User talk:ZH2010

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, ZH2010, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fassade p&c düsseldorf 2 18.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fassade p&c düsseldorf 2 18.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for watching. --ZH2010 (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sidebars

It is fine that you wish to covert the {{German wine regions}} navbox into a sidebar. However, sidebars should be placed at the top of the article, not in the subsequent sections. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, no problem. --ZH2010 (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Centrum Schwule Geschichte

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Centrum Schwule Geschichte, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.csgkoeln.de/Texte/EStart.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

List of basilicas

Please stop introducing edits to this page that destroy the consistency of the lists. It has been written in British English and per WP:ENGVAR this is how it should stay - British English does not usually use full stops after "St". You are adding nothing to Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OMG, i dont know if i want to write British English, but FYI: there are hundreds of church articles all over Europe, called Chiesa di XY or Église XY and-so-on. I bet that's not very British either, but really you shouldnt care if it is St., St, Saint, San or whatever! THANK YOU! --ZH2010 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. However, this article was written in British English and under Wikipedia guidelines should stay that way. If you are not prepared to abide by the guidelines established by the community then maybe you should consider whether this is the correct place for you. What you are essentially doing is altering one section of one article to suit your own style, which is inconsistent and against all guidelines and policies. What was wrong with the previous style except for you obviously not liking it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, first of all: CALM DOWN!!! I am adding a few dots to an article (no: a list) that is anything but consistent, is lacking dozens of links to existing articles and is least consistent in regards to naming (or why are there all those hiddeen links?) - and all i am getting from you are funny comments. Maybe the article is so inconsistent because it cannot improve, because there are user around that display a dont-touch-MY-article-behaviour, that may just go onto other peoples nerves? "I" OBVIOUSLY havent said i had any problems with your list (really... just added those handful of dots to link articles that donot fall into your consistency) ZH2010 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The person shouting tells me to "calm down"?! The article is entirely consistent in its naming if you actually bothered to read it before going ahead and making unnecessary changes. There is no reason for you to add your "handful of dots". If you're not aware of it, there is nothing wrong with linking articles via pipes and redirects. That's why we have them. If you create an article by another name, just create a redirect or change the piped link - you don't need to change the appearance of the article itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys -- just a simple, related question: you say the page should be in British English and should therefore not have a period after the abbreviation for "Saint". However, when I check the Oxford English Dictionary for the word 'Saint', it only contains the abbreviation _with_ period, not without. I'll accept that Cambridge goes the other way but my understanding was that the OED is the ultimate reference, if ever such a thing existed for British English. (I don't wish to inflame the debate, I don't pretend to know the answer and I don't wish to choose sides: I merely want to understand why you are against adding periods at the end of St when it is what the OED prescribes and it's what is commonly done for abbreviations anyway.) Jorisverbiest (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Cologne

02:41, 17 April 2011 copy+paste from userpage --ZH2010 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) : Hi, i just redid some of your edits and just wanted to leave an explanation. In regards to content i already explained it on the revision, but also in regards to layout, i think it may be possible to see that an article like Cologne has had its input and that new edits/editors should be careful to respect those previous inputs or at least the intention behind them. dont want to sound territorial, but hastily (added --ZH2010 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)) changing substantial sections of a 2000-year old history is disrespectful. --ZH2010 (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd photo doesn't fit into the proper section with the current layout. Is there another way it could be done? Kingjeff (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

why does it bother you? --ZH2010 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It just doesn't look good. The photo about the flood should be in a section about the floods and not demographics. Kingjeff (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

i dont see a problem. i see those two photos for both the bare information they show and their scenic impression. a gallery in this location would just reduce them to technical availability. demographics doesnt need images and the way the images are grouped now, fills out that right-side empty space. this particular corner works also fine as to Not just: "start a paragraph - close a paragraph - then start another paragraph - and so on...." Also, the paragraph below has plenty of those small images and the reader has to work with a lot of information there. --ZH2010 (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The demographics section shouldn't have anykind of photo. My insertion in the "Roman Cologne" section was perfectly ligitimate. I have a source for what I put in. You can put that sentence back in when you find a source for it. And if you do, the sentence I put in should not be removed. On another note, when you reverted my edit, You messed up the reference section. Because I used it 3 more times in the article. Kingjeff (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OMG, i bet you have no clue about the history of Cologne and just want to go fishing for references - with the only goal to give a reference? Study the city's history, why it got elevated and you will see that noone needs a reference there! this conversation is ridiculous: Why did you remove the link to CCAA? You are ignorant and disrepctful! --ZH2010 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not ignorant and disrepectful. Unfortunately, information must be Verifiability. There is no way I can verify that statement until there is a source. The opening paragraph states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You may think, or even know as a hard fact, that statement I deleted is true. But I definitely don't know if this is true or not and I require a source to verify that statement. Kingjeff (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You are ignorant! The way you insert those references and remove relevant links makes it plain obvious! I am not tit-tat-ing with you for references. you got to learn about the subject first, have the respect to read what has been said and only then we can talk about changes! --ZH2010 (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be calling other users ignorant. The only link I removed is "Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium". Other Wikipedia articles are far from being references to this article or any other any other article. Kingjeff (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, if i have to continue this, but your latest additions also fall into my above-mentioned critism: You added a new section "tourism", but apart from the number of tourists/nights, it only says that Cologne has plenty of night clubs and pubs? is it your intention to portray the city's tourism landscape that way? i would either elaborate it (what about Christian pilgrimage?) or incorporate the information into landmarks or the like. --ZH2010 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There should be more. I only stoped because of the time. Don't hesitate to add. We could add Christian pilgrimage. The landmarks can be a subsection of tourism since it looks pretty good. Kingjeff (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

