User talk:Kolbasz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

notability notice for Quest of Dungeons page[edit]

Hello Kolbasz, nice meeting you. About the notability notice on the Quest of Dungeons page. Is it relevant to not enough external links to give credibility to the material written? What kind of material/links do you think would be useful? I avoid posting links directly to Microsoft Xbox One library for example as that could be assumed as marketing, but that is a reliable source maybe. Anyway thank you for your time. --Zenion.d (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My concern was that the sources all appeared to be catalog-type listings ("this game is available for platform X") and user-submitted reviews - which do not establish notability - rather than the "significant coverage in reliable sources" which Wikipedia requires. Try to find coverage from reputable magazines or sites: reviews, development coverage, creator interviews, etc, anything goes really - as long as it deals directly with the game and comes from a reliable source. Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Supersubmarina page[edit]

Hello Kolbasz, nice to meet you. I was starting to translate the es:Supersubmarina article as I thought it was relevant to have in English for non-Spanish speakers. --Sixstone (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi!
As soon as a page enters mainspace, it becomes subject to various rules and requirements for articles and may be speedily deleted if it does not meet them. In the case of your article, it was speedily deleted under the A7 criterion, "No indication of importance", as the article merely stated that a band by that name existed and did not indicate that it was important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
I suggest you recreate it as a draft, which will let you work on it in peace until it's ready. The page "Your first article" contains helpful tips for creating articles. You can also let other editors review your draft in the Articles for Creation process to make sure that it is ready to be published as an article.
Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your insights here. I will do so in that way. --Sixstone (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thankyou for your edits in this article. International Editor Shah (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kolbasz. You have new messages at Ayub407's talk page.
Message added 10:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ayub407talk 10:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Samsung_Galaxy_J7[edit]

copied and pasted ??????? from where ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveencm (talkcontribs) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead was apparently copied right off Samsung India's page, which is a clear copyright violation. It also reads like ad copy, because it is. Kolbasz (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please support this nomination[edit]

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#December 7--LL221W (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

G1 speedy deletion tag[edit]

Thank you for the note. --Dcirovic (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

While I do see your point, and will follow your suggestion, I can't help but wonder what has prompted this. I hope that this isn't intrusive or out of place, but your comment did come as a bit of a shock. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -Aeneid, Book I, Line 203 (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I was seeing multiple patrolled pages that should have been summarily tagged for speedy deletion or dealt with in other ways, and going through your contribution list I'm seeing many more. Don't take it personally - patrolling/curation is a way of making sure newly created pages conform to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and Wikipedia has a lot of rules and guidelines to learn. So for now, focus on helping the encyclopedia in another way, by editing it, and you'll learn them as you go along. Kolbasz (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Cantal is a department ruled by a prefect and with a prefecture or capital , its number is 15.[edit]

Hi ! Could you help me translate this , please ?

Thanks. Lookinland (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

France is divided in departments , each of them is ruled by a prefect nominated by the president of the republic and has a capital or prefecture.


Andrew Saul[edit]

Hi Kolbasz, How would I add these notable works:

1. books from amazon

and

2. IMDB Credits

thanks, Ananmallik1980 (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Cecil Kelley & Los Alamos[edit]

Hi, I noticed you undid the recent addition of the Cecil Kelley criticality accident to the list of civilian nuclear accidents, citing that Los Alamos was a military installation. I was not the editor who added it, but I am wondering about Los Alamos.... As I read over the article on it and review its own home page, I don't get the sense that it is really a military installation. Government, unquestionably; heavily involved in the creation of the first two nuclear weapons to ever be dropped on civilian populations, certainly; but a military installation? I am not sure I am following you there. If you are certain, then you are certain, and I will not press the point... Are you certain? KDS4444Talk 04:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I could have worded it better, but one of the list criteria is "To qualify as "civilian", the operation/material must be principally for non-military purposes.". Back then, Los Alamos was a pure weapons facility (and that's still its main focus, even if it has diversified), with the involved material intended for military purposes. Kolbasz (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. KDS4444Talk 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Serbian Institute in Washington[edit]

I don't know the subject, but I have checked that there are many pages about lobbysts.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can start a lobby group, so they have no inherent notability. The article isn't making any claims of significance whatsoever - it's merely saying that a group by that name exists, and what its mission statement is - so it's a clear candidate for speedy deletion under WP:A7. Kolbasz (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg I wanted to thank you for your help.That was very kind of you.I hope you like pie! Yasamin77 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Brith Christenson[edit]

You're absolutely right; I just re-read the reference and the author does indeed refer to her as "her". I should have seen that. Good pickup. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


Name of Chechnja page[edit]

Whilst you are correct about it not being referenced well (I often have that problem), there are pages such as "Name of Hungary" and "Name of Croatia". If this is deleted, then shouldn't those be deleted as well, or if they aren't deleted, shouldn't my page not be deleted either? -EggSalt (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Piv PivPiv[edit]

Hey, don't you dare to delete page Piv PivPiv or else you are disabled and I will report you!!!!!Sfvadsgfaegf (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Arktika 2007[edit]

Hi Kolbasz, I saw that you were nice enough to fix and edit units for some pages. Specifically, I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arktika_2007&diff=713199594&oldid=696581535 And noticed that, by its statement that the mission was planned by USSR KGB along with CIA so that it was obviously false because not only are the KBG and CIA not in those research industries and not working together, the USSR did not exist at the time of this mission. Looking back, I realized that the page had been vandalized at least twice. One should be obvious by the link I embedded, and another was the change of Mike McDowell to Mike McDonald. There may be others. I suspect that there is a tool for reversing the vandalism based up user or something, but I am a novice here. I will try to fix these two cases, but there may be more that I am missing. In case there are these other tools, would you please check that I did it correctly or just fix it over my fix?

I only ever edited one wikipedia page a couple of years ago to fix something obvious. I will try to not mess it up. btw, thanks for caring about SI units. Date formats are a pet peeve of mine. If this is not the correct way to send you a message, please just delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthercollector (talkcontribs) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Truthercollector: Nice catch! My edit on that page was one of a whole bunch aimed at fixing all the "Artic" and "Antartic" misspellings of "Arctic" and "Antarctic" on Wikipedia, so I wasn't really looking at the content on the page - I merely checked if the word really was supposed to be "Arctic" (and not an acronym or something).
There are tools like Huggle, as well as things like rollback rights, to help you fight vandalism, but in general it gets complicated if the vandal edits aren't the most recent ones (so edits like mine on that page complicate things - oops!). When the vandalism is old and has had a bunch of constructive edits since, I find it easiest to go back and edit the first pre-vandalism revision of the page (go to the page history, click on the first unvandalized revision, and hit "edit") and manually copy over any constructive edits since (i.e. hit "Show changes" - which will then show you the changes between the current version and that old version - and copy over what isn't vandalism). In any case, you seem to have gotten all the vandalism on that page. Good job! Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

..for your edits to Bath School disaster. I wanted to let you know that I have adjusted the wording back to "detonated an explosion" to describe what Kehoe constructed at the School. This usage does not appear to be incorrect - I did a search for "detonated an explosion" and found many examples with no results for a clear grammatical/usage reliable source stating that 'detonating a device' is more-preferred/-accepted over 'detonating an explosion'. What Kehoe set up at the School would probably be more clearly defined as a massive explosion of a set of relays rather than a single device. (The half of the school that wasn't destroyed was also wired to explode but the timer or timers did not not go off.) I have left your descriptor of the explosion of the car as is - that was clearly a single explosion, the trigger in this case being the gun that Kehoe & Superintendent Huyck struggled over before the car was obliterated. Shearonink (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Attack pages[edit]

Hello. Just a friendly reminder: when tagging pages for speedy deletion as attack pages, please remember to remove all content from the source of the page so that only the deletion template remains. Thank you. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 17:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of AngularBeers and David_Pich_Canes[edit]

Hello Kolbalsz

I find that you deleted two pages I created today by the reason A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)

My fault not having provided evidence of significance.

Here http://lameva.barcelona.cat/barcelonacultura/descobreix/bcn-innovacio-angular-beers-cat#.V026I77z_gs you can find an news-article, dated october/2015, in the Barcelona City Council web page which mentions AngularBeers as an event of interest for the city. As you can see there, the name of the author of that news piece is not published as an individual author but the institutional author "Barcelona Cultura", which embraces some sort of "city council commitment" to the event because it is meaningful for the city.

The same article mentions David Pich as the founder.

The same article mentions that the AngularBeers meetup receives explicit institutional support from Direcció de Creativitat i Innovació de l’ICUB which belongs to the City Council, so in some way, it says that "all barcelona citizens", via its city-council, via the ICUB are supporting the initiative.

I would be more than happy to retrieve my original content and complete it with those supporting independent and gubernamental informational references.

How could I get the page back, and retrieve my original writing?

Thanks. Xavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmontero (talkcontribs) 16:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You can ask the deleting administrator nicely if you can get them userfied. In any case, I suggest you rewrite your articles as drafts and submit them to Articles for Creation. The editors there will review them for potential problems, such as not meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements, and will move them into the main article space when they are ready. This will prevent another speedy deletion.
But note that the subject of an article needs significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject - the kind of source you provided above seems to be (my Spanish is quite bad) a community calendar listing, which is neither significant coverage nor a reliable source. Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take in consideration the "significant" coverage part. That link I provided is the one I could find in 5 minutes seek, but it is not the only one that exists. I provided that one as an example as at some intro article of the wikipedia about fast deletions I saw something like that if the author provides a "reasonable significance" source, it is enough to not be "fast-deleted" and it allows more debate.
But I'll be glad to find much more information, and complete my article with the proper secondary sources.
How can I know who is my deleting administrator to see if the time spent writing can be recovered by undeleting and userfying, and how can I reach him?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmontero (talkcontribs) 23:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Check the deletion log as described at "Why was the page I created deleted?". Note that it is up to if the administrator is feeling particularly generous, as A7 and G11 speedy deletions are not covered by Wikipedia's regular undeletion process. But as the articles were only stubs a few sentences long, you should be able to recreate them even without userfied versions of the old ones. Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies - I seem to have done some technical errors without even knowing how :-/ Thank you for your feedback. I hope to receive more of it so that I can improve my usage of Wikipedia JeannineVassallo (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) jeannine

kilovolt[edit]

You must have some kind of script, right? Thanks for fixing these, they always bug me but not enough to fix them manually. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It is actually manual labor though. The manual labor in question only happens to be just hitting F3 followed by Ctrl+V though. :-)
Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thyssen Bornemisza Art Contemporary[edit]

Kedves Kolbasz! Thanks for the notes, but the copyright is pending and the descirption of the non profit foundation is not very advertorial in my eyes, it is a very factual description and a listing of all collected artists. Since we have no commercial interest not sure where the ad would be hidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iszilagyi (talkcontribs) 09:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Kiductions page[edit]

Hello Kolbasz! I am just wondering what is wrong with the kiductions page. I feel strong about this website and so do many other big people and companies including Jamal Edwards MBE, Ben Towers- two very big names in the business world and to be honest two massive media/tv companies have faith in this website, they are BBC and SBTV. I feel that the page should stay and am quite upset actually about this, if you would like to tell me why and how, i would be very happy, also if you would like to fix the problem or tell me how to i would be happy to comply. Thank You

Speedy deletion for Stanford Women in Business Page[edit]

Hello Kolbasz, I'd appreciate your feedback on where you think the promotional language is within the Stanford Women in Business Page. While that wasn't our intent, as Stanford Women in Business a self-functioning organization whose main mission is to educate, we'd be happy to edit language to keep the article. Let us know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorel Sim (talkcontribs) 20:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Language like "[SWIB] empowers young women to become successful leaders in the business world" or "Through SWIB, members discover career direction, develop their professional networks, and achieve ambitious career goals" is not neutral - it reads like pure ad copy, promoting the subject instead of objectively describing it.
Furthermore: as you're saying that it's "our intent" and "we'd be happy to ...", I'm going to assume that you are a member of the organization. If so, you need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In a nutshell, you are strongly discouraged from editing any article about a subject with which you have a personal connection. Kolbasz (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)