User talk:Graeme Bartlett/archive 14

Older talk is in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 archives.

If I deleted your article, it may be 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:

Mattthew Skenandore article

Thank you so much for adding the artist's portrait and yes "the future of reproduction" painting on flickr was intended to be added per your license recommendation. Unfortunately the admin DragonFlySixtyseven has deleted the article. I hope to recreate the article with expansions to show why he is considered a notable NW artist and re-upload. Thanks again and I hope your wiki-break is a nice one. Sincerely, Curlyharpy1 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Steinbeck bio vandalism again

It was soooo nice after your sprotection. Now that it's unprotected, the IP's are at it again. Could you please sprotect it once more? SBHarris 23:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP Articles for Creation in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for Creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of typos

I take your point about "Zosterophyllacea" being a plausible typo for "Zosterophyllaceae", but here's the counter-argument. If you search for "Zosterophyllacea" in Google, all but one of 16 responses are actually sourced from Wikipedia (the odd one is the Paleos.com page; they should know better!). The problem with having typos redirected for topics like scientific names is that they then propagate around the replicates of Wikipedia and become established when they would not otherwise exist. Anyone who understands Latin nomenclature for plant families well enough to use this term knows that such names always end in "-aceae" and will quickly correct their error when searching doesn't find what they want. I'm very uneasy about the effects of so many redirects of typos in Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleeeeeeeeeeease?

Can you block me until February 27? Thanks. MickWithoutGlasses (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smile?

It seems that not everybody edits without thinking. (Actually, I find that encouraging ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you planning on having me blocked? MickWithoutGlasses (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, (laughs) that was me! I only forgot that I requested to be blocked. So block me. MickWithoutGlasses (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because...

Because I want to see what it would be like to go one week without Wikipedia. I edit Wikipedia EVERY DAY, and I feel like it's unhealthy to go on Wikipedia this often. I wonder what I would do for fun while I'm blocked. MickWithoutGlasses (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine School of Business Administration

I recreated the article for the school from tl:Philippine School of Business Administration. While I don't speak more than a smidgeon of Tagalog, I think it is enough to determine that the google translate of the article is close to reasonable (tweek a word or two). It is definitely a stub (the tl article is as well), but I think it is a reasonable start and doesn't appear to be a copyvio. Could you please do a quick check and either comment here or on the talk page for the article. Thank you. Naraht (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needing some help

Since my article on Soma Snakeoil was deleted could I get some guidance or assistance to avoid this snafu in the future and since you all do edit down the redundant links (very helpful by the way) so this doesn't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Shire (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3

Hi Graeme,

Thanks for your speedy correction to the page 3 (number). You see, I did this as a test for my 2 sons (ages 10 and 12) who both expressed a distrust of Wikipedia because "anyone can put anything out there". I encouraged them to test their ideas, so together we added a small Monty Python joke to the 3 page and made friendly bets on how long it would stay there. They were thinking it would take months and here you cleaned it up in under 2 hours. Well, sorry for putting you through this, but I thought it would be worth it in the grand scheme of things. I hope you feel the same.

Sincerely, -Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljackson1 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Orionsocialmedia

How 'bout blocking the account as a username violation then? 69.181.249.189 (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About SomersTotalKare

Thank you for rightly declining the speedy. Hmm. Lets hope the article gets up to speed as little stub.--Shirt58 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dear both, can you give me some advice on amending the article to comply to your concerns. I would really appreciate feedback from both of you.

--Kingswinford92 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. while I have provided a lot of relevant sources, many pieces of past evidence have been short-sightedly thrown away. Also, a different administrator told me that I couldnt cite book references or magazines as he/she was unable to verify them. Is there any language that you feel needs rewording? I know the article has been tagged for advertising, and at first galnce I can understand the point; however, when the reader analyses the language, I don't feel it is any more implicitly promotional than most business articles on wikipedia. If you could keep me posted I would really appreciate it. Thank you for not speedily deleting the article becuase, as I'm sure you realise, it has taken a lot of time and effort and I am keen to get it to wikipedia standards rather than just giving up and letting it be deleted. Thanks again,

--Kingswinford92 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Graeme, I am not able to work on gathering sources again until Friday. However, on Friday I will be dedicating time to researching additional reliable sources from magazines, books and newspapers, though the chances of finding sources from over 5 year ago are not great. Also, while I will be searching for sources on Friday, it may be next week when they go online so please bear with me. Thankyou for your co-operation