i dont want to add to your edits. i also dont understand the structure you are setting up: "landmarks" used to be part of "cityscape", now having bridges and highrises under tourism dont make sense to me? tourism could be related to landmarks, religion, culture and events. The trade fair is significant for the number of guests. Do you want to repeat all those points? --ZH2010 (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Roman Cologne

How about we discuss this section. The statement before I changed it said, "In 50 AD, Cologne became acknowledged as a city by the name of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium and capital of the Roman province of Germania Inferior." I put 2 reliable sources, which were written by the city of Cologne, that more or less discredit this. The section I took out said that it was already a city in 50 AD. The Romans only found it then. The section I took out also states that the city became a capital in 50 AD. My source, which I'm mentioning again is written from the city of Cologne, says that Cologne didn't become a capital until 85 AD. So, the section is more credible because I deleted the unsourced statement and replaced it with a sourced statement. So, can we please move on to actually? Are you familiar with referencing on Wikipedia? Here is something you might be interested in reading. Kingjeff (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The "foundation" of a settlement typically refers to its first establisment. The incorporation as a town or city is an important step in its history, but not the settlement's "foundation". The previous text didnt say it was a city before 50. There is absolutely no known date for the establisment of the province. The text you are using is for tourists! --ZH2010 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont want to just overrun previous editor's contributions, so here is how i would change it: In 50 AD, Cologne became acknowledged as a city by the name of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium and [was further promoted as] capital of the Roman province of Germania Inferior. The first sentence states the original Latin name and so should the second sentence (as opposed to calling it: "Colonia on the Rhine"). --ZH2010 (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

North Rhine-Westphalia

I was thinking of having a WIkiProject or taskforce for North Rhine-Westphalia. Would you be intereted? Kingjeff (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you get the clue about "ignorant": what kind of people would ask for a collaboration, with above discussion going on? ...? --ZH2010 (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually asked before it got out of hand. But the offer still stands if you're interested. Kingjeff (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Does your edits on North Rhine-Westphalia mean that you are interested in joing a taskforce? There is another user interested in doing it at some level. Kingjeff (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No i am not. By the way, talking about your questionable edits: Three of them 1, 2, 3 erase the article's entire lead section, explaining the stated geography, population and economy - leaving one line for lead section and continuing with 1.A.D.? What do you think people would call you if you did that for example to California or Scotland? --ZH2010 (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, right now, I couldn't care less because I have no interest in editing the articles on California or Scotland. What I do expect is that one whole paragraph in the lead shouldn't be dedicated to a topic that is covered below or could be covered below. A lead section should be an introduction to the article. Kingjeff (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your changes to the article in the last 10 days has created a number of conflicts with wikipedia guidelines. Would you agree to remove the image gallery and to put less images back into the context of the relevant sections? --ZH2010 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal maybe not. I wouldn't call them random. I putthese photos into a photo gallery that I felt didn't fit into any of the cyrrent sections in the North Rhine-Westphalia article. The photos about Augustusburg Palace, Paderborn rathaus, Medieval architecture in Aachen, Aachen city hall, Aachen Cathedral, The Old Town Hall in Dortmund and the U-Tower in Dortmund could go into an architecture section. Kingjeff (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. i didnt mean to remove them all, but keep the ones that you or others think are worthwhile. "Culture" may then want to get sections for 1) Architecture and cultural monuments, 2) Festivals, and so on. Putting all world heritage sites into one line-of-images (like the landmarks in the Cologne article) would make them look less random and less un-encyclopaedic. --- for all other sections (cities, geographic regions, economy and all) i would like to put images into right-sided rows (no gallery!) cause images in those sections should have a stronger presence in the article. --ZH2010 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

