This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett/archive_10.
If I deleted your article, it is possible for me to restore it. Please post a message for reconsideration of the deletion. and you can read Why was my page deleted?
please add your talk at the bottom of the page:
Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification
As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created,
please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.
Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!
Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.
I responded to your comments, thanks for taking the time to hash this out. I look forward to your further response. Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sophie Wu. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Wu. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help
I wasn't sure what I was doing (as I got an error message when I first tried to add my citations to the cosmic cloud/dust article), so thanks for checking things out and making sure they were as they were supposed to be. I guess you have to manually add a reference section to an article before you can cite facts with in-text numbered-superscript references (like i tried to do and hopefully succeeded)? re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstellar_cloud&oldid=343333135
--Δζ (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm sorry to bother you, but on that same page, Interstellar Cloud, I had another issue. I tried to link citation three to an abstract of a cited journal (the Nature one) but it comes out as an internal wikipedia link and I'm not sure how to fix that. The text is fine (I think), its just that the title of the article in the ref links to a nonexistant wikipedia page rather than the intended Nature webpage containing the free abstract. If you feel like it, could you fix this? Also, could you let me know how you cite webpages? On the citation you cleaned up for me earlier on the same page, interstellar cloud, you changed my bare url to a better MLA-style cite using wiki markup. I've been coppying the markup for new cites, but is there some generator that you used or something that makes it easier, i.e. where you can just insert the various items (author, title, volume, et cet) and pop out the wiki-style markup? Thanks for the help.--Δζ (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) How to help:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,
WEll I could not find my vote on this issue, I would have voted none as in the new improved meaning of the question, so I need do nothing. What I thought none meant, was leave it up to the Bureaucrats to decide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of one hundred islands - the flora of the outer furneaux - and am likely to some rather drastic changes to the article - if you want to offer your salient advice or whatever before it happens - here is your chance... I basically have spent over 2 years admonishing indonesian project low english ips to not add meaningless unalpha lists of things - and am planning to do some radical things with the article - which offends me as it is - seeing you are a predominant ed at the current version thought the least you need is the option to plead for its current odd state or be warned it will be changing - cheers SatuSuro06:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Havent made up my mind - was thinking of a list of islands might be more apporptiate (I often wonder where my negs of when I used to fly across tassie in the last century (so it feels) between queenie (sic) and hobart ever went :( ) It was a regular service in the mid 70's and if the winds were dickie at queenie they used to land at strahan instead :( SatuSuro08:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the only one I have is the King River mouth and Mount Huxley/Lake Burbury during the Canberra fires in early 2002 up at the moment in commons - its gonna take a long time - its the getting the old steam powered scanners valves flushed out and the brain oiled and in gear for long nights of scanning and ignoring wp :) SatuSuro09:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attrition, having the argument drag out so long, and editors get so tired of the discussion, that editors will either:
drop out of the discussion, or
accept a proposal which if originally proposed, would get wide spread opposition.
The end result is that editors who support radical, disruptive change, control the conversation, and less involved editors think that they only have a narrow list of choices, and !vote to accept bitey proposals which will only further hurt wikipedia growth and bite newcomers. Compromise means that both sides give up something.
As the creator of WP:Contest and as someone who is advocating bots on Wikipedia:Bot requests I know there are less disruptive and WP:BITE alternatives available.
I would like to note that an editor accused me of canvassing by writing the above, which I simply don't understand.[1] Here is my response.[2]Okip 17:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rules of the contest have been changed significantly since you signed up. Please check out the new page and its subpages. Any input as to how to improve any part of it would be greatly welcomed. J04n(talk page)02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this deleted? As you can see from the following disambig, the Pirate Party of Canada is a legitimate organization that falls under the Pirate Party International umbrella, and should be treated as such, not a club with no notability. Why not allow our political party the same respect as the other ones list in the disambig? Or shall I have to deem you anti-Canadian? (>O_o)>SomethingX<(^_^<)22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do throw the article at User:Something_X/Pirate_Party_Of_Canada. Also, I present to you two independent newspapers/articles that have stories on us.
Sorry about that -- I must have been looking at an old version when I hit it with the CSD template or something :-/ Those two links definitely show some significance, so thanks for catching my slip and removing the CSD. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graeme - thanks for uploading the BioTek logo. I have 2 other pics that need to be uploaded, both from the same source as the BioTek logo. Any chance I can get you to upload those as well? One is a product shot, and the other is a pic of their building.
