User talk:Travelbird

Archived talk

• /Archive 1 April/May 2006
• /Archive 2 June 2006
• /Archive 3 July-November 2006
• /Archive 4 February-April 2007

Place names

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.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Swiss HQ

Hi! I found http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swiss_International_Air_Lines&diff=366822488&oldid=366616572

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"

This document: http://www.swiss.com/web/EN/various/Documents/Direction_Basel.pdf shows that the airline's "Basel" office is indeed on the grounds of the airport, on the Switzerland side. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• At Swiss.com I found http://www.swiss.com/countries/AT/local_content/Pages/impressum.aspx - which does point to a registered office at that location. But the directions to SWISS offices (see http://www.swiss.com/web/EN/various/Pages/Directions.aspx ) do not point to this location. The Direction_Basel.pdf points to the airport. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

I think this should settle it: http://www.swiss.com/web/EN/about_swiss/media/press_releases/2004/Pages/pr_20040323_2.aspx "The Annual Results Press Conference takes place at 11:00, Tuesday, March 23 at the SWISS head office at Basel EuroAirport."

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.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Switzerland could help sort this stuff out. If you want I can start a discussion in that talk page.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

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. elektrikSHOOS 04:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ibrahimovic

The edit you reverted is certainly not true. Abuse by anonymous Turkish-based spammers is common in footballer articles, unfortunately. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 21:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too. A just wanted to give to re-add the info him a change on the odd chance that it was... Travelbird (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

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 sourced Ranjithsutari (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for your edit here :) Qwerta369 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Robbie Williams

Hi there, could you fix his Spouse section thingy it won't show on the page for some weird reason. Thanks in advance.
Sorryunlucky (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the template used (Template:Infobox musical artist) does not permit the addition of spouses. Unfortunately not all infoboxes permit all information. Travelbird (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your merger proposal

You recently proposed a merger of Matthew Hopkins with Matthew Hopkins in popular culture, but you did not not provide any rationale for your proposal. Perhaps you would care to take part in the discussion at Talk:Matthew Hopkins#Merge discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nil Patmore

You moved nil patmore to nigel patmore but you didn't mention any reason.—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 03:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) passports

You have an answer in Wiki project Armenia :).