--Kingswinford92 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Request for filemover

I have would like to be able to move files to help other users on Wikipedia who do not have this ability. Please accept my request. Gabesta449 edits ♦ chat 22:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[File:6azfWv1298759773.png]] was put there by accident because it was the file name that was on my computer. Gabesta449 edits ♦ chat 22:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like for you to review my request now and please turn your attention to this discussion between me and Acalamari. Gabesta449 edits ♦ chat 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete tagging a page as spam

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Banaticus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Reply. Alpha Quadrant talk 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File move request

Many thanks for getting back to me on my Talk page. I have a few thoughts that I'd like to share. The initial impetus for requesting was the memo [[1]] (which has links showing the decline of editor participation after a couple of years and the need to encourage editors to stay on). Then the fact that I had reached my personal goals of 6,000 edits, 175 created pages, contributed satisfactorily (IMHO) to the four projects of which I am a member, corrected a lot of translated material, involvement with the German-language Wikipedia of which I am a Sichter (a kind of reviewer) and providing and checking references, because I can make use of the national archives and library which are close to where I live. So I hope you'll understand that some things had to be placed on the back-burner, and it hasn't been possible to keep up with every recommendation coming from various parts of Wikipedia. Now I'd like to get involved in new areas, and this is one that I am interested in and that I think I can handle (maybe the fact that I have a post-grad in Computer Science and worked for a long time in development of image-handling SW for IBM might help?). Regards, Hohenloh + 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About file mover permission, I have demonstrated to you that I know the procedures on how to move files accordingly to Commons file renaming policy, and to an extent, wikipedia's file renaming policy, since both are virtually the same. Had you've been following my contribs, you would've seen them, I provided a link to you. One thing I still do not understand is why you pull me over and question me about how to do file renaming. As my reasons for requesting file mover said, "I am an active user on both Commons and WIkipedia, am already a file mover at Commons, have experience with files, and understands the relevant policies." IMO, you seem to be balking at granting me this user right, for reasons I'm not sure of. Can we wrap this up now? It's not a RFA or RFB; for a file mover request more than 10 people before me got their permissions before I requested it. And almost no one got questioned. —Terrence and Phillip 00:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to have some feedback on the above, thanks.Hohenloh + 23:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Mexican–American War

Could you provide evidence support your assertion that "published sources exclusively use hyphen not dash". Please explain whether you read the discussion at the talk page, whether some argument was successfully put that that particular article should be made inconsistent with the style guide, whether you intend to change the en dash used in all of the other articles in the war category to hyphens, and whether you posted a message at the talk page warning of your intended action in moving the article name. Tony (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll join in here also, if that's all right. Graeme, yes: most sources have Mexican-American War, some have Mexican American War, and some do indeed have Mexican–American War. The following sources mix their styles, as we should not: "Mexican American War" 1; "Mexican American War" 2.

As I have pointed out at the talkpage for the article you moved, this is a matter of central style for the look-and-feel of titles throughout the project. It is not at all clear that we must "follow the sources" in every particular of punctuation and related styling. Every serious, substantial publication has its own style for hyphens, dashes, italics, and so on: and every one of them will adapt some of these features according to its own need for visible consistency. Doing otherwise, they would do a disservice to their readers.

There is no true consensus for the change you have made. At best, there is a merely local consensus, among editors whose focus is on the war in question. If the matter were addressed in a larger forum, the story would be quite different. Are we to think that there is project-wide consensus to allow editors at each article to decide such things? If so, should we be happy that the following should all drift their own way? Just a few of the many Mexico articles and categories, for a start:

Category:Mexican–American War
Battles of the Mexican–American War
Mexican–American War campaigns
Category:Treaties of the Mexican–American War

Currently these and the items included under them accord closely with project-wide practice, as we see it manifest in this quick sample:

Polish–Lithuanian War
Spanish–American War
Philippine–American War
Comanche–Mexico War
Meusebach–Comanche Treaty
Category:Texas–Indian Wars
Texas–Indian Wars
Colombia–Peru War
Finnish–Russian border
Iran–Contra affair

On and on the list could go. Have a look at the many articles under these categories:

Category:Bilateral relations
Category:Bilateral relations of Austria
Category:Canada–Mexico relations
Category:Mexico–Spain relations

They are overwhelmingly in this well-entrenched style:

Austria–Italy relations
1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

Or this, where a space is involved in the element to the left or right of the en dash:

Items included under Category:Treaties of the United States, like
Category:Mexico – United States treaties
Mexico – United States border

There were three kinds of participant in the recent discussion for the article you moved:

  1. "Local" editors, typically doing good but narrowly focused work on that and similar articles;
  2. Editors dedicated to maintaining and extending the rational standards of consistency that are already in place throughout Wikipedia (Tony and myself, as it happens); and
  3. One editor who is bent on disabling MOS in its role to head off countless disputes at countless articles: PMAnderson, who favours a minimal manual of style that will be little more than an essay, and who has a documented history of manipulating local sentiment for such political ends.

I urge you in the strongest terms to reconsider and revoke your move. It is against the best interests of the project as a whole, and it is (with respect) made on the shakiest theoretical and policy foundations (there is no policy concerning the style of such punctuation, just well-followed guidelines). It would not be approved of by the community if their attention were drawn to it and its insidious consequences. You will understand, therefore, that I reserve the option of raising the matter for wider scrutiny. Meanwhile, it is reasonable that I provide a link at WT:MOS to the request we are making, since the general issue has been discussed there recently.

Best wishes to you.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was pretty clear to move the article, no one provided any evidence that dash was used in reliable sources. The MOS is primarily for content of articles and is a guide, whereas WP:article names is a policy. Policies take precedence, so arguments using policy are more heavily weighted. I do not want to consider all the other articles, otherwise there may have to be a move discussion on those too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme:
  • First, a modification of what I say above. Of course there were other participants than those I name above. But the arguments raised by User:Xession and others do appeal to general matters, or they cite guidance that is external to the domain of the article but conflicting with established practice at Wikipedia. The MOS line on en dashes and hyphens is well considered (as are some possible alternative lines), and widely implemented as I clearly show above. But it is surely not appropriate that competing guides, external to the Project, should take precedence.
  • As I suggest, consensus was not established widely enough. Whether any "custodians" of the article like it or not, Wikipedia does have a way of managing titles of articles: partly given in policy, but amplified in guidelines where policy is silent. The way punctuation with dashes and hyphens fits with spelling and with other parameters of style is complex and technical. The most relevant policy page does not address this matter. I am disappointed that you ignore the points I make about this. Have you surveyed the issues in depth, as I and other MOS specialists have?
  • Most tellingly, you say this: "I do not want to consider all the other articles, otherwise there may have to be a move discussion on those too." But avoiding repeated wrangling and churning at myriad pages is a core reason for having and uniformly applying guidelines. Once more, I am disappointed that you ignore that. Not only is your doing so a threat to established consistency in Wikipedia, it discounts what a cohort of editors have done at the Manual of Style to enable that consistency. Yes: some people disagree with the details laid out at WP:MOS, in the present case. But once more, it is patently obvious that the community defers to MOS for the larger good, in naming articles. The community demands the kind of consistency we find in any serious encyclopedia, or any publication that claims the respect of readers.
  • Your action has introduced a specific and striking failure of uniformity in articles covered by Category:Mexican–American War. Plainly this is undesirable. Categories (like the MOS pages) exist to support consistency, and haphazard naming works directly against them. What is your plan, or what is your advice, to remedy that problem?
  • Please note the evident disparity between the depth and detail with which you and I have considered each other's points – along with the wider effects on the Project. Again I request that you reconsider.
Best wishes to you.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grahame Bartlet, you have damaged WP; you need to move the article back again and avoid making precipitous actions such as this in the future. You say " The MOS is primarily for content of articles and is a guide, whereas WP:article names is a policy."; could you explain where, exactly, the naming policy suggests that the typography of such an article name should be changed from dash to hyphen? I await your response. Tony (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, all the arguments are on the talk page, you can read them there, What I have done is close the debate and move the article. I am not adding to the debate, but explaining the reason for the close decision. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme, I too would like answers to my direct questions, above. They have a serious bearing on procedural correctness and on the role of guidelines such as WP:MOS. Please: answer my questions, or explain why they do not warrant your attention as a responsible administrator. Some of those questions, quoted from above:
  • Are we to think that there is project-wide consensus to allow editors at each article to decide such things [that is, moves dependent on punctuation style]? If so, should we be happy that the following [examples of many thousands of cases similar to the present one] should all drift their own way?
  • The way punctuation with dashes and hyphens fits with spelling and with other parameters of style is complex and technical. The most relevant policy page does not address this matter. I am disappointed that you ignore the points I make about this. Have you surveyed the issues in depth, as I and other MOS specialists have?
In particular, I request once more your response to these points (quoted from above):
  • Most tellingly, you say this: "I do not want to consider all the other articles, otherwise there may have to be a move discussion on those too." But avoiding repeated wrangling and churning at myriad pages is a core reason for having and uniformly applying guidelines. Once more, I am disappointed that you ignore that. Not only is your doing so a threat to established consistency in Wikipedia, it discounts what a cohort of editors have done at the Manual of Style to enable that consistency. Yes: some people disagree with the details laid out at WP:MOS, in the present case. But once more, it is patently obvious that the community defers to MOS for the larger good, in naming articles. The community demands the kind of consistency we find in any serious encyclopedia, or any publication that claims the respect of readers.
  • Your action has introduced a specific and striking failure of uniformity in articles covered by Category:Mexican–American War. Plainly this is undesirable. Categories (like the MOS pages) exist to support consistency, and haphazard naming works directly against them. What is your plan, or what is your advice, to remedy that problem?
  • Please note the evident disparity between the depth and detail with which you and I have considered each other's points – along with the wider effects on the Project. Again I request that you reconsider.
None of this is settled in the discussion at the talkpage for the moved article; and you did not join that discussion anyway, or signal your intention to act there – ignoring my argument that it was the wrong forum for the matter to be settled. Please explain now.
Best wishes to you.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer Noetica's points later, unless you are tired of having this discussion on your talk-page. I proposed the move to see what the opinion was among those not regulars of WT:MOS, and I think I am answered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if this was on the article talk page, if it is actually about the name of the article. Then others can join in too. But if you want to talk about my closing of the discussion, then here is fine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme, with respect: I for one have been talking about your closing of the discussion. So has Tony. We are still waiting for your answers on that focused matter. At the head of your talkpage you say you might look at reversing deletions you have made. Why is the same openness to review not applied for this ill-considered move of a page? It is hard to escape the conclusion that you have been manipulated by PMAnderson's ploy aimed at pointed disruption. He now has the temerity to admit it: "I proposed the move to see what the opinion was among those not regulars of WT:MOS, and I think I am answered." That is not a genuine reason for a move; it is an attempt to make a partisan point. If you do not now see that, and make honourable amends by reversing your action, you are implicated. You are then responsible for diverting the efforts of editors to repair things by more complex means, since the damage is set to spread well beyond the first article to many, many articles and categories under Category:Mexican–American War and beyond. I urge you, once again, to respond to our reasoned and cogently argued proposal: undo the damage. With my best wishes.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have "the temerity to admit" that whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus. I also believe the shocking heresy that what MOS says is determined by its words, as interpreted by consensus. It is for Tony and Noetica to say what they believe.
I do not accept any "rational" rule of English, unless
  • It is actually found in English usage.
  • It is recommended by a substantial number of reliable sources (that is, outside Wikipedia)
  • It has consensus of Wikipedia editors (in general, not just some half-dozen at a guideline talk page).
That's not how English works; otherwise we would be discussing this now in simplified spelling and Shaw's improved apostrophe-free punctuation.
Their conduct is another matter, to be dealt with in other venues. I had hoped that Noetica would not join Tony's cries of sabotage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The role of MOS should be, according to WP:POLICY, to reflect the consensus of discussions of Wikipedia style in practice; if it did, it might well actually reduce disputes. But instead, TonyNoetica has gone to WT:MOS and [supported by Tony] induced two of the dozen MOS regulars to open a new dispute over the spelling of Mexican-American War, within days of your closure.

The two of them are harmful to Wikipedia, not least in wasting your time and mine in their ceaseless effort to enforce a rule they've made up, which is not supported by English usage, not supported by the text of MOS, and which makes Wikipedia look like it was written by the half-educated. If you want more, let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your message

I replied to your message at WP:RFP/F and could you see my req. at WP:RFP/A. Not that I wish to sound rude, but not much experience is needed, all I want to do is move files from incorrect spelling or hard to read names to better names. Thanks Graeme, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:23pm • 10:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the guidelines, sorry if I came out rough. I'll remove the wikibreak templates, sorry about my laggy userpage, I've been meaning to fix that for some time. I'm very familiar with image use policy and copyright. I'll take on board your suggestion and come back when I'm ready. Thanks very much Graeme :) —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:56pm • 11:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for file moving/renaming

Hi, could you please elaborate me the procedure of file moving/renaming. I got this right of file mover; i was thinking it would be same as moving the article but its clearly not as i don't find any Move option on the file pages. It will be very helpful, if you'll explain me the procedure, so that i'd able to do this my new job, i asked same from another administrator but he didn't reply at all. Bill william comptonTalk 15:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Bill william compton's talk page.
Message added 04:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You need to resign as an admin

Please see my latest post at the talk page where you damaged the article, the reputation of admins, and your own standing, on why your flagrant abuse of the role makes your continued role untenable at WP. Tony (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:47pm • 07:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, quick request for DYK nom

Could you please review Template_talk:Did_you_know#Digital_Education_Revolution? Tim seems to have missed my message and is currently offline. Cheers, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:46pm • 10:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer, but missed by that much! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG

Hi, I am not seeing that PD is the correct license for this picture, not at all, I do not see any such declaration in any of the historic comments, do you still have doubts about that? Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What?No file Mover?

Hey there.Thank you for replying me back for request of file mover.It took about one day to process and about an hour,you rejected it.What do you mean I didn't use the file mover?Can you tell me?--Damirgraffiti (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tugatech

Hi Graeme. Did you really had opened the references of the "article"? Just autoreferences... If en.wiki admits trash and spam, i will respect. Leandromartinez (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I respect your decision. The objetive of the user(s) its promote their small community/discussion board. Some links: Tugatech, TugaTech and many many attemps. Now its doing a bit of cross-wiki promotion (simple:Tugatech, es:Tugatech)... :-) []s. Leandromartinez (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Park Rail, New South Wales

I apologize if i somehow have offended you with removing that comment. I removed it simply because it appeared to be a blatant piece of vandalism, something one comes across every now and then. Secondly it had no source to suggest that it was the "number one bogan capital of Australia". Thirdly, it's not exactly a title which a town should be proud of, or really a piece of information that is appropriate on Wikipedia, as it most likely could have led to more vandalism on the page, it was also added by a user who first ever edit was that comment, further highlighting the fact it was added as intentional vandalism, hence why I'm slightly bewildered to why you threatened me with a ban. If anything, i'd be putting a warning onto User:27.32.101.44. Nath1991 (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to get into a massive argument, making mountains over molehills etc, however I still maintain that I was attempting to do the correct thing by labeling the edit as vandalism. The comment offers nothing at all constructive towards the page, and i maintain, It was the user's first actual edit - pointing to the fact his/her initial efforts appear to be blatant vandalism.

P.S. - Cheers for the Brett/Shane Lee reference, i was actually in the middle of hunting for one when i spotted you had found one first, so Thanks. Nath1991 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see why all my other articles and posts are ok but I've tried to get this guy up and running and it always gets deleted. This page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Edge_(lawyer), is up and nobody tags it for deletion but it's got NO NOTABLILITY, NOTHING. I made Richard's wiki notable. Can you please assist me in telling me how it does not meet the requirements, but Steve Edge does? --Yourjourneyrealised (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme

Since my last software update the filter on my laptop (and similar laptops from the program) has been blocking harmless programs, firefox, usb modem software etc. so I'll have to refer to WP:FURG for proper templates that will satisfy the bot, very fussy bot at that. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:55am • 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your message. Cheers, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:39pm • 07:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you advanced two levels. Congratulations, and thank you for your many contributions to the Wikipedia! Herostratus (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta

[2] Thanks for the quick switch-flicking :) ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 06:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice

Could you please provide a copy of the User talk:Gabriele449/Editnotice page on User talk:SunCountryGuy01/Editnotice. Thanks. Jessy T/C 22:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at SunCountryGuy01's talk page.
Message added 23:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please delete Deen Dayal Upadhayay College

Hi Graeme, will you please delete Deen Dayal Upadhayay College article as it is duplicate of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College. Some concerned user asked me to do so, but as I'm not an admin so this is out of expertise. Thanks Bill william comptonTalk 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graeme for your prompt response. Bill william comptonTalk 02:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]