HI. I think you deleted Interpretations of Genesis. Would you mind restoring it for a bit? We are in the middle of a lengthy discussion at Talk:Genesis creation myth about the organization of Genesis-related articles. Can we see where that discussion goes for a week or so? I dont mind it getting deleted eventually if that is the consensus, but it is useful during the course of the discussion. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You declined the copyvio CSD stating "speedy delete declined, may be based on Wikipedia article, but not so similar as to be a copyvio"[3], however you seemed to have misunderstood my tagging. Both his user space version, and the "live" article (which he copied from his user space) are copyvio from the Smashing Pumpkin's bio, with just the names and basic details changed.[4]. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think you should be tagging the Smashing Pumpkins page if you think it is a copy vio, but speedy delete only applies in unequivocal cases, here there is doubt, so it should be listed at copyright problems instead. I would suspect lyrics freak of the copy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is indeed a copyright violation, see this diff which is the first edit of the article, this text comes from http://www.ulkumen.net/ so this whole article has been created from copyrighted content and has to be cleaned.--Kimdime (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I already had a problem with another admin regarding copyvio on en:wikipedia. It seems that here you are really fast and never make a look on discussions pages when a copyright violation is detected. I had to put back the template 2 times on this article because you and another user removed it. This is not acceptable, one should be helped in his copyvio fight, not reverted by an admin--Kimdime (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the current version wasn't a violation because an editor unaware of copyright rules decided to remove my tag and stubify the article, thing that can clearly be seen in the history you deleted. By the way, I don't understand why you replaced the article with a stub that you didn't write. In order to respect the licence, you should credit the authors of this stub. One simple thing you could have done is avoiding to delete the version of Themfromspace which created this stub and to credit the others authors adding their name into the discussion page.--Kimdime (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the history, Themfromspace is credited, I have to delete everything before I can restore. That stub was the only copy free of tags or copyvio. I am not credited in the history. Only in the delete actions. Do believe that any other content came from anyone else? If you really think it worth while I can put the deleted history on talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is my mistake, sorry for that, I mixed your names. Regarding the others editors, Themfromspace stated that he took this stub from older versions see [5] so I guess yes, others editors have to be credited. Regards--Kimdime (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Cnngo logo 220x90.gif
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Cnngo logo 220x90.gif. 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 will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you received 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 somewhere on your talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:BMFormula300px.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 will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you received 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 somewhere on your talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Wild Pockets 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 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 will not be able to answer your questions.
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.
Hi Graeme Bartlett/archive 10 ! The template workshop has now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that policy can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and we hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted almost the entire content of the Selahattin Ulkumen page and you cite copyvio. The source of the contents were clearly indicated so I dont understand your point!!! I am the owner of the www.ulkumen.net site so there is no violation whatsoever. I am trying not to take this personally but you make it very difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aulkumen (talk • contribs) 06:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per your request, I added the ref to CC-BY-SA-3.0 to the start page of www.ulkumen.net
Now please do the necessary to revert the wiki reference to its original version. prism (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
Hi friend! and thanks for helping me, I read the criteria and it meets all except one: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.. I mean, people understand who Dahmer is with or without the pic. but with this pic, we show him looking different, because in YouTube they say in Wikipedia is totally diferent, and I thought it would be great to have him with glasses and without moustache, like he was at trial. What do you think? --SouthAmerican (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How could you argue that? The user taunted and insulted Malik on his own talk page, and a few others in different locations. How is that mostly me?— DædαlusContribs05:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jerdesz1.jpg
You posted to the page:
You are going to have to show that you own copyright on a photo of yourself. Normally the photographer will own copyright.
I am the photographer, not the girl. Also I'm not inclined to provide free photos of much higher resolution because pageant pages are vandalized and photos stolen often. I may change the photo to a slightly higher resolution, but I complied with the requirements and you received the email required in the instructions from me. You can identify this email because it contains my name, address, phone and was sent from a domain that you may privately use as a challenge and response to confirm that it really is me. Based on my other pictures contributed, it should be obvious that it's my picture.
