User talk:Graeme Bartlett/archive 28

Older talk is in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 archives.
Please add your talk at the bottom of the page:

Oswaldo González

Hallo, Sytars has emailed me stating that he is Oswaldo González, so this article is entirely a COI autobiography. PamD 23:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK, as the page is deleted again. I don't think we will be restoring it in future. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In view of today's flurry of re-creations of the page, is it time to salt the title? This editor seems determined to add his autobiography to the encyclopedia. PamD 12:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done by CambridgeBayWeather Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 February

Hello, you put a deletion tag on mine but I was the original one who wrote it and it got deleted the first time for advertising because I talked about his business and I found out I can't do that. So I rewrote it and took out that type of stuff and posted again. Is there a problem other than that? Let me know. Thank you. Kingsheis2017 (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'no redirects to categories'

What I'm was after here is the ability to surf, navigate ; and to enhance the value of wikipedia text for training AI (every link is a nice label; Imagine extending word embedding to include links in the vocabulary).

If 'overlinking' is a hazard, maybe we could make a distinction between 'standard links' and 'navigational links': any link to a 'list of...', 'disambiguation..', or 'category:' would be classed as the latter; those could be rendered in a less prominent shade, so they dont distract. Fmadd (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the category it should link to the main topic. Otherwise it probably needs to have a stub article written with the category as the categorization. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start Class Blitz

You seem to be on another blitz to assess new articles as "start class" without actually reading them. This really does not help improve Wikipedia, but just demoralizes editors. By all means assign new articles to projects by adding {{WP projectname|class=|importance=}} to the talk page, but please do not assign them to "start class", the project garbage heap, without any thought of whether they meet the "start class" criteria. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most new article are start class, a few are stub. Don't be demoralised, start is not garbage at all. Garbage gets deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do get demoralized. I start a lot of articles. Some are not that great, but most give all the information I think a typical reader would want. They are well-sourced and English is my first language. Lately you have been rating them as crap. It hurts. I feel the pain. Have you read the criteria for start class? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A start class article is defined in Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment as:
  • Criteria: An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources.
  • Reader's experience: Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.
  • Editing suggestions: Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
Basically that means "garbage". The article will not be deleted if the subject is notable, but editors are unlikely to attempt improvement, as they might with a "stub" article. Who wants to clean up someone else's mess? Easier to start again from scratch, if it is that bad. So it just sits on the project garbage heap and festers. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to figure out the formula, so I can avoid getting the start (garbage) rating. A sample from today's batch, where you evaluated thirteen articles between 07:47 and 07:57:
Article Rating DYK size Sources Area (ha) Picture? Map?
Delta do Parnaíba Environmental Protection Area C 2,753 6 313,800 Yes No
Serra da Ibiapaba Environmental Protection Area Start 3,145 5 1,592,550 Yes No
Algodoal-Maiandeua Environmental Protection Area C 4,222 3 3,100 Yes Yes
Tapajós Environmental Protection Area C 3,717 4 1,988,445 No No
Jatobá Hydroelectric Power Plant Start 3,157 8 64,600 Yes No
Chacorão Dam Start 2,700 6 61,600 No Yes
Mundurucu Indigenous Territory Start 3,173 6 2,382,000 Yes Yes
Sawré Muybu Indigenous Territory C 9,090 9 178,173 No Yes
Tapajós hydroelectric complex B 11,026 26 198,600 Yes Yes
Readable text size seems to help, with no "Starts" above 3,500 characters and the only "B" above 10,000 characters, but Delta do Parnaíba Environmental Protection Area gets a "C" although it only has 2,753 characters. Proposed dams do poorly, perhaps because there is not much to say. Environmental protection areas do better, although often much more could be said. Number of sources, surface area and presence of a sketch map or picture seem irrelevant. I am stumped. Can you offer any clues? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(butting in) Almost all our ratings are purely done on article size, which is nonsense but there we are. I think you are wrong to think start=garbage, but the best thing to do is what almost all readers do, & ignore ratings completely. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Readers ignore ratings, but some editors use them to look for articles worth improving. They may expand a stub into something meaningful, or try to get a C or B class up to GA. "Start" articles seem the least likely to get attention. A "start" article is quite incomplete. Most readers will need more. It is poorly sourced, poorly organized, and has bad grammar and spelling. Garbage. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rating levels I have been given, can be changed too. You can rate your own assessments too. But if everything is top importance we won't believe it! By the way start≠garbage. The main reason for start, would be that there is more to write on the topic. I note that you yourself called some of these stubs, which is an even lower level of completeness. None of these writings were stubs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is usually more to write on any topic, but "Start" means most readers do not get what they want. "C" class means the article is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material ... considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. "C" is not exactly top quality. Importance is a completely different question. How do you rate quality? Serra da Ibiapaba Environmental Protection Area and Delta do Parnaíba Environmental Protection Area are very similar, same formulaic structure, same data, but you gave the longer one a "start" at 07:56 and the shorter one a "C" at 07:57. What is the key difference? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are giving this too much significance. What is significant is that your new articles are showing up on the new art lists that I watch. I am pleased to see your work, which never needs tagging for problems. I add projects tags on the talk page, as that is something that you have not been doing, but you can do yourself if you wish. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are rating the articles on my watchlist "garbage", you are rating others "garbage". This is very significant, since it affects how much attention the articles will get in the future – the sole reason for ratings. I ask again, what criteria are you using for your quality ratings? Why did Serra da Ibiapaba Environmental Protection Area and Delta do Parnaíba Environmental Protection Area get different ratings? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you gave the 2675 character Morro dos Seis Lagos Biological Reserve a "start", presumably because although it provides some meaningful content, most readers will need more. What missing information do you think the readers will be looking for? If it is available online, I will add it. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Aymatth2. This article is a very nice summary. Suggestions for what to include to get up to a C class: Information about any inhabitants or past habitation. What is the relation of Balaio people? to the area? Is there more information on the hill and the different lakes and waterfalls? Is there more information on mineral deposits? The amount of writing could double to escape from the start class rating. To get to a B class I would like to see a map of the area/reserve showing the ,(not just a location map) and photos - it should be big enough for satellite photos. For B class are there scientific studies of what is in the reserve? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that much of that information is available, even offline. The area is very inaccessible and very poorly studied. But the typical reader is looking to resolve a question in an argument or clicking a link from another article to get a quick overview. Long articles are tough to read on the phone. The obvious questions are: Where is it on the map? How big is it? What kind of flora/fauna? What is special about it? You may be confusing the "Start" definition of "most readers will need more" with the "C" definition of "still missing important content". Most readers will be happy with a summary. I am still curious about the key differences between the very similar Serra da Ibiapaba Environmental Protection Area and Delta do Parnaíba Environmental Protection Area. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 15 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pre-collisional Himalaya

Mifter (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication

Good day, Graeme Bartlett. Given your apprehension towards restoring the deleted former contents of List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of death in mainspace, would it be alright to ask of you to consider providing a copy of the deleted contents, per WP:UFY? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Applications of 3D printing

