User talk:Graeme Bartlett/archive 16

Older talk is in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 archives.

please add your talk at the bottom of the page:

PC TSC

Graeme, thanks for the undelete. I have added two references which I hope will be suitable. Can you check the page ( PC_TSC ) for me, see if it is satisfactory?

Jonathan E. Brickman (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BASantamaria

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Is_File:BASantamaria.jpg_PD.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Related to the above, File:BASantamaria.jpg was deleted due to unsure copyright status. I asked the guy who deleted it here. If you have any further information, that would help. – Quadell (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily is good with pictures, the uncertainty was whether it was published in USA before 2005, and a copyright ensuing from that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of TabWorks

Sir, This is not a copyright infrigement All the information given is already available freely on governemnt website. Purpose of pasting was to inform all the readers abt the Health insurance scheme for handloom weavers in India under 11th year plan and to invite their comment or suggetsion and keep them informed abt govt inititive in this feild


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

Lacks independent secondary sources offering significant coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The only "coverage" is routine coverage of the company's press releases.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Msnicki (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Regener

Graeme, I think you created the "Ernst Regener" wiki page, but actually his name is "Erich Regener" for which there is also a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.48.234.177 (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Regener is now merged, thanks for finding the problem! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Network outage

Hello! Earlier this year you indefinitely semi-protected the PlayStation Network outage article. However, since then, the visibility and traffic of the page seems to have calmed down. Do you think it would be worth a try to un-protect it? (I'm not an admin.) If it turns out that persistent vandalism resumes, the page can be re-protected. Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 09:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deprotected, see how it goes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian_dollar

G'day mate, just wondering why and what aspects of the slang section in 'strainlian dollar you felt weren't fair dinkum? A quick google or drink at the local says otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdonalds (talk • contribs) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Odd Songs - rationale for deletion?

Good afternoon Sir,

May I enquire as to what your rationale was for deletion of the 'Funny Odd Songs' article?

Many thanks, Funny Odd Songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunnyOddSongs (talk • contribs) 11:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Rose restoration

Thanks for restoring the "David S. Rose" article. However, now I'm not sure where to find it so that I can edit it as promised, and go about restoring the appropriate links. Could you please give me an idea as to where to look? Sorry if this is a silly question, but it's my first time dealing with a restoration, thanks.Yorker (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the restoration and the clarification. Everything is now back in place and appropriately edited..Yorker (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARkive

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive - keep up the good work! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You Restored David S. Rose For David S. Rose Himself

Just a heads up that you restored David S. Rose for David S. Rose himself. Yorker is David S. Rose. Take a look at his contrib history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Yorker -- it's mostly David S. Rose related. Another major edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierson_College&oldid=33703712, is about his alma mater. Dimension31 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since anyone can contest a prod that is fine by me. Others can check COI or start an AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Matej Bel logo.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Matej Bel logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dean-O album articles

While you may be declining criteria G11, all of them can currently be deleted under criteria A9. Cheers. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, another admin got to it. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE Deleted images

Graeme Bartlett, you rceently deleted the Holby City Charcater profile pics i uploaded as they violated fair-use, for which I am sorry. please forgive my ignorance im new to wikipedia. please could you explain excatly how they were in breach, and how rationales like this one are allowed to stay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Walter_white_breaking_bad.jpg. Thnak you, the info would be much appreciated.