Additionally I'd like a private message before I turn in a sock puppet and vandal. I have read all information so don't just give me a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elite194 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: deletion of
Hi, I see you've deleted the above image on the grounds that it was tagged NC. I don't know if it was or not, but I think this is a bit harsh - considering it was taken at Wikimania, and that I was given no time to contact the photographer. (Was any attempt made by anyone else to contact her?) At the very least, could you provide me with the image AND the description, so I can find the original on Flickr? Cormaggiois learning07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the feck does some school kid from the Phillipines know about British subcultures of the 1960s, nevermind "Bodgies and Widgies" for God's sake, and why the hell is throwing his weight about on a grownups website!!!
You see, I had just come out of a long Wikibreak last week, and so I may still not be used to this kind of problems. Sorry for whatever I did, I'm doing my best to not to do anything wrong. I hope you will understand.
Hello Graeme Bartlett, Narutolovehinata5 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Grame, Im constantly improving my article to try to get it passed through the A7 Criteria. Im stating the website/company and founders importance. Please assist me to avoid future deletion. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayajain (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to the article regarding infolona. How do i get a second opinion if you do not let me move it back to infolona.
Can i move it back now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayajain (talk • contribs) 06:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is making caustic soda really an assertion of notability? It's not saying they invented it, it's saying they're one of many companies which manufacture it.
A factory that can do the things they do is significant, so its a claim of importance. Ultimately the company may not be notable though. so use prod or AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can manufacture sodium hydroxide? I never saw that appearing in WP:ORG. "assertion of notability" = something which may pass the relevant notability guideline. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then put that as your argument, not something that doesn't appear in a single notability guideline. Having a valid argument for keeping a BLP, say, is good. Choosing to replace that argument with "has pretty hair" when declining a speedy is not. Ironholds (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An additional point; google hits is irrelevant for CSD. Why? Because CSD is based on whether or not the article indicates some basis for notability. Adding those valid and relevant google bits to the article and declining the speedy, fine. Declining the speedy based on something other than the content of the article is not. Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic looks notable based on non article content then I may decline the speedy delete. In this case I thought content already was sufficient to keep that article, but there was more support outside too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any NFL team with those colors/logos, so the rationale for deletion seems sketchy. This looks like a shot from the stands of a high school game. The upload seems legit to me. — BQZip01 —talk06:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: the article claimed this: "made a great impact upon the community of South Lake Tahoe" (though that seems to have changed in later editions) and it had 2 newspaper references already, so there was some sort of claim already. 2 newspapers comes close to the WP:N standard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Card_Hub_logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, It was totally unintentional. I must have been confused with which part of your signature to click, not that it is too complex! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I got your message the other day about the college football season category deletions/moves that I nominated. You suggested that I update all the relevant articles with the new category before the old one is deleted, but User:Cydebot has made these necessary changes automatically; see 1881 Michigan Wolverines football team. I want to make more change to the college football season categories. Specifically, "College" needs to be removed from all seasons between 1906 and 1955 as it is redundant given IAAUS/NCAA in those category names. Plus, college shouldn't be capitalized there even if it wasn't redundant. Will User:Cydebot make similar updates for these categories as well? Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the text of the following articles from my website and some images taken by myself to Wikipedia in order to offer an added value to the community of the work I've done. Can you please re-activate both links? The corresponding links I added below.
Do you need any additional information? It is ok for me to have the work under the license Wikipedia uses.
Thanks for uploading File:Evolution Finance 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 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.
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.
Hi. You might be interested to know that Marilyn Clement is up for AfD. You didn't get a note automatically as you were not the original author but you did expand it from a one line speedy deletion candidate to a short stub so I thought maybe you might want to comment on the AfD. BTW, The original author just got himself indefinitely blocked for being an obnoxious, POV pushing bozo so I guess it is "your article" now. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any objections to the userfication, you have my full permission to undo it. Had I seen your request earlier I would have followed suit. Take good care, Arbitrarily0(talk)20:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message, and sorry for the mess, I don't know very much about these license things. I've re-uploaded the image under the ShareAlike 3.0 license, but the warning seems still present on the page... This image comes from a website, and the webmaster gave me permision by e-mail to port it on Wikipedia. If I made a mistake, could you please help me and correct it ? I'd like to use this image for the René Guénon article. Thank you ! - TwoHornedUser_talk:TwoHorned22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
