User talk:Jim856796

Jim856796 I am writing you to inform you that you recent changes to Major film studio hace been undone. 20th Century Fox will only be banner not a stuido per Disney^[1]. Please dont change this information in the chart. Any future attempts to do so will be considered vandalism.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism? The reason I made that change is because the potential for edit warring is what you should be worried about. Jim856796 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Tribunal de Paris, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Wohnpark Alterlaa, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The article Centro Empresarial Internacional Rio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tribunal de Paris, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Wohnpark Alterlaa, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jim856796. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Wohnpark Alterlaa".

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 edit the submission 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! HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tribunal de Paris, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jim856796. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tribunal de Paris".

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 edit the submission 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) 10:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Fran Drescher's legs were the only attraction of the "Nanny" show. At least for thinking men. And to describe them as long is polite for skirts barely covering the southern hairline. Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oalexander: Oh, I apologize. I reverted that "long legs" remark because it was a nonsense edit. Other individuals have longer legs than Fran Drescher's, but said legs don't get mention on their articles. Jim856796 (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:STYLEVAR states that "[E]nforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable." It's quite telling that you only target the articles I successfully nominate for In the news Recent Deaths (i.e. George Armstrong (ice hockey), Sibusiso Moyo, Shingoose and now Thorburn). No one else's. Yet you don't contribute any content creation to these areas, other than your incessant nitpicking on one or two words (not to mention your misuse of the minor edit button). I'm not saying your apparent obsession and WP:WIKIHOUNDING over the articles I edit reaches the level of Wenger over Mourinho, but it's getting there … —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You add 4 characters and mis-characterize that as a "simplification"? Wow, just wow. I'm not required "to accept such simplification" because it's not approved by consensus (you know, the way decisions on WP are primarily made). Show me an ITN that you've successfully promoted to the Main Page, then we'll talk. Until then, keep up with your obsession over my content creation – it's getting you nowhere. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bloom6132:, You have some explaining to do. Why do you insist on using the same "He/she was X" wording every time? I was trying to simplify the wording to make it look less blunt. These reversions tell me that you are trying to assert ownership of those pages.What excuses do you have? If another editor inserted this phrasing, and somebody else changed it to reduce bluntness, the editor who inserted it wouldn't care, but clearly you care. Jim856796 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't simplify by adding words. Your belief that my wording is "blunt" is purely subjective. Most sources use "He/she was X", so I see no problem in doing so too (here's ABC News and The New York Times, two of several recent examples I can provide). Each of the articles that you keep picking on have successfully went through the In The News process. Thus, consensus has established that those articles are at a quality that's good enough to appear on the Main Page. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bloom6132:In other words, you must want the wording to look like a direct copy-paste from a major news source. At least you didn't insert the words "years old" at the end of that phrasing. On the Peter Thoburn article, only my first edit there was a simplification. I did ask you to stop reverting several times, but you kept on reverting the simplifications/re-phrasings anyway, thereby putting yourself at risk of a 3RR violation. Lucky for me, I have already asked User:Julietdeltalima for a third opinion regarding this last weekend. Jim856796 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:LIMITED applies here. So "a direct copy-paste from a major news source" in this case is permissible. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I already saw on Saturday that you were talking about me behind my back. Hence why I said you had an apparent obsession with my edits. Yes, lucky for you. Because a third opinion is just that. It cannot overrule consensus that's been established by the community. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: Does this guideline/policy mean you're required to use the exact same wording every time? I don't think so. And how dare you use the word "obsession"? If anything's making this an "obsession", it's your continued reversion of any simplifications or re-wordings of any sentence containing the blunt/strict "He was X", and your insistence on continuing to do so. At least my changes didn't alter the meaning of those sentences too much. I don't know why an uninvolved editor would've told you to stop your reversions themselves by now. Jim856796 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"how dare you use the word "obsession" – well, I dared. The same way you dared to target only the articles I successfully nominate to ITNRD since last November. Three months of persistent targeting and nitpicking demonstrates that it is indeed an obsession and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. The policy I cited was used to refute your insidious insinuation that I committed WP:COPYVIO. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: Wow, judging by the way you've been acting towards me in the past couple of weeks, it would take a whole lot of begging (whether by myself or some other editor) to get you to stop your reversions. Jim856796 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Ventura Corporate Towers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks sources; no indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wozal (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Line 4 (Madrid Metro), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centro. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Djamaa el Djazaïr shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Skitash How am I going to get blocked just for an expansion-translation effort that you're trying to hinder by reverting, especially if I've copied and pasted the same citations that were in the same section that I translated from the French counterpart article? Jim856796 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Third opinion. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. In an edit summary you noted that you, "already in danger of a possible block." Edit warring on a dispute resolution page is not going to make a block less likely, and you as an editor are in control of abstaining from behavior that will result in a block. VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I've declined your request for a third opinion as there are already more than two editors involved in the dispute. BoldGnome (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@BoldGnome: Well, where else can I request a fourth, or successive, opinion? The two editors I'm fighting with are just unhelpful. Jim856796 (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Despite my better judgment, the answer to your question is WP:RFC. But I can already tell you that it'll be a waste of everyone's time, including yours. You're better off taking the advice below. BoldGnome (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to take that kind of advice. All I want is a decent expansion-translation effort for this article, and it looks like it's becoming too much to ask. Jim856796 (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jim856796