Applications of 3D printing was an article split from 3D printing, which was very long. The only text in the new article was taken directly from the old one, so while there might have been copyright violations in the initial text, they were not introduced by me. I ran Earwig on the pre-split version of 3D printing, and it looks like there were a handful of sentences that were copy-pasted from the original sources, but nothing particulary egregious. I'm happy to clean up the existing copyvios if the article is undeleted. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, perhaps 3D printing also has a copyright infringement, but it would need more careful checking of who copied who. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion at User talk:Amortias#Applications of 3D printing. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination for Life sciences in the United States

Hi Graeme

Yesterday you nominated Life sciences in the United States for deletion on the grounds of copyright violation, however the text was taken from a source made available under CC-BY-SA 3.0. This keeps happening and I would like to find a way to reduce it, could you explain how you find the article and what tells you it is a copyright vio? I feel like there needs to be an extra step in there somewhere for checking if the text is from an open license source.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme Bartlett, thanks very much for the explanation, I think I understand the issue now.
The text on the UNESCO website is copied from the publication which you are unable to access (not sure why, try this link instead, its an 800 page .pdf). The publication is clearly labelled CC-BY-SA 3.0 but when it got copied to the website the open license notification is being lost, this is a known problem with the website and something I'm working on fixing at the moment. The tool is only picking up the website text telling you its a copyright violation, not the .pdf text which is correctly labelled. I'm not really sure what to do about this. I think this is going to be the case for many organisations and publishers who make their openly licensed text available as a .pdf rather than a web page. So if they or someone else then copied the open license text from the .pdf onto a web page and incorrectly labelled it as not openly licensed then the tool that you and others used would flag it as a copyright violation.
Can you suggest a place I could start a discussion about this to try and find a solution to this?
Thanks again
--John Cummings (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I could not open the PDF is because it is too big! I should not have nominated it for deletion for copyright though, as it did make the claim down the bottom. For CC-BY... licenses there is an attribution, but what exactly is the attribution in this case? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graeme Bartlett, I need to do some work on improving the attribution template, it should state UNESCO holds the copyright, the license statement should have a link to the Creative Commons page for that license, that's the bit I don't know how to do yet....--John Cummings (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cummings: The license link is easy - see the bottom of every page. link to [[Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License]] if that's the one. Else link to an external link on the creative commons web site using [url name of license] format. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single revdel

Hi! I wonder if you could revdel a single diff on my talk page: a new user posted their email address there. Maybe it's an overabundance of caution, but I would rather it not be in the history. (Deleting it in the history will not affect the rest of what they posted, will it?) Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Mabalu. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kevin Ramnarine, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Mabalu (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
hi Yu-gi-oh master (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited V1309 Scorpii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stellar envelope. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Possible improper use of page move redirect suppression". Thank you.

I just happened to mention one of your actions in a thing, so leaving the obligatory notice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rating Criteria

I'm trying to understand the rating criteria a bit better, particularly for the (admittedly) low-importance topics I'm likely to address. I recently posted the Eridanus II article. I've now looked over other C-class and some B-class articles, trying to get a feel for the system. Would you have felt better with a "Properties of the Galaxy" section which looked more like the following?

Properties of the Galaxy[edit] Location[edit] Eridanus II is located deep in the southern sky at (J2000) celestial coordinates of RA 3h 44m 20.1s (56.0838°) and Dec -43° 32' 0.1" (-43.5338°) (Crnojević et al., 2016). These correspond to galactic coordinates of l = 249.7835°, b = -51.6492°. The distance to Eridanus II is estimated to be and 366 ± 17 kpc (1193 ± 55 kly) (Crnojević et al., 2016). At this distance, Eridanus II is the most distant of currently known bodies which are likely satellites of the Milky Way (Id.).

Velocity[edit] Eridanus has a heliocentric velocity of -75.6 km/sec, with a velocity dispersion of σv = 6.9 km/sec. The estimated galactocentric velocity component is +67 km/sec (Li et al., 2016). No velocity gradient or other velocity anisotropy was found. (Li et al., 2016).

Size, Shape, and Rotation[edit] Eridanus II does not have a spherical shape, and its ellipticity (ε) has been estimated at about 0.45 (Crnojević et al., 2016; Koposov et al., 2015). The data are consistent with a simple exponential distribution of mass and a half-light radius (a radius enclosing half the luminosity of the galaxy) of 277 ±14 pc (~890 light years), with an apparent half-light diameter of 4.6 arcmin to observers on Earth. Crnojević et al. (2016). A galactic structure of this size is not expected to show signs of coherent rotation (Simon & Geha, 2007).

Not sure I'd want to write that way, but that's an entirely separate issue. I first need to know what you have in mind. Augwhite (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Augwhite: Are you trying to get this article up to the B rating? I gave it a C because the page has enough content to cover what is known, but needs some extra elements and style changes to get to the B rating. To achieve this you would need to convert the references to the Wikipedia standard using numbered footnotes. There would have to be images. Some style changes should be made, for example the article should not address the reader e.g. "Thus, we should" or "it may be worth reminding ourselves". It should not have unneeded text like "As noted in the introductory section". A series of points should not use digits in parenthesis, but perhaps words like "firstly". Headings should only have the first letter upper case. Take a read of WP:MOS to find out about Wikipedia writing style. You do take quite a few words to describe the measurements, but I suppose it adds context for those unfamiliar with the terms e.g. "half light radius". You do make a special mention of uncertainty of the position, but the article does not say what that uncertainty is. instead the infobox has it to 0.1 arcseconds, which is very precise. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme: Thanks. Exactly what I needed to know. I will probably not re-work the Eridanus II article. Its not a topic of great interest, although dwarf galaxies may be worthy of a little better coverage in Wikipedia. However, if I'm ever again in the position of having to write a page from scratch, that's all useful guidance. I have only one quibble. Parenthetical referencing is expressly permitted in WP:CS and further discussed at WP:PAREN. Several good reasons for it are mentioned in the latter article, and there are many others. (I was going to insert a numbered list of reasons here, but perhaps -- given your comment -- that would be a poor idea...) If Wikipedia wants to deprecate that referencing style, I'll switch; but, until then, you might want to reconsider your ratings practice on that particular point. If nothing else, have a little kindness for the poor SOBs who spend years working til 2am in the lab, living on week-old bread sales and Raman noodles, so that they might be named senior author on a paper. They deserve more than being buried in a footnote. Thanks again. Augwhite (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ratings are based on more than referencing, and just because its permitted does not mean that I like it! Any way I too have written on some dwarf galaxies too, but not as much in one article as you have done. I hope the SOBs in the lab are not waiting for Wikipedia citations! I am often more dubious about the lead author role, they may be the boss of the lab, the one who came up with the idea for the paper, the one that did most of the hard work, or the one that put pen to paper, and on many you don't know. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kripparrian