Kind Regards, --InExcelsis DeoTalk 13:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use image

I was wondering if you could direct me to where the policy is clearly discussed about the fair-use images of living actors to illustrate articles about fictional characters? Walter_white_breaking_bad.jpg was nominated for deletion because it has a living actor who has other comparable photos available under free license that could be used instead but the deletion was contested. Is there a general consensus on whether these photos are acceptable fair use? Thanks. Warfieldian (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Encephalartos caffer

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring WP:BEFORE because you were "impolite", apparently

Eduemoni has chosen to outright ignore your warning to abide by WP:BEFORE before he clutters AFD with countless pointless nominations and even more incorrectly tagged CSD requests. Can you blame him, though? It's not like any admin can actually do anything about his actions at all. This is a giant problem with Wikipedia that is rampant. Users like Eduemoni know there is zero punishment in them ignroing WP:BEFORE, so they continue to clog up AFD with tons of articles that could've been avoided had the nominator took two seconds to do a Google News search. Polite or impolite, administrator requests to at least attempt to abide by WP:BEFORE are almost always deliberately ignored. Until we stop letting this behavior persist without even so much as a temporary topic ban threat, nothing will happen.

He knows that other deletionist admins will defend his actions as they have done with countless others in the past, and therefore he doesn't see you as a threat at all.

I'm frankly sick of having to go to a ton of AFDs by the same nom and doing all of their dirty work just because they seem to be in such a frantic hurry to nominate as many articles for deletion as possible to eventually get yet another stupid brownie point barnstar as a 'reward' for all the 'hard work' they've done when in fact they shove all the work upon everyone else to fix their mess.

If we had the audacity to dare to require the mass AFD nominators to be accountable for their actions, perhaps a lot of the regular voters would have more time to write and expand articles rather than frantically trying to fix someone's attempt to delete 50 different notable articles all nominated over a period of 5 minutes. Unfortunately, it's far easier to destroy than it is to create on Wikipedia, and I've seen far too many take the easy route to build up their 'barnstar' collection, all while wasting hundreds of hours combined of other editors' time with bogus AFDs. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO his approach towards me was very impolite, I'm familiar with WP:BEFORE because I've nominated and helped to enhance several articles, I'm not for deletionism, but if we have a correct focus, instead of creating dozen of articles about a sign post in my street or a bus station, articles about paintings, historical places, artists wouldn't be rotting because no one pleads for them, neither would some wikiprojects. I must admit that yes I sometimes mess up on CSD's because I don't understand some of them, and sometimes I don't check the revision history, but like any other I'm learning from past mistakes, because I do want become a wiki-admin. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your idea to improve. I am hoping that education will help out and that we don't have to use the more extreme methods. Bus stations could well be a notable topic, but I agree that most sign posts will not be! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong meetup, again

Hi Graeme again! I'm not sure whether you're in Hong Kong this time either, but if you are then please attend the Hong Kong meetup on 19 August in Think Cafe, Causeway Bay. Please sign up to the meetup on the meta meetup page. Hope to see you there! Deryck C. 16:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A CSD question...

I can understand the CSD decline of that IPs talk page, and I have no objections at all. Just wish to check that, since the user wanted it csd deleted, and I fixed the csd tag, if that would still have counted as if the IP user themselves added the CSD U1 tag. I would assume that it would have been as such, but I would still like to confirm if that is right or not. Have a good day, and don't abuse your admin powers! (or else I will {{trout}} you :P) LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jithil pankaj

Please take another look at this article. You declined an A7 speedy deletion stating that the subject was not a person. I am asking you to reconsider this action. The article is about a localite, i.e. person, living in India. Jithil Pankaj is an individual, and the subject and author of the article. No indication of importance or significance. This is not an article about a locale, but a "localite". (He's also on Facebook and Linkin [1].) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it now, I really thought this was locality until changed back! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Ware

Graeme, you allow me to move User:Cmagha/John A. Ware to work on it a bit. Have accented Tracy Kidder work by Ware, added some cites, etc. What do you think, meets criteria? Cmagha (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined

Hi; could I ask you to explain what "not that easy to make this kind of thing" [2] means in the context of declining a CSD tag? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TreasuryTag: expanding on that edit summary it means that making those controllers, which is a advanced skill counts as a claim of importance, and so I believe the article should be kept. Because I personally would like to see this article in Wikipedia, I cout the speedy delete as controversial, and so decline a speedy delete. There is no prejudice against an AFD if you wish! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed at AfD, and there seems to be an overwhelming consensus to delete. Personally, I think that your explanation is a bit pathetic. The criterion is about whether or not there is third party coverage. Just because you quite like the article does not mean it meets our notability threshold. I am a bit concerned that you think your actions here were appropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 08:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) "The criterion is about whether or not there is third party coverage." Actually, it's not. I think you're getting WP:A7 muddled up with WP:NOTABILITY - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Allow me to rephrase that sentence. The criterion is not about whether it is, in the subjective opinion of one admin, difficult to do whatever the subject of the article did. Nor is it about whether or not one admin would subjectively like to see an article on that topic. How's that? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 09:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there always going to be objective criteria by which an assertion of notability can be identified? Personally, I can think of a number of claims I'd treat as passing A7 which might not be thought such by an editor of a different background, knowledge or experience.
Remember, the ability to speedily delete pages or media is a privilege granted to administrators by the community, to be exercised at their discretion. There's always going to be an element of personal judgement; the fact that this administrator's opinion was different to yours in one instance is hardly cause to keep on at this. --88.104.36.157 (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed notability is an issue that needs to be checked post speedy delete. The speedy delete is only for non controversial, and in this case it is controversial. Any way I have some training in electonic engineering so I am more interested in the topic of the article under discussion than say 99% of other editors here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy deletion criterion, however, is not about how interested one admin is. Nor is it about how much one admin knows about the topic. I think this is the point you're missing. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 11:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way thanks TreasuryTag for reverting vandalism on my user page! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And Graeme, I'd like to commend you on your diplomacy here. You have been patient, civil and pleasant. More power to you. --88.109.59.108 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue with your reasoning, Graeme. The way I look at it, it was just a waste of time. While WP isn't on a schedule, I spend a decent amount of time proving non-notability when I find an article that doesn't seem to be notable (I strongly support WP:BEFORE). That time could have been spent checking more new articles. New articles constantly slip through the cracks and having all hands on deck to wade through them is important to me. I think there's a line between there being no schedule and keeping some level of presentation on WP. Overall, if advertisements and COIs run rampant on WP, the quality of WP will suffer making for less readers/users and less editors. I'm not saying anyone is saving WP by deleting articles or that contesting a speedy kills WP but we all draw the line on our own. I think that Treasury and I disagree with where you set the line and it appears that several others agree at the AfD. I mean no disrespect and don't mean to diminish what you do but I think it's important to consider the amount of work you create for others with your actions. OlYellerTalktome 14:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an AFD determines unequivocally that an article ought to be deleted, it is not a waste of time. Indeed, it is then an aid in dealing with unwelcome re-occurences of the same or similar material (see G4), and may provide a useful example when considering refinement of the existing speedy deletion criteria. And so on.
Shortcuts aren't always the best routes to take. --88.104.46.22 (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But sometimes they are? We're making the same argument. OlYellerTalktome 01:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? 'Cause I was making the suggestion that an "administrator's opinion was different to yours in one instance is hardly cause to keep on at this" further up the page. Have you managed to move on, yet? --07:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.46.22 (talk)
My suggestion was a small one and I responded to someone (you) who wasn't involved in the situation at all. I'm well aware that our opinions vary (mine and the person I was attempting to have a conversation with) and if you're having trouble understanding the discussion (that opinions vary about a grey line separating WP:NOTDONE from the current state of WP), it's probably best to sit out.
I respect Graeme and what he does here on WP and as I mentioned, wish no disrespect. I was simply making my opinion known because I think it may be beneficial to the project that we both dedicate a great amount of time to. Your edit history is short but obviously not representative of your experience here but I think you're misguided in thinking that I have some sort of axe to grind here (although butting into conversations just "cause" may insinuate that you do).
Graeme, if this is a discussion you'd like to continue or if you have anything else to say to me, you know where to find me. I'm taking this page off my watchlist to avoid dealing with an uninvolved and misguided IP. OlYellerTalktome 17:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Hello there! I hope you enjoy this treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Crisis of Democracy

Thank you for your speedy recommendation on my speedy deletion request! As per your suggestion, I have changed the page to redirect. Sailingfanblues (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per a revert by user:CartoonDiablo, I have brought this issue to arbitration. Just notifying you. Sailingfanblues (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)/Biggest wins and losses

Wrong move. I meant for it to be a subpage of the article's talk page. Under its current title it's just an even worse name than before. Please move it to Talk:Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)/Biggest wins and losses. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK demoted to Talk: space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


RE: AiMatch - Request for undeletion

• AiMatch • ( talk | logs | links | watch ) • [revisions] The original article was deleted on 8/5/2011 as spam. I would like to edit my company page to be more informational and remove and edit any promotional verbiage and tone -Dhouston119 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC) • Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. as well as it being a puff piece about the company. Since it is your company, it is much better to wait till someone independent thinks it is worth writing about the company. ReadWP:COI for why unconnected people should write about companies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and have reviewed the guidelines again to ensure that I am following protocol. There are numerous reliable, and verifiable, third party resources that speak about aiMatch (both as an organization and technology platform), the advertising landscape, ad serving and online digital publishers that, according to the guidelines, make the company and subject matter notable. In fact there are additional Wiki pages (example: ad serving) that cover and support this topic. Unfortunately, I am unable to see the original article so I can’t debate its “puffiness”. Can you please undelete so that I can edit and augment? (Dhouston119 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi User. You recently deleted a page "Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers" as it had previously been deleted due to unreliable sources/references. Since then, we have cultivated more reliable sources and added these references to the article, including links to television network websites which feature tv interviews of the subject, magazine articles, etc. Since this has been done, we are not clear as to why this article has been deleted again, especially now that is has numerous reliable sources from tv interviews, to magazine articles and others? Could you please explain or make suggestions if it needs to be further improved? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialitesociety (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Prodigy Singles Discography

I've already merged this with The Prodigy discography (hence why the only part left is promotional singles, which are non-notable in my opinion), which is why I tagged it for deletion.--90.204.123.40 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BSicon_FLYe.svg

  (FLYe) Any particular reason that you removed the Delete request and, well, frankly, um, screwed it up? It's obsolete, incorrect, and unused in any Route Diagram templates, and an attempt was being made to eliminate it. Useddenim (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can you help?

Hi Graeme, I note you created the wikipedia page on the Clarence Moreton Basin. I have added two photos to the discussion page because I'm not sure how to neatly insert them into the main article... can you help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clarence_Moreton_Basin

Thanks, Yendor of yinn (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much... you are an officer and a gentleman! Yendor of yinn (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cao Lanh and others

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] These articles were part of a move discussion at Talk:Cần_Thơ, which found no consensus to move the articles. You shouldn't have moved them. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can move them back yourself as it will overlay simple redirects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edulix

Thanks for removing this article. Is page protection (or something like that) on the cards to prevent the author making the article again? After four removals, it won't surprise me if he tried it again... Night of the Big Wind talk 12:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to salt for 2 creations in a year, as it may become notable in another year haha. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston

Thank you for declining the speedy delete of Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston. Could you assist me in renaming the article to "Air Boom", their official name? Starship.paint (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moved to Air Boom. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank u wel! Starship.paint (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but could you rename another wrestling tag team, Kane & Big Show to "Big Show and Kane"? Wrestling tag teams use "and" instead of "&", as seen by John Morrison and The Miz and Paul London and Brian Kendrick. Thank you! Starship.paint (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Namrights

Hi there, Will you restore the article Namrights? It is in regards to a well known human rights organization in Namibia. A google search reveals that it is regularly referenced and quoted in Namibia's national media. At the very least, it asserts genuine notablity and speedy deletion is not in order. Thanks for your help.--TM 14:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, please add your references that show notability! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mehboob Desai

Hello, you recently declined a CSD G12 for this userpage. The author does seem to be the same person as you've noted in the edit summary. But I think(I'm not sure) that since the author published it on his blog first and there seems to be no indication of the copyright status on the original, it would be wrong to assume that the material is not under copyright(considering that the author might even have published it offline before publishing on wikipedia). If that's the case, it should be speedied. If I'm wrong, can such content be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, or should it be listed for MfD? Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ G-Starr Speedy Deletion

Hi, hope everything is well. I recently received a notice regarding the speedy deletion of a Wikipedia stub that I posted titled DJ G-Starr. From my understanding you had deleted it so I wanted to discuss the situation. The stub did require work, however, the deletion didn't allow enough time for the stub to be improved.

I'm unsure if this will affect whether or not another DJ G-Starr stub can be posted. It would be helpful if you could let me know why exactly the stub was removed, and also if there is any suggestions that would help resolve the matter. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks, K1078 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Impress

Hi,

I came across the article on Lotus Impress that was started some time ago. Given the description inside, I'm pretty sure you're referring to Lotus Improv?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Impress was just a little printing utility from a 3rd party company that they bought. It was nothing like the description in the article. Is it possible you were confusing the two when you wrote it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I did not write it, it ws written by an anonymous user at WP:AFC. At the time the references supported the text included. I think that what it is is some kind of text formatter/editer. Given the range of Lotus names used at the time, this looks to be the kind of name they would use and not a mistake. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I did not write it, ahh, confusion solved. The article is definitely referring to Improv IMHO. The refs were all added later, and clearly talk about the printing/formatting tool. I don't know what to do now, AdF? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Metaphysical Sciences

Can you please get involved in the discussion there about deletion of the page concerning a school that has 6000 students worldwide, three branches, and 40,000 monthly (480,000 yearly) on google search engine alone? A half a million people per year cannot be non-notifiable. There are two people who just don't like this topic and have degraded the discussion into a totally useless dialogue. I would like to see someone get invovlsed who is a little more levelheaded. If the article is to be deleted, so be it, but I don't want it to be because of these two people who just don't like the idea of the school or the subject turning it into a stupid mud slinging discussion. It's getting ugly. Is there any way to take this to a higher level with higher moderators? Is there any way I can get other moderators involved who are not anti-metaphysics?

I am new here to wiki, and wiki has been asking for an article to be written on this school for the past three years, people search wiki for this school, and this is the largest school on the planet of its kind. I would just like to have discussions with other moderators about this page instead of these two people who just want to delete it and can't accept any reference that's ever put there. SummerPhD has vandalized all the work I did in the past few hours to put references there, she had NO time to read them all or follow them all, she just deleted them all for no reason whatsoever. Is there any way to protect this page from vandalism? No one else got to see any of the references except her. She deleted every single one of them becuase she simply does not want this article to be on wiki, even though people search for it on wiki. I am getting really tired of talking to those two, they are not constructive at all. Catalina Z (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Catalina Z[reply]

FYI

Please see this discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Ware article

We've taken your advice on notability, and delved into the online dbase for Publisher's Weekly; here is where we are: User:Cmagha/John A. Ware. See that we were working with a trade pub, we made need to double check for potential promo materials. Thanks for the guidance.IndtAithir (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undermining of banning policy

Ok, so you've decided to get involved in the issue of what to do about editors engaged in the undermining of banning policy, by deleting Template:Banning-enforcement undermining.  It seems clear enough that the template I created does not qualify for a T2 speedy delete, as it is taken directly out of WP:Banning policy.  So you must have some more-complicated reason for the speedy delete path.  I know your edit comment uses the word "provocative".  What alternative do you propose to respond to editors willing to engage in "undermining or sabotage"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about I bring it back and we have a proper debate at TFD? 08:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that you did not wait for a response to your question.  Are you familiar with the WP:Speedy keep criteria?  Failing to advance a reason for deletion is sufficient cause for a speedy keep.  The point is that by making an improper nomination, there is no possibility of having a "proper" discussion.  Moving on, WP:Banning policy states that it is a policy, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".  It also says that "all editors are expected to respect the enforcement of policies by not undermining or sabotaging them".  Do you agree that "all editors are expected to respect the enforcement of policies by not undermining or sabotaging them"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why declined?

Blanking the talk page does not remove the history. And to quote Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing:

"A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return, and for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find to remove their association with their edits."

Why does it have to be left as a badge of shame? Don't I have a right for courtesy vanishing? --Masterius (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete before because of the earlier notices, but i supposed people can look at the block log and request undeletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassador for geology class

Hi Graeme! I replied on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point of pedantry

Hi,

  • You declined an A7 of Narrow Gauge Down Under with "periodicals are not companies and so are not in scope for A7 speedy delete". That's understandable (and I'm not seeking to create any drama) but A7 isn't strictly limited to companies - it covers organisations more generally (and people, web content &c). If NGDU isn't an organisation in the more general sense, what is it? :-)
  • Is it worth reconsidering a CSD, or shall I AfD it? Any thoughts? bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

I was discouraged from staying contribute here after these article deletions, I had no more disposition to discuss with the user who deleted. I'll see if I take courage to create more articles about public national scientific societies of Brazil, thank you very very much -- Andrevruas (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see if I can add more sources, but I can get hard to find sources in English, I do not know if this can be a problem. Best regards -- Andrevruas (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This user Bbb23 is vandalizing the wickipidia page of Adriana Ferreyr. He has taken off a number of reliable references one by one and then put the page up for deletion for a lack of referenceces. He has also deleted the talk page that an administrator have created for discussion of the page. Best, Jane. — by Jane77765 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane77765 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Graeme Bartlett!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Global Education Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted. The steps you need to take now, a few things you need to read, are bolded.

When you get a chance, please add your username to the official list of Online Ambassadors and add a profile for yourself here (which helps match Online Ambassadors with classes in their areas of interest).

Here are some things you should know to help you get started:

The role of the Online Ambassador

The main role of for an Online Ambassador is to join the "pod" for one or more participating classes. The pod is the team of people helping a class of students contribute effectively to Wikipedia, consisting of the course instructor, the local Campus Ambassadors who will work with the class in person, the Online Ambassadors who work with the class online, and the Regional Ambassador for the pod who will check in periodically with the pod to make sure everything is going well.

A prototypical pod might look something like this:

  • An instructor who is fairly new to Wikipedia, leading a class of 20 students assigned to make significant contributions to new or existing articles related to the course subject.
  • Two Campus Ambassadors, one of whom is an experienced Wikipedian and one of whom is new to Wikipedia. The Campus Ambassadors will have gone through a training program on the basics of Wikipedia and how to help students contribute effectively.
  • Two Online Ambassadors, one moderately experienced on Wikipedia and one very experienced, who can answer basic questions and give good editing advice and find others to help when they get in over their heads, one of whom has a particular interest in the subject area of the course.
  • One Regional Ambassador, a moderately experienced Wikipedian who is working with 15 different pods spread across a big geographical region.

(That's an idealization, but it gives you an idea of the spectrum of people in each of the roles in the program.)

The expections for an Online Ambassador in a pod (and what you can expect from other pod members) are laid out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between pod members. In short the role of the Online Ambassador is to:

  • Help students in your class(es) when they ask for it, answer their questions, and generally watch out for them
  • Help students to get feedback on their work (whether from you or other editors an interest in / knowledge of the subject area)
  • Be a good example for students, modeling good wiki communication and editing practices
  • Communicate regularly with the other members of your pod about how things are going and problems are coming up

To join a pod, go to the MOU signup page, which lists the courses for the current term, and leave your signature in one of the Online Ambassador slots for the pod you want to join.

You can also help as an Online Ambassador outside of your role as a pod member, anywhere you see students who could use help. Feedback on the substance (rather than style and formatting) of student articles, in particular, is always a need.

If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup. The latter is the main help channel for the program, where students and instructors come from time to time in search of live help.

Wikipedia Ambassadors are expected to follow the Wikipedia Ambassadors Principles. Please review them.

Communication channels

There are three main places for news, updates and discussion about Wikipedia Ambassadors and the Global Education Program:

  1. Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors
  2. The Ambassador Program announcements list, which all ambassadors should join. It is a low-traffic email list that is only used for significant announcement that are relevant to the whole program. Please sign up as soon as you get a chance.
  3. The Wikipedia Ambassadors Google Group, a discussion list shared by Online Ambassadors and Campus Ambassadors. It's not required, but it's strong recommended and most of the ambassadors are on it. Request to join the Wikipedia Ambassadors Google Group if you would like access.

Newsletters about the program, or messages for Online Ambassadors particularly, may be delivered to your talk page on occasion.

Thanks for volunteering as a Wikipedia Ambassador! If you have any questions, please let me know.

--Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is great to welcome you as an ambassador. I think you are a perfect fit, and suspect you will enjoy participation. You come in as an asset.--My76Strat (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thank you

Dear Graeme Bartlett thank you for reverting my undo-edit I completely overlooked the subcategory in Afar Triple Junction‎. AlwaysUnite (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Thanks for being our Wikipedia Online Ambassador for our Plate Tectonics class! My name is Kristi and I'm the campus Ambassador for this class as well. It'll be nice working with you! Have a Pleasant Day! --만두 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kayak.com logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kayak.com 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two versions of a Wikipedia page

Hello!

I am a new Wikipedia Ambassador at the College of Staten Island, CUNY. When i log in to Wikipedia I see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Campus_Ambassadors and it has my College and my listing. When my friends log in they see the same page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Campus_Ambassadors) but without my name or college listed.

This is spooky and odd. What could be going on I thought perhaps they were using a cached version but it happens to me too before a log in to Wikipedia

Thanks for your help. Mappy1974 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Mappy1974[reply]

Protection request

Graeme, Queen page gets a lot of hits and vandalism has reappeared again since unprotected. Thanks.MusoForde (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback for your advices

Thank you for your suggestions for my article Faculty of Teachers' Education , I do want to change my title to "The Faculty of Teachers' Education of Nanjing normalYniversity", but I fail to manage it. So, would you please help me change it or tell me the way to change it. By the way, I have made some changes to my articles, is there any problem exsiting? Nnu-12-22100554 (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnu-12-22100554 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined CSD request

Hi. Just want to inform you that all of my nominated articles for speedy deletion was created by a sockpuppet of User:Bertrand101. The vandal is very notorious in creating hoax articles relating to Philippine television. Also, I just want to emphasize that the Buhay Ngayon (TV program) article is a hoax. No such show existed here in the Philippines. Please see my summary report regarding this vandal. Thanks -WayKurat (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Political party funding

Hi Graeme Bartlett,

thank you for the improvement and your many other suggestions, which I will have to adapt to still. I wasn't aware that indeed there happen to be "unpolitical" parties. However, we still have a problem: Is there a disambiguation page listing the various sorts of "party"? Basically I had in mind to create a REDIRECT for non-Americans who may look for "party finance" and do not know that their subject is called "campaign finance" in the U.S. and that other articles have even funnier names (you may want to go thru the "see also" in the article),

All the best, Khnassmacher (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gemmotherapy

Hi, I was informed that you removed the proposed deletion tag. If you can fix it as tagged, I would appreciate it. I have spent the past few years trying to build an encyclopedia. If you have any suggestions to improve the article, that would be most helpful. In the meanwhile, I will place an {{underconstruction}} tag on it as a way of encouraging you and others to do so. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]