Detail: You seem to be experienced user you would be already aware of most customs and culture at en Wikipedia. I suggest: Please try to ponder following points.

1) Technically every language Wikipedia community is independent in formulating it's own rules, policies and culture (except save for things like Copy right WP:NPOV un-supported Defamation of BLP etc.) So point in referring rules/ standards/ culture of French. language Wikipedia to English Wikipedia and vice versa is limited.

2) Whatever are the references used on French Wikipedia article take request inputs at WP:RSN for reliability by English Wikipedia community standard.

3) In English Wikipedia culture WP:ONUS is generally on the user who wants to add / retain any content in the article to seek WP:CONSENSUS at the article talk page.

4) I suggest take a little break at least from the specific article for a while. Even presenting references you are interested in WP:RSN for inputs will give you some minimal break.

5) Once through with WP:RSN if still wish you can approach WP:DRN there after WP:RfC, if needed.

Most probably you would be knowing all these things much better than me with your good long experience, Just I wish to help you to help yourself a little. Let's keep the things behind, Wishing you happy editing and cheers! Bookku (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku: I do not want to take a break from helping in the expansion-translation effort of the Djamaa el Djazair article. I do not want to calm down. I hate being told to calm down, because I associate that phrase with drugs, and I don't want to take drugs of any kind. I'm just tired of being reverted by unhelpful editors, especially those who aren't willing to understand the situation in that article. I am in real danger of being blocked because of this dispute now, especially if avenues like the Third Opinion page keep drying up. I'm living in fear of getting reverted by M.Bitton and Skandish.

All I want is a user who can realistically translate some sections of the French Djamaa el Djazair article into the English version of the Djamaa el Djazair article. I want such a user to take of this now. Otherwise, I'm not sure what other avenues I can use at this point.Jim856796 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. You do not control other editors' workflows or the project timelines, so demanding something happen "now" is not reasonable in this context. Particularly since I don't see consensus on that article's talk page that a translation effort is even desirable in this case. VQuakr (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: How long before I'm left without any outlets to resolve the dispute at Djamaa el Djazair? I'm going to keep on dealing with getting reverted by unhelpful editors who only want to revert translated text before then.Jim856796 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no rush, and no deadline. Probably a good first step would be to stop referring to others who disagree with you as "unhelpful editors". You may want to re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You're getting reverted because their isn't consensus for the changes you're proposing, which means to need to work with these editors not adversarially against them as described at WP:ONUS. VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Jim856796, I had and would have only and only positive intention to help you as a peer Wikipedian. Ping me any time you would need my help next time. Happy editing. Bookku (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku: On the "Translators Available" page, I found four editors on the "French-to-English" section who have been active this year (although the most recent sub-section that exists in "Active in 2020/1". I've already sent emails to two of them, asking for their help in expanding the Djamaa el Djazair article for it to match its French-language counterpart.Jim856796 (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I see you sent me an email about contributing to something... perhaps it's this French-to-English translation? Please reply here about how I can help and ping me. It is the Djamaa el Djazaïr article? If there is a particular section I can work on, this is probably something I can do. Let me know -- thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 20:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

...you've had an account for 18 years and have made thousands of edits. Act like it. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Rather than bothering to ask "How?", I can just say, Forget it, you can just leave me alone if you're not going to be helpful.Jim856796 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Sheraton Grand Rio Hotel & Resort, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Let'srun (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you have created a page for the Steglitzer Kreisel building. I tagged it with an unreferenced template upon its lack of resources. Please make sure to find enough coverage in order to sustain the WP:SIGCOV of the article and avoid attracting less needed attention. It looks like you didn't finish the proper translation from the German counterpart. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@JeyReydar97: I'll ask somebody on the Translators Available page this week to help with that effort.Jim856796 (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reacting to an email...the article is totally unreferenced so far, so we need sourcing. As foreign language sources are explicitly allowed (WP:RSUEC), we could start by transferrring those that are used in the German article. Also keep in mind that, if you translate the german article, we need attribution (see Help:Translation for more info. Lectonar (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lectonar: All I do in these expansion/translation efforts is adding and amending the raw translated text (grammar fixes included) section by section, or paragraph by paragraph. Availability issues with the users listed on the "Translators Available" page are the reason I can't add the translated citations and sourcing all by myself in addition to that.Jim856796 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey Jim, just letting you know that I got both of your emails asking for translation. My wiki to-do list is long and I'm fairly busy at the moment, so it'll be a week or two before I can get around to them, but I would be happy to help. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 15:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. Thanks for your efforts improving Djamaa el Djazaïr, and for discussion of how to improve it further via translation. I read the initial sentence in your recent post at the Talk page as meaning that you are stopping work on this article, not that you are "putting the translation effort on hold" in the sense that a company manager might put a companny project on hold for all employees of the company. Being a volunteer project, you can, of course, cease working on this article (or any article) simply because you don't wish to; no explanation needed. Other users are free to continue to improve the article, of course, with or without translation.

I wanted to address a couple of things you have mentioned in various discussions there, because I think you may be under some misconceptions about policy or content guidelines. For example, you said:

• I thought we are supposed to expand this article section-by-section from the French counterpart article to improve its chances of getting Good Article (or even Featured Article) status.

Supposed to is a bit strong; not sure where you got that idea. There is no guarantee that even a perfect translation by a professional bilingual fr/en translator would be acceptable at English Wikipedia. There are all sorts of reasons why this might be so, including lack of references, copyright violations in the French version, invented or hoax content, or contentious material in a biography being a few. Even a perfect translation combined with any of these issues would (or at least, *should*) be rejected and reverted at en-wiki. Finally, French Wikipedia (and all Wikipedias) are by definition an unreliable source. Editors are welcome to copy or translate from other Wikipedias and sister projects, but whatever content is imported into en-wiki must conform to all English Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly those of WP:Verifiability and neutral point of view. If the original French article does not, no amount of perfect translation will help.

So, your supposition isn't accurate; expanding articles here by translating from French article is something we may do, if the result is compliant with all ourP and G, but not something we should or are supposed to do. I do a fair amount of translation from French Wikipedia, and you really have to pick and choose; frankly, there is a whole lot of unsourced or poor content over there that is unfit for translation. Not infrequently, whole articles in French have nothing salvageable, and then I just start all over from scratch, writing the English article from the ground up, ignoring the French one, and using English sources where available, and French ones as needed. So, please abandon the idea of always just doing section-by-section translation from the French article; you might be making the English article worse by following that approach.

• How about we actually start this effort by listing on this talk page the sections on the French Wikipedia that the English article does not have

That's a good idea, and I sometimes translate the whole section structure (like an English version of the French Table of Contents) as explained and linked at the article Talk page. Keep in mind what was said above; just translating the section structure from fr-wiki, doesn't necessarily mean that all those sections should be translated, and possibly the choice of section structure by the original French authors may have been a poor one; use your own discretion.

• Also, WP:NONENG means exclusively English-language sources are going to be used in any expansion-translation efforts.

This is actually not correct, as the very first line of WP:NONENG clearly states. Non-English sources may certainly be used; that is policy.

• For example,if a verifiable fact has several foreign-language sources but no English ones, that fact is going to be removed in a heartbeat, and could potentially be edit-warred over.

Also not correct. Our WP:Verifiability policy is paramount, and if no English sources of equal quality exist, then you are more than welcome to use French sources. And if someone removes or challenges the content, then you must provide a citation to the non-English source, if that is what is available. If anyone edit wars over that, the first step is to address their removal at their User talk page, and escalate to WP:AN3 later, if necessary.

I hope this helps you to view the improvement effort at Djamaa el Djazaïr in a different light. You are certainly free to continue to improve the article any way you wish, including via translation from fr:Djamaâ El-Djazaïr where the translated content meets the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia, or to stop work on it, if you prefer. I just wanted to make sure that if you do decide to stop, your decision will not based on faulty assumptions that do not match our actual policies on translation. Your past (and maybe future?) efforts at the article are appreciated. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, Jim. Thanks for your recent creation of Gentileza Intermodal Terminal. This appears to be a translation from a portion of the Spanish Wikipedia article (or from the lead of the Portuguese article). I've tagged it as needing attribution, because it is missing the required translation attribution in the edit history. You can read how to add it retroactively at WP:RIA. I've also tagged it as unsourced; if you were a new editor, I would have draftified the article by now and explained our verifiability policy, but as a veteran editor, you don't need an explanation about basic policy, so please either add inline citations or draftify it yourself if you feel you're not ready with it yet. I've added the WikiData linkage for you, so it's tied to the Spanish and Portuguese articles through the language dropdown/sidebar now, but if you draftify it, that needs to be backed out. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It can be created at TransBrasil (BRT) and then I'll support a Wikipedia:Requested move to replace the redirect. Or you can edit the page directly at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TransBrasil&action=history and insert the article there. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I found there's a PTwiki version, so I just made a stub at TransBrasil and linked it on Wikidata. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Petrobras Headquarters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Could easily be section of Petrobras page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Jim, could you kindly rate your ability to read material written in Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish on a zero to five scale, where 0 means none, 1 = basic, 2=intermediate, 3=advanced, 4=near native, and 5=professional level. The Babel template offers a handy shortcut: for example, you could say: {{Babel|en-1|zh-2|nl-3|fr-4|ja-5|pl-0|pt-1|es-2}}.

Otherwise, you could just use the Babel numbers as a handy shortcut; for example, for those languages I would rate myself:

• Mathglot: en=5, zh=0, nl=1, fr=3, de=2, ja=0, pl=0, pt=1, es=3.

Otherwise, you could just describe your reading level in words if you prefer. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I can't do that.Jim856796 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries, you don't have to. I will assume that you are at level five in English, and zero in the others. Please do not add any more translations to English Wikipedia from languages you do not understand. In particular, do not use machine translation, AI, or large language models (e.g., Chat GPT) to translate article content.

Just for the record, for translations from languages you do know, attributing the translation to the original article in the edit summary is required. You have partly filled the requirement, but it has to be linked to the original article. For suggested wording and a model you can copy, please see WP:TFOLWP. Please note that this is a policy requirement related to Wikipedia's licensing requirements and Wikipedia's Terms of use, and may not be ignored. Please ask if you have questions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, sometimes I might have to add translated text and citations from foreign-language counterpart articles in hopes of verification as long as the text is cleaned up in the process.Jim856796 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no problem adding citations from foreign-language Wikipedia articles to existing content; you can do that any time. At worst, if you don't understand the foreign sources, the citations might be irrelevant or superfluous, but that is not a content policy violation. If, on the other hand, by "in hopes of verification as long as the text is cleaned up in the process" you mean that you add some translated foreign-language content from some language you don't understand, tacking on foreign citations from another Wikipedia in the hope that it all matches up according to the requirements of English Wikipedia, or at least that someone else will come along and fix your automatic translation and check the foreign citations to make sure they are relevant and verify the content, you cannot do that. A few lapses here and there will no doubt be overlooked, but you have been advised about not doing that now, so if you keep doing it anyway that will probably be looked at with a less friendly eye in the future, and at some point, it might be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE. It's better to stop doing it now, than to keep going and risk getting yourself in trouble.

Maybe a better way to approach this, is to focus more on what you can do, rather than what you can't. Instead of just translating from foreign Wikipedias, why not work on articles here that need improvement, or create new articles in English from English sources? Nobody would bother you, if you did that. Mathglot (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I had a hand in translating the article for Steglitzer Kreisel in 2023/2024, and JeyReydar97 was willing to offer me some assistance then. I usually do expansion-translation jobs section by section or paragraph by paragraph. I am just getting agitated at this point, because you're trying to deadlock me into doing nothing, and by extension quitting, because it looks like you're forbidding me from doing expansion-translation jobs whenever they're needed the most, period. In other words, You are frankly telling me to just give up when I don't want to. All I'm trying to do is insert a contentious translated section with cleaned-up text and two citations (from the same source, no less, which looks like it's too much to ask based on the replies you've given me. I'm already in the process of preparing that translated section for re-insertion right now.Jim856796 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Jim, I'm sorry you feel that way, because nothing could be further from the truth. Among other things, I follow and occasionally help out with the editor retention project, which aims to keep editors happy and in good standing and doing good work here. So, I am not "trying to deadlock [you] into doing nothing, and by extension quitting"; just the opposite. I am trying to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, as well as ensuring that you know the guidelines about contributing, including translation, and by extension keep you as an editor in good standing by staying within the guardrails. I am not an admin, and I can't forbid you to do anything (even an admin couldn't, in the narrowest sense of the word). I want you to stick around and be a valuable contributor, but translating from all those languages isn't part of that. I've already said all I have to say about automatic translation and AI, and I am sure you have understood it, so there is no need to repeat myself. As long as JR97 who you are working with has sufficient German knowledge, you should be fine with your edit. (Does he? He is Romanian, and rates himself a '1'—a beginner—on the 1–5 scale.) Regardless who helped you, it is still your edit, once you hit the Publish button. The part I don't get, really, is why keep working in an area which is far from being your strongest point. I don't want you to give up, I want you to do what you are good at, but this doesn't seem like it, or anywhere close to it, so I really don't get it. You'll do what you're gonna do, and I hope it works out for you. Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The article Sheraton Grand Rio Hotel & Resort has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and for Notability concerns for 6 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Pure spam.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you had good intentions, but this has turned into spam. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)