User talk:TravelJournalNetwork

Template talk:Adventure travel

I have a question for you at Template talk:Adventure travel. Please respond. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

No problems. If you require any advice or help in the future, feel free to ask. Wikipedia is a community after all! Michellecrisp (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:RFA Michellecrisp (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Street Gaol

I reverted your edits. You turned the jail-related article into a hostel-related one. That was not the intent of the entry. Might I suggest that you create a separate section about the hostel within the existing article rather than performing a complete re-write.--JeffJ (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Central Prison no longer exists; most of the land has been converted for use as a railway yard and condominiums. Before being converted to use for condos, the buildings and land were owned by John Inglis and Company. But I wouldn't rewrite the article to change the focus to John Inglis, then railways and condos. Instead those eras in the prison's history are mentioned, but Inglis has an article of its own.

The article on the Nicholas Street Gaol is about the gaol. If you want to have a specific article about the Ottawa Jail Hostel, then write one, with appropriate links to the article about the gaol. But don't just hijack another article.--JeffJ (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went one step further: I took your edits and created a separate article about the Ottawa Jail Hostel. I truncated the history of the jail, leaving that for the Nicholas Street Gaol article. I hope this satisfies both our interests.--JeffJ (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If suggested, I would argue against a merge. Many different businesses have used a pre-existing building as is the case here. You cited the Rogers Centre as an example, however I would argue that that is a case of a facility retaining it's original use, but changing owners. The jail not only changed owners, but changed function. It became an entirely new entity even though it retained some of the previous motif. I believe that 2 separate articles serves better in that those interested the the gaol (or correctional facilities in general) have a clear source, and those interested in hostels (or similar) have a clear source. Each article caters to clearly differing avenues of interest. Anyway, we can debate further if the subject of a merge ever comes up.--JeffJ (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on the Gaol talk page but subsequently noticed some discussion above. It would help if you write in the edit summary a description of your edit so we can track changes more easily. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DonTrail picture not of the Don River

I reverted your picture of the Don River because it does not show the Don but is actually a scene from Taylor-Massey Creek. I suggest you add your picture to that article. Atrian (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Backpacking (travel), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. I suggest you review COI guidelines when making edits like this. Your username is also somewhat close to being a violation. TravellingCari 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Hotel do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Backpacking (travel), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well potentially being penalized by search engines. TravellingCari 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

copied from my own talk...

Feel free to discuss it with another admin but my first warning to you was on August 10th. According to your contributions, you edited again on the 12th and 14th, with the 12th being yet another edit that violates COI guidelines as well as those on external links. You're perilously close to a spam block especially with your username. I suggest you keep those in mind, but like I said feel free to discuss it with another admin. TravellingCari 03:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular and responsible Wikipedian

It offends me that others can attempt to shoot down those trying to create goodwill. Its amazing the things people will find their time to do. Yuck TravelJournalNetwork (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are pretty clear at WP:SPAM. Creating goodwill is unfortunately not using Wikipedia as a vehicle of promotion. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks are mostly giving of their time here to build a meaningful and helpful encyclopedia, not an Internet advertising/promotional site. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"instructional articles"

I tend to think there is a bias about external links on wikipedia by wikipedians who may be addicted to the nature of the site. There is no clear discernment between who thinks what is advertising and what is actually instructional. TravelJournalNetwork (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear what is advertising. Even "interest sites" with sponsored ads are considered advertising. Wikipedia is pretty clear about this. Please reread WP:LINKS. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like some users tend to gang up on others. This isn't a street gang, it's a work of education meant to share as much relevant information as possible. Not a TupperWare club. The vandalism complaint stands and I feel a bit bullied having been a strong contributor over the last 5 months or so. TravelJournalNetwork (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made legitamite contributions and they've stood. Spam will not. It would have been well within any admin's right to block you by now. Tread carefully is good advice. Calling legit warnings vandalism is not. TravellingCari 20:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Dontrail.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dontrail.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Ch coulonge.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Esprit Lodge

The article Esprit Lodge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NCORP; borderline G11.

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. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Mont street graf.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mont street graf.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Esprit Lodge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Esprit Lodge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esprit Lodge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 20:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]