Can you restore full history plus full history of talk page? Valoem talk contrib 22:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (apart from vandalism) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also can you restore Tabjuice, contesting PROD, in fact I'll contest any prod from User:Jone Rohne Nester if there are any others. Valoem talk contrib 18:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You already started yourself with the current prod Jason Kottke. I have restored Anthony Freeling and Nelson Balaban for you to improve or nominate for deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get your opinion on this new editor Jone Rohne Nester, he reeks of SPA. In my experience editing here there are two types of red flags, a new editor creating articles on a new companies or living persons, and a new editor nominating subject for deletion in a certain field without prior experience, this editor has both. He created an article on Matthieu Aussaguel with was CSD by DGG then has been repeatedly prodding articles which survived AfD regarding people within the digital media industry. Take a look at Jason Kottke who was credited with "a Lifetime Achievement Award as a blogger", "creating Gawker logo" and listing him as "pioneering blogger". He also accused me of "personal interests" in The Daily Dot here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Dot. I find this highly alarming and have reason to believe he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia. Is a warning or block warranted? Valoem talk contrib 23:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Being controversial according to Riceissa is a bit of an irrelevance, given that Riceissa was paid to create articles as part of Vipul's Wikipedia spamming pyramid scheme. Riceissa is skirting the bounds of the TOU. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-delete the page, and see what the Vipul story is. We probably need more on the delete reason than a twinkle G11 though for these sort of skirting around acceptability spams. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, administrators should not make unilateral decisions to delete long-standing articles without proper review. I've made unilateral decisions before in blatant and obvious cases for recent articles, but these weren't so clear-cut. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see better edit summaries, perhaps a link back to some discussion on the spamming operation. Anyway I also unilaterally delete spambot output. Also I will delete copyright infringements without nomination, but I will then drop a note to the infringer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Nils Bildt

Hi, recently at WP:Requests for undeletion you responded to the contested PROD by restoring then immediately speedy deleting it. I believe the article did not meet either the A7 or G10 standard, and request undeletion.

Speedy deletion had been previously declined (I forget by whom); the article made a claim of significance. True, the article's most recent edit (as I remember) probably did not yet meet the higher notability standard, but I found additional sources concerning Mr. Bildt's work in Japan that would avoid the ONEEVENT issue. That information would have been included in the article but not for User:MelanieN deleting the page after a 2-day rather than 7-day PROD.

As for being an attack page, I understand the concern. Though I assume good faith, edits after mine represented hard points of view that concerned me as well. I believe I left the article in a neutral state, however. Under G10 there should be at least one neutral version in the page history to revert to. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't mind if you start this again. The latest version was an attack and the early version had no claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That'll work. I didn't save a copy, though. Would it be possible to restore my latest version as a draft? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to do that. I am on mobile so it is more tricky! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no hurry, whenever you get a chance is fine. I wasn't planning to get to the article until the weekend. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of FFD

Hi Graeme, I think you think I erred in closing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 24#File:Downtown by Petula Clark UK vinyl A-side.jpg. Are you reckoning that the kept image is non-free ? Peripitus (Talk) 06:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the closure is wrong as it was based on the discussion. But I think the image should remain non-free due to its total complexity. If this was a piece of text, we could expect copyright to apply. There is some leeway due to it being more like a title, but there is far more than a title on the record! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Facts aren't copyrightable under US law; are they? The layout of the text doesn't seem original enough here in the US, especially the circle-y layout. I see nothing creative about initials or catalogue numbers; to me they are too factual. Also, the logo isn't original enough for US copyright. Of course, you may counter my view as "inaccurate", but I'm sure that this image is free to use in the US. (Pinging Peripitus.) --George Ho (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Symsyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Run time. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Graeme Bartlett, can you get a logo for the Red Dead game series please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link for an image somewhere on the internet? I can find logos for individual games, but not the whole series yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one's for the franchise [1]. Or you could crop this one [2], since Red Dead Revolver is defunct so is it's logo, so it's just Redemption that's in use, thanks--Theo Mandela (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The franchise one on the red background looks good. But off that wiki its hard to show the logo is genuine and who owns the image. Is there an official place it is visible? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your right User:Graeme Bartlett, the logo should be the "Read Dead" text used for Read Dead Redemption 2, since it's the most recent release in the franchise, this is the official logo Rockstar Games are currently using on their website for the franchise [3].--Theo Mandela (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this useable User:Graeme Bartlett? Cause it's from an official website and same font used in RDR2.--Theo Mandela (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The red dead at the bottom in the centre may be suitable as a series logo. The bigone is clearly for Redemption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Graeme Bartlett, this one's good from the Polish Red Dead website [4], but the logo in the bottom your talking about is the same font as the one used for Redemption, so why not just crop the good one on top?--Theo Mandela (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why not, is that the logo is supposed to be genuine and used to identify the subject. Something that we cropped may not be genuine, soa part of the particular game logo is not genuine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Graeme Bartlett, the logo for GTA and Mafia game seriess were cropped. What about the first one I gave you [5], it was just "Red Dead", plus it had that lighter, lust colour the 2 text uses, which is appropriate as it is the latest release. Probably the only game series on Wikipedia with no logo available.--Theo Mandela (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Facebook

You first undeleted it on Mar 13, and then reversed the undeletion as "undeclared paid editing". Since an appeal has been listed, I'm planning to undelete it for the purpose. At Del Rev I do not undelete copyvios or gross BLP problems, , but otherwise I do when it appears that it might be helpful. A promotional article does not have the same risk as those. If you disagree, please let me know. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you restoring it User:DGG, as it is obviously a controversial case that needs discussion! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mistake move

Can you move Bravo (word processor software) back to Bravo (software) common name error. Valoem talk contrib 15:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done , already finished. Valoem talk contrib 21:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:CO16 ping by mistake.

Hi Graeme Bartlett. I pinged you by mistake in a discussion at User talk:CO16. I also referred to you in error in a now removed post. I apologize for this and and sorry for any confusion it may have caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space

Thank you for restoring Eric Draven (wrestler). But you ignored the part about moving to draft space. Can you please move that article to Draft:Eric Draven (wrestler)? 24.205.24.240 (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately did not move the page, as it looks suitable to stay in mainspace for improvement. Any confirmed editor can move the page if they think it needs to be renamed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Tree

Per WP:Perseve can merge and restore both history and talk and then merge with Devil's Tree. Valoem talk contrib 23:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also you restore the first deleted edit before I restored (or how ever many edit there were? Valoem talk contrib
One more White lighter myth can you restore full history? Valoem talk contrib 23:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for the myth Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please then can you removed the The Devil's Tree redirect The Devil's Tree is actually common name. Valoem talk contrib 00:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you restore the first deleted edit from 2007 for that article. Valoem talk contrib 00:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you merge the history of Neckbeard to Neckbeard (slang) also it look like the talk page on Neckbeard was also deleted can you restore and merge, this is a notable topic. Also can you delete Dan Colman and Dan Shak to make way for move to commonname? Valoem talk contrib 07:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]



thanks for the tips.User talk:Mandy 877

Comment?

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Add quality criteria to WikiProject templates. Feedback welcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium
added links pointing to Respiration and Sulfur bacteria
Family symmetries
added a link pointing to Monopole

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Time crystal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open system. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM

Please remove all my user rights. I will not clear the unpatrolled backlog or use Huggle and Stiki, and review pending changes. --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC - Nugent-RajanBabu reagent

Hi Graeme, I see that you accepted the AfC submission on the Nugent-RajanBabu reagent, and that Smokefoot has cut-edited-and-pasted it to a new article (bis(cyclopentadienyl)titanium(III) chloride). I have moved the talk page AfC template here but am not sure if this is the correct procedure. Would you please have a look? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I have merged the history. Smokefoot should have used the "move" button to rename it instead of a copy/paste/redirect. Anyway it is now OK for attribution purposes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Graeme, I was thinking a move would have been the way to go. Regards, EdChem (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Simoon cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Simoon cover.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Joe's Shanghai

Can you restore this talk history? Valoem talk contrib 21:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Barker

The template should have been deleted. It was an article that was just deleted Check Megan barker. Reb1981 (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy delete. References suggest notability;. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wapanese

Can you restore the full history and talk? I would like to see what is there. I've found numerous sources which distinguishes the difference between historical Japanophile and modern Wapanese. Valoem talk contrib 02:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is there in the article history is a mixture of attack and copyright infringement, it is tough for me to get a handle on what is legal to restore. But to get a flavour of different elements you may have seen in the hisotry look at: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wapanese&amp=true&defid=277782 http://wikibin.org/articles/wapanese.html http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-92070/wapanese?pg=36 https://quizlet.com/86379210/japenese-terms-2-flash-cards/ . It is hard to see who copied what amongst all these pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored talk history as it steers clear of violations, and attacks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So nothing in the history is restorable? Valoem talk contrib 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing worth restoring. It all looks like copyright infringements, apart from the attack pages that say "moron" or similar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

PTAA GMB Model
added links pointing to Cordova and Yakutat
Rivers of Jammu and Kashmir
added links pointing to Ramkot and Markha River
Agricultural landscape of southern Öland
added a link pointing to Alby
British Council, India
added a link pointing to Bindu
Cahangir Allahverdiyev
added a link pointing to Poladli
Carabobo Field
added a link pointing to Heavy oil
Compounds of palladium(III)
added a link pointing to Dimer
Cuchimilco
added a link pointing to Unglazed
Filipino-American art
added a link pointing to Filipino
John Gibson (cartographer)
added a link pointing to The Universal Magazine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black river

You shouldn't have deleted the mill creek, the reason there was two pages is because there is 2 different mill creeks going into the black river. You should have done more research before deleting the page. Tripp155 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tripp155: Are you talking about Mill Creek (Black River, which seems to be very similar to Mill Creek (Black River)? What should they be called if they have the same name? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tripp155: I have restored this to Draft:Mill Creek (Black River second tributary) so you can add some proper content and references. When it is clear that this has a different story to the other one, you can move it to article space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you, I will gather historical and geographical info about each one and more of a description. Tripp155 (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks in taxonomy templates

Hi, always good to see useful taxonomy templates. Note that ranks in taxonomy templates must be Latinized (e.g. "familia" not "family", "ordo" not "order"). See WP:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#rank. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making it work. Have you seen the documentation on Template:Taxonomy? (It's of no use whatsoever.) Anyway perhaps it can be changed to support English parameter values, after all few here know Latin. And what grammatical case do we need to use for those Latin terms? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realtor University

The Realtor University page should not have been deleted - It is an educational institution. REALTOR® University is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC), which is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the US Department of Education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agunaka (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Agunaka: I deleted it because of blatant advertising. But actually there was a less promotional version in the history, so I have restored it. However I think AFD is appropriate as just because it has university in the name does not mean it is not a money making business pretending to be a "university". see Realtor University. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Somatic genome processing
added links pointing to Antigenes and Enucleation
Roman villa of Freira
added a link pointing to Atrium

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SitNGo Wizard

Can you userfy + talk page? Valoem talk contrib 14:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Astronomy banner

Hi there. I suggest you use the |infobox= template when assessing articles for {{WikiProject Astronomy}}. When this parameter is set to yes, it automatically adds the article to Category:Astronomy articles needing infoboxes. (See Talk:NGC 3382 for an example.) Anyways, thank you for your hard work. Loooke (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it into my javascript! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partypoker

Move PartyPoker to partypoker. Valoem talk contrib 03:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd title was chosen for a reason

The odd title "Spacetime (Introduction section) summary" was chosen for a reason. It is very specifically not intended as a general introduction to spacetime, but was designed to supplement the Spacetime article whose Introduction section, although written as simply as appeared feasible, nevertheless is somewhat dense reading for the uninitiated.

It is written as a separate article because the feature used to collapse/expand optional sections does not work on mobile phones, and so including the "introduction to the introduction" as optional reading in the main article would be detrimental to a mobile phone user's experience.

"Spacetime (Introduction section) summary" was specifically given an extremely uninviting title that discourages editors from wanting to add to it. We have had any number of "Introduction" articles that have become bloated far beyond their original versions, and which have failed in their purpose. I was instrumental in having one such failed article deleted. (The title was Introduction to Special Relativity or some such, I forget exactly.)

By making the title "normal", it is possible for future editors to mistake the purpose of this "extended stub" article, which I have not intended ever to go beyond its limited purpose. I foresee future editors expanding on the brief summaries, adding references, additional sections, etc.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stigmatella aurantiaca: With this page I had a few choices - make it a redirect ( but the title was too obscure), move it to a draft (as it is not yet in a fit state to be an article and you may need tie to convert to sentences and provide suitable references), or mark it for deletion as a duplicate. Leaving it as it was with that title was not in compliance with any policy or custom I know about. How would readers find that page? Given what you want to achieve perhaps you should be rewriting the introduction in spacetime to be easier to understand. But dot points are not the way. Making an introduction article is also a way to go if you want to simplify the topic. But we still need references. It is still possible to move it back, or mark it for deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The stub article in question was written to meet a specific need. The Introduction section of Spacetime, although written to be as understandable as possible to as wide a range of audience as possible, is nevertheless verbose, and there is no way to reduce its verbosity without cutting back on the extensive explanations necessary to replace mathematical shorthand. A summary guide was desirable to facilitate reader understanding.

  1. Each level-3 and level-4 heading in the Introduction section links to an anchor in the Summary.
  2. Each Summary entry links back to an anchor associated with the original level-3 and level-4 heading that linked to it.
  3. Spacetime (Introduction section) summary can be considered to be a sort of extended Glossary. It was never conceived of as a stand-alone article, and consequently I deliberately did not give it a name that might imply it was any such thing. The original name very clearly implies its status as a helper article that is not intended to be read on its own.
  4. Precedents are made to be created.
  5. I began my extensive rewrite of the Spacetime article in response to a talk thread by users who agreed that it was one of the worst articles in all of Wikipedia:This article needs a complete redo
  6. I am vetting my rewrite with professional physicists. For instance, a correspondent of mine had this to say about the rewritten Introduction section.

I have read your article, and find it very good. You have done a great job!

But I have a couple of comments, which I assume you wanted me to make.

Spacetime interval: Maybe you should mention that if s^2 is positive (assuming signature (-,+,+,+)), the interval is space-like, if S^2 = 0, it is light-like, and if s^2 is negative, it is time like. In the latter case \tau^2 = -s^2 where \tau is the proper time (time measured by a clock present at both events).

Measurement versus visual appearance: The statement: "Time dilation and length contraction are not mere optical illusion(s)," Can be interpreted as: (It may be only me, English is not my native language) "Time dilation and length contraction are not only optical illusions, but also . . ." I would suggest: "Time dilation and length contraction are not optical illusions, but genuine effects." Maybe you also could point out that "observe" in most cases means "measure" as opposed to "visually observe".

Twin paradox: I am sure Tom Roberts would point out that all clocks are running at their proper rates, and no clock is running slow. :-)

So maybe the phrase: "In order to measure the rate of ticking of one of B's clocks," rather should be: "In order to measure the rate of ticking of one of B's clocks as observed (measured?) by A" or something like that. Or maybe you should start by stating that all proper clocks always run at the same rate, but a moving clock will appear to run slow? It is a common misconception among newcomers to relativity that the rate of clocks (or even "the rate of time") can be affected by their speed. So it should be pointed out that: The observer's state of motion can't affect the observed object, but it can affect the observer's observations of the object.

Well, this was a couple of comments. I have not made any attempt to catch typos.

My aim is to make a difficult topic as accessible as possible to as wide a readership as possible. If it is necessary to establish new precedents to accomplish that aim, then that is exactly what I wish to do. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg L: You were right that there would be people who would not appreciate what I was trying to do. Please add your comments. [Clarification added Friday: Graeme moved the material of the Summary into a redirect named "Introduction to spacetime" and expressed the opinion that the Summary should be converted from a set of bullet points into a conventional article with references, etc. Alternatively he suggests it may be possible to rewrite the Spacetime article's Introduction so that it is even simpler and more understandable than what I've made it? Otherwise he suggests marking the Summary for deletion. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Note: Greg L authored most of the revised Lede.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stigmatella aurantiaca: @Graeme Bartlett:

(Hi, Graeme, thanks for letting us treat your user-talk page like an article talk page)

All:

My suggestion would be to not fork the article; imbed the current fork into the main article and call it a “Glossary”.

I feel that this is an important rule that should not be taken lightly: All links should take care to embrace the Principle of Least Astonishment where no link should be an Easter egg. Straying from common document structure and linking conventions is almost inherently an Easter egg. Adherence to familiar practices should be welcomed and heartedly embraced. Part of adhering to normal convention means there should be no links in section heading titles. To disregard these basic principles invites great risk of wasting valuable editorial time dealing with differences of opinion.

For our visiting readership to quickly, intuitively, and easily navigate to and from the imbedded glossary, I suggest that at each of the main section headings have an associated link appearing something like as follows:

Reference frames

(Go to glossary definition)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, rhoncus nec adipiscing turpis lacus, turpis nisl elementum suspendisse. Felis vehicula hac cras, nulla volutpat torquent est magna porta, suspendisse et sed vehicula mauris sed luctus, tellus elementum.


Then each glossary definition would give the same return treatment; e.g. under the glossary subheading would be a return link appearing something like this: “(return to article)”.

Greg L (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg L: @Graeme Bartlett:

It's not a glossary and these are not glossary definitions. These are section abstracts. Adding a Section Abstracts section is itself a major deviation from normal document structure. Furthermore, my vision for the future of this article was to cover curved spacetime in the main article body, with linked detailed notes (not abstracts!) separated from the main body and not contributing to article bloat. Greg's proposal is incompatible with this vision, but I'll go with consensus. Thoughts, Graeme? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg L: @Graeme Bartlett:

I will be out of the country for a week with uncertain access to the Internet. So I will be slow to respond to any comments. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to special relativity so I can see why that turned into a redirect. Also it is hard to write an introduction to this kind of topic, that is still encyclopedic. Any way I don't think that a glossary of dot points in a separate page will be useful. It would be better to improve the spacetime page introduction so that it is understandable using normal text. If we want to introduce a new kind of page, there should be a bigger input from the community (perhaps WP:VP/P). Anyway I can see that leaving it at introduction to spacetime is useless at this point if no one wants to write an introduction. I won't nominate for deletion while Stigmatella aurantiaca is out of the country though. At anytime Stigmatella aurantiaca can add a db-g7 if they want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It’s rare, Graeme, for a Wikipedia article to receive so much attention from someone who is so well versed on abstruse, technical subject matter. Everyone contributes to Wikipedia because it’s enjoyable in one way or another; let's do our best to steer User:Stigmatella aurantiaca without pissing unnecessarily in his corn flakes. I appreciate your willingness to sit back and wait for him to get back from his trip. The Spacetime article needs work, it will take time, and Wikipedia can suffer unconventional techniques on this article for several weeks without harm. Greg L (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Stigmatella aurantiaca: @Graeme Bartlett:
I suppose the forked article is indeed not best described as a “glossary”; it seems to me to be more like “Cliffs Notes” or “Review” or “Quick Review.” And it might best be called—and used as—“Introduction.”
Forking is too unconventional of a solution… and this is probably because current Wikipedia conventions are the product of genetic-like evolution of best practices. To make the content as accessible and natural as possible for our visiting readership, the currently forked content best belongs somewhere in the Spacetime main article.
Here's another suggestion on how to shoehorn the material into it: Add a Cliffs Notes-style, one or two-sentence summary below each ‘glossary’ title and above each set of bullet points. The current Introduction has, IMHO, become too advanced to be called an “Introduction”; this sentiment will undoubtedly repeatedly come up in the future. I propose that the material currently in Introduction to spacetime be placed before the material currently in Introduction. There, it would have the main heading title of “Introduction,” or something similar. The material that is currently in Introduction would follow immediately below and would be given a heading title better suited to reflect the advanced-study nature of the material.
Indeed, the article is already lengthy; adding the forked material into it will only make it more so. However, not all subject matter is equally complex and I’m confident the wikipedian community can accept the fact that Spacetime can be several times larger than our Feces article. The Spacetime article has received expert-level treatment lately and shows it; what it currently needs is attention to make it more accessible without falling victim to Easter eggs and Click to Learn & Return©™®.
Greg L (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg L: @Graeme Bartlett:

Thanks, to both of you. Since there is near-unanimity that my solution to the problems that I perceived are perhaps not the right way to address them (including comments made by the anonymous IP who completely rearranged the article while I was out), I will try adopting one of your solutions or some variant thereof. I first have to find some amicable compromise between Anon's vision of the article versus my vision. My vision has been for an article that everybody from middle-school children to first-year college students can read with profit. An individual of any level should be able to read through from easy to more advanced until the reading gets too heavy going, at which point they should be able to stop and not feel that they have been cheated. Hence I wanted an almost completely non-mathematical Introduction, followed by an Algebra-based section dealing with Flat Spacetime (Special Relativity), followed by a calculus based section dealing with Curved Spacetime. Anon's edits have been incompatible with this vision. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from what I see in User talk:47.32.217.164, an amicable solution with the anonymous IP may not be forthcoming. He seems a very stubborn, hotheaded individual. I'll detach the Introduction to spacetime from the article so that it can be deleted. Give me a day or two. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stigmatella aurantiaca: I agree. We don’t need to make the article more difficult to understand; I don’t like what the article has become. The I.P. editor is clearly not disposed in any fashion to adhering to the Wikipedia-norms of collaborative writing, which I found distasteful as it reminded me of the primary reason I left the project.
Just as importantly, the community doesn’t have to accept a sub-standard article. If we have a consensus, we can do whatever the consensus view is, which can even include rolling back the article to the last acceptable version. Coordinate with me before doing anything. This starts with a discussion on Talk:Spacetime. You go first. There are undoubtedly some aspects of the I.P. editor’s work that are worth rolling forward. Once a consensus has developed there, we can move forward to improve the article as per the consensus.
By the way (speaking of “stubborn”) I told you that all this was going to occur. If you want my help, you are going to have to start taking heed. I too have been around the block on Wikipedia—more than you will ever know. Greg L (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I'm too disgusted right now to bother. During the discussion between Anon and myself, absolutely nobody joined in to support me, including various long-standing "watchdogs" with whom I am friendly and who have a special interest in relativity. Besides which, I'm curious how Anon's vision for the article will shape up. What we see at this moment in time certainly couldn't be Anon's final vision for the article, with its completely screwed up figure numbering, "This section needs expansion", "It has been suggested that this article be split" and "when?" tags all over the place, new sections added with practically zero content, a trashed lede with nonsense statements (what in heck is "interwoven kinematics"?), bad grammar, funky punctuation, broken up sections with gaps in their logic, a section on Maxwell's theory which mostly doesn't discuss Maxwell's theory but instead discusses d'Alembert, Lagrange, Clifford and Poe, etc. Anon needs a chance to prove that he is really interested in the quality of the article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, let's continue on either your or my talk page. Graeme has been very tolerant of our squatting on his talk page, but there's a limit to how much we should be taking advantage of his hospitality! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you talk here, but the best spot is on talk:spacetime, then others can contribute to the discussion, as they are probably unaware of the talk here. WP:BRD applies to this situation. The IP has made a bold change that someone disagrees with. You can then revert, or partially revert. Then discussion can take place as to where to go next. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Anyhow, as I explained to Greg, the IP needs a chance to prove himself. The article is currently in a bad "under construction" phase with all sorts of loose ends. If he doesn't straighten things out in a timely fashion, I'll WP:BRD and we'll get things resolved on the article talk page. But for right now, I'm just going to work on my other interests. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to spacetime has been delinked from article

@Greg L: @Graeme Bartlett: The anonymous IP has taken over the article, and it no longer adheres to the vision that I had for an article that everybody from middle-school students to first (and even second)-year college physics students can read with profit. There is now no way to read it without a knowledge of algebra, and I anticipate it getting worse. Anyhow, the "Introduction to spacetime" has been delinked from Spacetime, and so can be marked for deletion. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to spacetime has not been altered, so it can be deleted if that is what you want. If you really want to delete it place a {{db-user}} on it. A discussion should take place at Talk:spacetime about the content of the spacetime page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Universiteti Pararesia Vlore.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Universiteti Pararesia Vlore.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Liquid crystalline elastomer
added links pointing to Elasticity, Actuation and Crosslinking
Carbon capture and storage in Mexico
added links pointing to Megaton and Río Escondido
Clare Waterman
added links pointing to Chapel Hill and Seminal
Magneto-Inertial Fusion Technologies, Inc.
added a link pointing to Implosion
Miami Science Barge
added a link pointing to Museum Park
Orphaned and abandoned wells in the United States
added a link pointing to Mercury
Self-cleaning surfaces
added a link pointing to Lotus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Hi, Graeme! As you might've seen, Ian is asking if the source check for lead FAC is not done. Are you going to be able to finish it anytime soon? As for myself, I loved it as it seemed so thorough, so I'd want you to go on; if you (unfortunately) can't, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R Gtrs: I don't really know what is required for a source check, but we expect the best quality references, and that the facts of the article are confirmed. So that's what I am checking. I don't have access to everything though! Perhaps I should head my new section "source check". So far not everything checks out! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your review even worries me a little with its thoroughness. Not because I don't like having to stand it, though. It is because a list of references for a regular element FAC candidate is rather long (yesterday, I counted 205 refs) and while I'm glad to stand such a review since one is provided, are there going to be enough such reviews for the actual FAC demamd? With my previous successful FACs, I've never had such an extensive ref review. For example, fluorine has only had a spot check.
All of that being said, I'll be glad to stand a full review of all two hundred sources if you can provide one. I encourage you to go on in every way possible. As for the issues you've brought up: I will definitely look into it and fix them as soon as I can.--R8R (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I followed this here from the Lead article with my FAC coordinator hat on. There is no requirement at FAC for every source to be checked. We usually ask for a representative sample, usually in single figures. However, if issues arise, more sources are checked, etc. Basically, enough are checked so that the reviewer is happy that the remaining references are likely to be fine. How many tends to be at the discretion of the reviewer and the coordinators can always ask for more if necessary. But I just wanted to make clear that you shouldn't feel that you have to check every reference. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Alma Levant Hayden

Graeme Bartlett, I believe the nominator has addressed the concerns raised in your DYK review. Can you please return and check, and if so, complete the review? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

new articles

Hi

I have created new articles: Dienochlor and Fluoroacetone. May I ask you to review them?

Thanks a lot! Lamro (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg

Hello again. The copyright status of File:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg is discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 2. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bakersfield Community Theatre

The article Bakersfield Community Theatre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Don't believe this passes WP:GNG. Lots of sources mention it (as building and as company) trivially, as in "this week Bakersfield Community Theatre put on A Play," or "Ms. Smith first acted with the Bakersfield Community Theatre in 1983", but none write about it specifically and in any kind of depth. I have checked Ghits, Gbooks, Gnews (and archive) and found nothing.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image for Iranian national football team

Hi Graeme Bartlett. Would you mind watching Iran national football team for a bit? There seems to be some disagreement over the infobox image which has led to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png being re-added to the article despite the FFD consensus against doing so. I have no idea whether File:Teammelli watermark.png is the "correct" logo, but the file seems (at least on the surface) to comply WP:NFCCP. If there's a diagreement over that logo that doesn't involve its copyright status/non-free use, then it seems that both sides should sort that out through article talk page discussion. Regardless, the default should not be to re-add a logo previously removed through a FFD consensus without establishing a new FFD consensus to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thor experiment

Good catch, PD status evaded my notice. Thank you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy Cycle 2

As the strategy discussion draws to an end - any thoughts or feedback? please feel free to email me or message on talk page if - whichever you wish - as to how you feel about the 5 themes and the general ambience of the strategy programme JarrahTree 11:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Colorado Belle logo.jpg

The file File:Colorado Belle logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Obsolete. Replaced by File:Colorado Belle logo.png

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Majora (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request for The Dark Tapes

Can you please merge this with The Dark Tapes? Valoem talk contrib 00:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks can you also please restore this Simon Stagg plus talk the DRV is snow overturn. Valoem talk contrib 10:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be snowing at the DRV, but it is not closed yet! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting the history be restored for viewing during discussion, its probably going to snow, but history intact maybe better for future participants. Valoem talk contrib 10:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Stagg&oldid=782245814 and others in the history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you undelete the history of Talk:Simon Stagg now that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 10#Simon Stagg has been closed as "overturn"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-being contributing factors

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an article review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Silgram

You reviewed my last article in a good manner and i wish for you to be the reviewer of this one as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillJack (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content here did not match the title. And also appears to be a copyright infringement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omniverse

Can you restore the talk and history of that page? Valoem talk contrib 10:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

Sorry about the copyvio. As I explained to User:Josve05a, I work on a laptop with a small screen, and I work with a large font. I was just trying to have my source material next to me as I worked instead of flipping back and forth between pages, and my habit is to use Earwig's copyio detector to double-check that nothing shows up in the final product. But as Josve05a explained to me, even temporarily having copyrighted material on a page is a big no-no because it gets saved permanently on the Wiki servers.

Now I see that I made you do work to delete the visibility of the offensive material from the history. So much work I've caused! . It won't happen again. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me5As

The compound registers only 9 references in SciFinder. That is pretty small, hence the paucity of secondary source. Some other suggestions, student coauthors of lightly cited papers are unlikely to be notable, so their names will remain red-links. The precursor Me3AsCl2 (CAS#17756-06-8) barely does better at 19 hits. Personally, I think Me5As is pretty cool, but others might question the article. There may well be other permethylated or organoAs compounds that lack articles but have had greater impact as measured by citations. If you wish, I can look them up in SciFinder for you. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought an article on the hypervalent ion HF− would be interesting, but when reading about it, I came across the hypervalent pnictides which sounded more real as they had actually be made in visible quantities. Me5Sb is much more common, and it looks like Me5P is not actualized yet. Actually the fewer the references, the easier to read them, and then write on the topic! Perhaps I should be writing another "compounds of <insert element here>" article for a common element. But these are a lot of work! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omallur

See also: User talk:Godsy § RFU § Pfenning, BizWest, Cue Ball, Budhoo, Omallur ...

Sorry for any confusion regarding my request. I have no opinions on the pages themselves, just that they should be restored to the userspace per WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4). The community made the decision they did there to prevent gaming/subversion of the deletion process. All eight of those pages were moved from the userspace to the mainspace by the same user, who is now topic banned from moving pages to the mainspace. If anyone wants the pages deleted, they can seek that properly through miscellany for deletion. If anyone thinks they are suitable for the mainspace, they may move them there. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your hounding Godsy and false accusations.Stop the grave dancing. Your false allegations are the reason for the inappropriate topic ban [User:Legacypac/Promotions] and now are using it to frustrate my efforts to defend articles I promoted in May 2016. Legacypac (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is true. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restored articles being moved to userspace

You restored several pages that I originally moved to Article space because they appeared to be notable. One was a high school which I've long understood are automatically notable (this may have changed recently). Godsy put them into the userspace were they started. That makes no sense to me because they will never see the light of day. It's process for process with no attempt to expand or improve the encyclopedia. If truly unsuitable, they should be left deleted. If truly notable, they should be left in mainspace for improvement. If there is a dispute, let's run them through AfD or MfD. Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I restored were challenged prods that I expected would be suitable as articles. I will check out those restores to see what happened. Certainly for a school article I expect as an article it has a better chance of being useful or to be improved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B4 clarification

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystals in time

Hi Graeme, Thanks for your early work on Time crystal. The article now seems quite long but not quite correct: now full of strange formulations of the existing research, extensions unrelated to the subject, and lots of speculation beyond what the two experiments and few papers suggest. It also has a quirky combination of footnotes and endnotes; I'm not sure where to even start. What happened? Warmly, – SJ + 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that it was rewritten by User:Sparkyscience. The version before is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_crystal&oldid=764370454. I agree with your assessment that the footnoting is seriously bad and unusable, and that the article is too difficult to understand. One possibility is to roll back to that version, another is to strip all the unconnected material. Once that is done it can be rewritten in simpler language and footnoting simplified to standard references. How about continue talking at Talk:Time crystal? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll start a convo there. Hesitant to take a first pass without time to follow up. I'm familiar with the early work before the experiments, but not the latest. Regards, – SJ + 04:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually some complaints started there already that you can add to! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Comments or thoughts on how to proceed welcome. I'd feel bad rolling back so far, and can't tell what is and isn't [un]connected. Distinguishing thoughtful from indiscriminate connections may take more time than I have, and I don't just want to start an edit war. – SJ + 04:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS template

Hi Graeme. Thanks for restoring that image for me. Just as a tip about OTRS templates. This below is generally the best place for the permission template when the file gets approved -- the {{information}} template:

| permission = {{OTRS permission|id=2017062400000000}}

Delete also any other OTRS templates, temporary undeletion or di-no-permission messages. And also generally no need to quote what the agent wrote or even their name. I think some agents have a preference to add the template themselves. This is typically because the contents of the email might actually specify different author, different license, and only they can see the information to update it. So in some cases a ping to the agent might just be sufficient on your part. Let me know your thoughts if any.

Have a great day fellow canberran wikipedian.

seb26 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin clean up required re personal information ?

Hi Graeme.

I have done this partial tidy up but it might need a full redaction ?

Regards.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox elevation

FYI, your recent edit at Kiandra, New South Wales gave an error because {{Infobox Australian place}} wants a number for the elevation. The number should be the elevation in meters (that is, "1400" with no unit). I didn't bother fixing it as I thought it would be better to let you know, and so you can easily see the issue for the future. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You voted to move a page back to mainspace here. [6] I've fixed it up a bit and added some more references. What do you think? Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article/draft of SM City Calamba

Hi I was wondering if you could move the article SM City Calamba into draft under the name SM City Calamba and not my username. I have tried numerous times before and it comes up with a pink box saying You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

BugMenn (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS, Graeme Bartlett.

Unfortunately Usernamekiran has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The product fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN.

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

—usernamekiran(talk) 13:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Zeiss Loxia Distagon T* 2.8/21mm, Graeme Bartlett.

Unfortunately Usernamekiran has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Hi, sorry for doing this again, but the article has only one ref, and most of the content is copied from official site of the product. Again, Fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN.

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

—usernamekiran(talk) 13:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane Eyes and Vision resubmit

Hi Graeme,

Thank you for reviewing the Cochrane Eyes and Vision draft and the helpful feedback. I've specifically fixed the first sentence and rewrote a few words. Unfortunately I could not find a ton of outside sources. I checked the National Eye Institute and American Academy of Ophthalmology websites for links to partnerships, but could not find anything.

Thank you for your review.

TerminalBlue (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the page on Eliane Montel

Hello Graeme,

Natalie Pigeard-Micaud, who wrote a book about the women in Marie Curie's lab, helped me to write this article. Natalie Pigeard-Micaud has got a PhD in history of sciences. She wrote the most part of this article.

Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for notability

Kindly give me only one reason why this Khayyam Street deserves an article in an encyclopaedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khayyam_Street&diff=789199594
—usernamekiran(talk) 00:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had this on the edit summary: "From photo looks to be a major street, not run of the mill at all" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have already seen the edit summary. Even if we agree that it is not run of the mill; that still doesn't answer why it is notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De-PRoD

I am surprised you didn't de-PRoD Pub Jyotinagar, and Karan Kavu. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first is up for AFD so deprod won't work! The second does not fall into a category of things I think am interested in preserving for Wikipedia. Someone else can respond to that f they want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I apologise for my previous responses to you. They were sort of uncivil. They were not rude, but they were impolite for sure. Sorry about that.
I am not sure what your interests are (technology, or places), but I think you should take a look at my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barel, and edits to related article. I think of deletion as a last resort. But I still believe all these articles about cameras don't deserve an article in any encyclopaedia. I also have been working on this since almost a month now. You should take a look at it if that's what interests you. User:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices) —usernamekiran(talk) 19:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Also, if you think I am damaging the wikipedia, then kindly take it to WP:ANI, instead of making accusations in edit summary. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the drop down options

Hello, I wanted to ask that how can I add the drop down menus (like, suppose, references) When I click on references, then further information about references is displayed. So, how can I add more of such drop down menus? Sushn345wiki (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean @Sushn345wiki:. If it is while you edit: I have them myself by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, and then ticking the boxes next to CharInsert, refToolbar, and "Add extra buttons to the old (non-enhanced) editing toolba", (and also HotCat). Also I have Visual editor turned off. But perhaps you are talking about the collapsible templates. You put them in by naming the template in double curly braces eg {{Nitrates|state=collapsed}}. You get this:

.

