spotting 'key phases' that triggered my internal 'not notable' alert system, including things like "small group who began singing together for their own pleasure and musical advancement" and others like "Good singers from all backgrounds are always encouraged to join", which sounds like advertising. The reason I restored the article is that later on the list of events the choir has played at is a credible claim to importance. This isn't meant to be an excuse for my deletion, as I should have read the article more closely rather than skimming it. It does mean however that the article needs more work for it to conform to our ideal standards.
I am personally ok with this article remaining in article space while this work is carried out. However, as James points out, the article could potentially be deleted through our articles for deletion process (this is a discussion over 7 days, rather than a speedy deletion). If you will take more than a few days to work on the article, then you may want to move the article to User:PeterChickenCampbell/Canberra Choral Society, to allow you to work on it in (relative!) peace. There is no obligation for you to do this.
Hmm, think that's about it, I thought I'd have more points :) Feel free to ask me (or James, as he offered above, that's no problem) if you need help with any of this. Peter 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter (and James): Thank you for that help and the decision; I shall endeavour to improve the article as soon as I can - part of the reason I was grumpy was that I can only spend a few hours a week at most on the Wiki and i just had not had a chance to do more than put up the skeleton article (on a topic I though had value) that I was going to come back to in a few days. I also appreciate the help and the comments and am fully aware of the need to all the things mentioned. PeterChickenCampbell (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Beefsteak Club

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your message about this, but discussion of the article should go here: Talk:Beefsteak Club so that other editors can participate. I moved the discussion there and have replied to your message. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Princes Park, Carlton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Parade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Parade, Melbourne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Angels (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mount Ievers, 521 Royal Parade, Melbourne.tif)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:Mount Ievers, 521 Royal Parade, Melbourne.tif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply