User talk:C6541

Leave me a message

User Page • User Talk • Archives • All Contributions

Foreign-language contributions

Hi. {{db-foreign}} is only used in the situation (not common in my experience) where an article from a foreign WP has been cut-and-pasted here (the point being that to do that loses the contribution record - there is a procedure at WP:TRANSLATE for doing it properly). The foreign WP reference should be included in the tag, e.g. {{db-foreign|source=es:Warekena}}.

Much more usually, what we get is a foreign text input by somebody who probably doesn't know any other WP exists. The right tag then is {{notenglish}}, which is not a speedy request - because sometimes these articles are worth translating. When that expands on the article page, it gives you a message and a link to the place to paste it on WP:PNT, where someone who knows the language may pick it up and translate or PROD or whatever is appropriate.

If you know or can guess the language, then put, e.g., {{notenglish|Spanish}}. That gives a more useful template, including a link to the relevant foreign Wikipedia, and also a link to Google Translate, which will show you a machine translation - rough and ready, but often good enough (as with Clauisabel magdaleno just now) to tell you that the article is about a NN band or person and can be speedy tagged without bothering to list it at PNT.

The Google Translate facility can be used to help guess the language - e.g. if it looks like Arabic but the translation makes no sense, try Farsi.

There is a useful set of message templates such as {{contrib-ru1}} to give the author a bilingual message saying we require English and pointing him to the foreign WP. List of them at WP:PNT/T. The most exotic one I have yet used for real is {{contrib-sq1}}.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB orphan tagging

Just wanted to drop you a note and let you know that I've removed the orphan templates you added to KDIS and WLGC. Both of these pages are disambiguation pages, which means that the fewer incoming links to them, the better. In a perfect world, all disambiguation pages would be orphans. Not sure if there's something wrong in the AWB settings or if it's just a matter of getting more practice with the tool, but I just wanted to let you know. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Swissotel Quito

Well. I could not speedy under G4 as it was speedily deleted. I think it does assert significance, but don't believe it has independent notability. Redirect to main company's article is a possibility. I gutted the promo fluff and irrelevant puff. It may be that the creator has training in marketing or communications. They, I believe, have trouble sometimes writing for an encyclopedia. They need a semester with my linguistics prof. He'd show 'em how to write concisely. Dlohcierekim 23:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD:Reverse scientific method

1. Admirable user page of yours! I love it!

2. Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method!

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Armorial Nord-1

Thank you for finding various typos and minor errors. However the removal of the blank lines significantly impairs readability, so I undid your edit, then went back and added the various corrections you made. It's tough enough going through and finding things in a huge list even with a little human friendly whitespace, without it, it's that much worse. --David V Houston (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 05:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

BC —> BCE

Hi, C6541. I know it's been a while since you've contributed, but I'm just noticing some of your contributions where you've changed BC to BCE or AD to CE, such as this one. As per our policy regarding era notations seen at WP:ERA, edits such as these are not to be done unless there is a substantive reason for doing so, or consensus has been reached to do so on the talk page. Please avoid making such edits in the future; I used to do this as well, and I've learned from it. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)