there is quite a mess about the many of the predecessor states in and around Düsseldorf, with numerous articles linking randomly or interchangeably between United Duchies of Jülich-Cleves-Berg, Berg (state), Electorate of the Palatinate, Palatinate-Neuburg, Grand Duchy of Berg and so forth. History of the Ruhr District is more like a timeline and maybe the history of NRW article is worth saving as such a timeline.... i imagine it looking somewhat like Template:History of the Low Countries and it may help user to link articles easier. --ZH2010 (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: to a cetrain degree it would make sense to add Rhineland to that Low Countries template, ....however that would just deepen the devide with Wesphalia. Maybe it could be set up in such a way, that the two: Template:History of the Low Countries and Template:History of North Rhine-Westphalia could be merged into one, when wanted (like the time periods matching vertically...) --- you worked on the history already, so maybe you have good knowledge about which state replaced which --ZH2010 (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have good enough knowledge to make the template. But we could probably make some kind of table showing all that. I could try and see if I could make something like that template. Kingjeff (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

that wd be great. i will then work on additions to nrw. here are some more i found: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --ZH2010 (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is difficult. I'm not sure if this is going to happen anytime soon. Kingjeff (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Friendly warning

You really are getting yourself very close to being blocked for your insulting behaviour towards other editors. Disagreeing with an editor is one thing. Calling them ignorant is another. Please take the warning on board and stop it. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

North Rhine-Westphalia history

The sections on the Rhineland and Westphalia should be more condense in each section. Kingjeff (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

they should comply with wikipedia standards. Who wrote the section/article about the history in the first place? I think the economy-article should be deleted, and unless you or anybody does something about the history, that spin off has no value either. --ZH2010 (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The additions you made on the North Rhine-Westphalia article is a sign of boldness which is a job well done. Kingjeff (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Rheinhessen

Rheinhessen never was administered by Prussia. If you look to File:Rheinland 1905.png you see easily the red border excluding Rheinhessen.--Symposiarch (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hallo- i added it to Rheinland as i would consider it part of the geographical region... not the Prussian Rhine Province. It was just a thought... if you dont agree, please take the category back out (or i will if u like). Mettmann and the Bergische Kreise could be seen as part of the Rheinland, but havent added those to the category. --ZH2010 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dom-Hotel Cologne.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dom-Hotel Cologne.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

St. Maria im Kapitol

Can you possibly put in a reference for the change that you made? The article is a bit short on refs. Amandajm (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just inserted a link from the Univ. of Cologne Institute for Archaeology. I got the information about early 2nd century from a museum plate in the Archaeological Zone (which says between 98-138 AD: see here). --ZH2010 (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo MAK Koeln.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo MAK Koeln.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File moves and disambiguations

I noticed you moved a number of articles recently. There are large differences between the German and the English wikipedia in this regard. Here a disambitiagion in round brackets means type so xyz (Country) that xyz is a country as opposed to xyz (Film) which is a movie. Here if we have to disambiguate by geogrphic area we use a comma, so xyz, Germany is the instance of xyz in Germany opposed to the one in Autria. Only if there is more than one in Germany you would use a lower disambiguation by finding the highest level where there is only one xyz. Agathoclea (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful to know (if i understood you right): brackets are supposed to be reserved for types, while geographic places are supposed to be differentiated by a komma? I moved two towns and some titles with "/" in them. I was looking around the system here, and agree with "Lindenthal, Cologne" (but there is also "Rödelheim (Frankfurt am Main)") - My feeling is also, that the komma may be suitable for countries or any form of political subdivision. In case of purely geographic localisations, using round brackets may emphasize that it is not a subdivision (see: Brühl (Baden), Frankfurt (Oder), etc)? As for the articles with "/", i suppose i just leave them as they are. --ZH2010 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo p&c düsseldorf.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo p&c düsseldorf.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Movie Park Germany logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Movie Park Germany logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:European Astronaut Centre 140L.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:European Astronaut Centre 140L.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fassade p&c düsseldorf 2 18.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fassade p&c düsseldorf 2 18.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Steigenberger Grandhotel Petersberg.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Steigenberger Grandhotel Petersberg.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Steigenberger Park Hotel Düsseldorf.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Steigenberger Park Hotel Düsseldorf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dusseldorf mgl logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dusseldorf mgl logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo-nikko.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo-nikko.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Schloss Bensberg

Hello, ZH2010. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Schloss Bensberg".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:VRR templates

A tag has been placed on Category:VRR templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-line/RRSB left/S4

Template:S-line/RRSB left/S4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-line/RRSB right/S4

Template:S-line/RRSB right/S4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Imhoff-Schokoladenmuseum.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo Imhoff-Schokoladenmuseum.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)