Hi, RMS... Errr, just a few problems with the Bertha Harmer article. No problems with importance or notability, but some of the text in the middle of the article could possibly be rewritten, as it follows the Allemang reference a bit too closely. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly the same thought occurred to me, I must admit. However, there are many ghits now for “Mitsuko Uchida made a Dame of the Order of the British Empire”, and “Congratulations, Dame Mitsuko”, etc etc. No mention anywhere of it being honorary, and I have searched. The official list of honours does not seem to be available yet, and that would be the definitive source.
However, I note that when she got her CBE in 2000, it was honorary because she was still a citizen of Japan – see [1]. I’ve searched for any evidence she has acquired British citizenship in the meantime, but no luck. But there’s nothing to say she hasn’t, either. It’s quite possible she did but it never made the news. At this stage, given that a number of UK newspapers have made no mention of the DBE being honorary, I’d prefer to believe it’s substantive. At the end of the day, that's all we at Wikipedia can do. It's been reported in reputable sources, and in the absence of anything definitive either way about her current citizenship, we must assume it's been correctly reported. -- JackofOz ( talk) 01:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply to your message: Well, there's no rush on closing the AFD; you could wait to see if there will be more than one opinion or option for the article. In reply to the question about me being an admin, the answer is "perish the thought :)" , but I can pass on the message to CobaltBlueTony if you want as I'll probably be around early tomorrow (UTC), but it would be nice to see if anyone else has another option for the article. Just to amplify what I already have said in the AFD, I could certainly see indications of notabilty for some of the family from what I could dig up online, and I strongly suspect that there are paper sources out there. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 22:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I keep an eye on links to the dab page "Jesus College", which is how I found the article. You'll have realised by now that we keep the terminology complicated on this side of the pond to maintain our sense of superiority, even when using this modern-fangled technology that has been so successfully developed and sold by trans-ponders (curses!)... Regards, Bencherlite Talk 00:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Helen Cattanach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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), 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.
Quantpole (
talk) 23:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just a couple of minor things, in case they help. First, your rewrite, unfortunately, still suffered from copyright problems. The difficulty is that copyright doesn't just refer to word-for--word copies, but also covers "very close paraphrasing". For example, in the original source you have:
which you paraphrased as:
(The bolding, of course, is mine). That's still far too close. Clearly not identical, but close enough that there was no doubt where it came from. It needs to be in your own words. It's a common mistake, as we tend to think of copyright violations as direct copies, but the reality is that it needs to be significantly different to avoid the violation.
At any rate, it should be good now.
More generally, you don't need an admin to remove a CSD tag. While you can't do it on an article you created, any other editor is able to remove it so long as they believe that the problem was fixed. AfD wasn't required - just the opinion of a third party. - Bilby ( talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi! The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 10#Category:Atheist and agnostic politicians was closed before I had a chance to reply to your question, so I thought I'd reply here:
With all due respect, as nominator of this WP:CFD, although I appreciate BLACK FALCON's vote, I don't quite understand what The good news is that the information is not completely lost; every article in this category should still be tagged with "(Nationality) politicians" and "(Nationality) atheists" or "(Nationality) agnostics" categories. means. Thanks. [email protected] (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What I meant is that although deletion of the category would remove the "Atheist and agnostic politicians" designation from the articles, they (the articles) would still be located in categories identifying their subjects as politicians ( Category:Politicians by nationality) and as atheists or agnostics ( Category:Atheists by nationality or Category:Agnostics by nationality). Therefore, deleting Category:Atheist and agnostic politicians would not remove the articles it contained from the Politicians and Atheists or Agnostics category trees.
I hope that this clarifies the meaning of my comment. Cheers, – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I thought I'd contact you, becuase you've been working hard on disambiguation pages and I feel bad that I've reverted so many of them. You might be interested to read the guidelines at MOS:D - especially that on a disambiguation page entries are rarely piped and there should only be 1 blue link per line for most entries. I hope I haven't offended you by this. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 09:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure you mind someone editing in your userspace so I'll just note some of my suggestions here. First, "in her own right" adds nothing and should be removed. Second, the sentence needs a period at the end. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering about the reason for changing her birth name to "Periwinkle". The article had this as her birth name for quite some time, and I appreciate that there are several sites, including the two that you gave, that give that as her birthname. I've done a little digging, and there are also numerous that give her birth name as "Peri Kay Oldham" or "Peri Kay O'Brien" ( [2]). Three of the four external links at the bottom of the article all say that her birthname was "Peri Kay Oldham" ( Film Reference, IMDb (not the most reliable source, granted), All Movie). How can we deal with this? She can't have three birthnames but we can't really say which is correct of the three. What do you think? Rossrs ( talk) 23:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Joan Downes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Downes. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WWGB ( talk) 11:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not find any sources stating that she was buried in line with Islamic tradition. Therefore, I have removed your edits. 76.197.130.190 ( talk) 11:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Concerning these editd of yours I would like to inform you at per instructions in Category:Date of birth missing, this category should be placed in discussion pages. For articles pages there is the Category:Year of birth missing. The same holds for Date of death missing. Moreover, I would like additionally to note that Category:Place of birth missing and Category:Place of death missing are also intended for discussion pages. I already wrote you again about that back on May. Thanks again, Magioladitis ( talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious about parts of this edit. Granted the article is a sad mess. But...
Just trying to sort of the mess... Guettarda ( talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)