Internally it is a table with class="collapsible collapsed" coded on it.

eg{| class="collapsible collapsed" !sample heading |- |sample content |} gives you

I do not recommend you use it directly in articles, but you can on your user page for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I suspect you are talking about footnotes. @Sushn345wiki: take a read of Help:Referencing for beginners. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Hello, this is Sushn345wiki. I now got the logic behind the addition of footnotes. Thanks for your help! Sushn345wiki (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aciéries de Longwy

I see you have moved on from rating articles on protected areas and ecoregions as "Start/Low" to rating articles on French topics as "Start/Low". I am beginning to feel persecuted. In your view, nothing I do would satisfy even a casual reader, and nothing is of any importance. Have you read the importance criteria for Wikiproject:France? I would have thought that the second-largest steel producer in the country, with thousands of employees, would at least be "reasonably notable on a national level". Aymatth2 (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to change it to a mid rating! In fact you could add more project templates yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to have the articles rated by project members who understand the project criteria. If you do not understand the criteria, you can still contribute by adding project templates with the quality and importance values left blank. That will place it in categories for review by project members. Blindly rating everything "Start/Low" is destructive. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Hellp,

Hope you are good.

Keep well and stay happy!

43.245.122.108 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How can I help you? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about you! Just wanted to say Hi... 103.67.157.112 (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-request indefinite security block

Hi, my email account once linked to my Wikipedian one got affected by a big data breach which I mentioned on this AN thread. Please only activate the indef block after I put up a Retired tag in my userpage. Pavel Novikov (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Novikov - You just need to swap out the email that's associated with your account, then change your account password. Then you'll be fine and won't be at any risk... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Requirements to bring back deleted article

I just noticed that you brought back deleted article Laura-Ioana Andrei. Is that really how it works... a request after 2 years brings an article back with no checking if it now passes notability? It seems like a discussion should happen "before" bringing it back. Perhaps a cursory check with Tennis Project or NSPORT guidelines. It looks like this person is just as non-notable now as they were two years ago, and I'm glad I still had the page on watch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can read WP:Prod to see how that process works. It does not matter how old a prod is, even ten years is no obstacle to restoration. You have done the appropriate next step of AFD. The request to bring it back was at WP:REFUND apparently due to it being a requested article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious five years!

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd T. Matthias Prize

Like all other prize winner list (eg. List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry), we often cited the "Citation" contents from its official website (CC-BY-SA).EssayH (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EssayH: Is there any proof that the original is CC-BY-SA? If so then it can just be credited. When I look at the web site there is nothing about copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can remove the contents of "Citation", but keep the references. EssayH (talk)

Heterophobia

Could I get the userfied history of this? Valoem talk contrib 01:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is create protected, and has 4 AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia/2005-06-18, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (4th nomination) and a DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 13. So I am not willing to do this, but you should ask User:IronGargoyle if protection should be overridden to enable history to restore (and possibly userfied). Actually looking at revisions, the quality seems to have gone downhill during subsequent recreations or work on the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is I need a backbone to work on, I was also curious to see if sources I've found such as this book written by Daphne Patai was included in prior versions. Valoem talk contrib 14:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given all those AFD's I am not sure it is worth the effort for a 5th AFD. But I will recover headings and sources for you if IronGargoyl does not respond. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt: User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/heterophobia and an rfd Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 9. The draft by TheRedPenOfDoom had:
  • Elements of Comparative Sociology by Andreski, Stanislav
  • Social Sciences as Sorcery by Andreski, Stanislav
  • Ethnicity and the Bible by Mark G. Brett
  • Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism by Martin Reisigl & Ruth Wodak
  • n-Paul Sartre and the Jewish Question: Anti-Antisemitism and the Politics of the French Intellectual University of Nebraska Press by Judaken, Jonathan
  • Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism by Daphne Patai so your curiousity is answered
  • Counseling Sexual and Gender Minorities by Lynne Carroll
  • Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology, Volume 2 by Joan C. Chrisler & Donald R. McCreary
  • Raymond J. Noonan (November 6, 1999). "Heterophobia: The Evolution of an Idea". Dr. Ray Noonan’s 1999 Conference Presentations. Retrieved November 25, 2012.
  • Withers, Robert (2002). Controversies in Analytical Psychology. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. p. 178. ISBN 978-0415233057.
  • Jayne, Gackenbach (2007). Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications. Boston, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press. p. 111. ISBN 978-0123694256.
  • White, Stephen M. and Franzini, Louis R. (1999). "Heteronegativism? The attitudes of gay men and lesbians toward heterosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality". Journal of Homosexuality. 37 (1): 65–79.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Regarding Iron pentahydride and Category:Superhydrides

Iron pentahydride should be deleted or merged into iron hydride because it's not notable enough to warrant its own article. On a related note I'm not sure there's much point in having the category Superhydrides. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the category should be called polyhydrides. I suspect many more will be discovered over time. But perhaps the category is not yet useful! Iron pentahydride is important as it is a material that metallises hydrogen at lower pressures than metallic hydrogen, and may prove to be a high temperature superconductor. It was published in a top 2 science journal, so I count appearances in Science as a clear indicator of importance and significance. The is far more important than the molecular iron di or trihydrides. This material may also be present deep inside planets. Originally I wrote an article at iron hydride to cover all the substances, but other editors started splitting off the content, so since then I have made new separate articles. The substances really are quite various from FeH in stars, solid and liquid FeH possibly in the earth's core and FeH2 FeH•H2 cryogenic molecules. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it's a fine subject, but until there is more published about it, I don't think iron pentahydride qualifies for its own article under the notability guidelines. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in helping to create articles on any of the topics I've listed here?

I think you might be interested in at least some of them some based upon articles you've created. Also I struggle with writing, so I could really use the help.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are interesting topics to me. For example User:OrganoMetallurgy/Drafts/B6H6 -2, User:OrganoMetallurgy/Drafts/Dicarbollide, User:OrganoMetallurgy/Drafts/Barium bismuthate, User:OrganoMetallurgy/Drafts/Pentafluorosulfanyl, User:OrganoMetallurgy/Drafts/Nickel bis(dicarbollide) needs listing in the nickel compounds, User:OrganoMetallurgy/Drafts/B10H10 -2 (I said I was working on decaborate on my user page, but I have neglected this for more than a year since I asked for a paper from the author), User:OrganoMetallurgy/Drafts/Lithium tetraammoniate and probably more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of delafossites has potential, and I have made several pages in the same style. They are a lot of work as many references need to be consulted. I now always base my work on references, and add them at he first chance, otherwise I lose track of what references what. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually for the list of delafossites there are a couple of sources that cover the basic information about a large number of them, so relatively few references are needed. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that I regularly add to the list, so check back in on it occasionally, also place any further responds on its talk page. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:38:01, 9 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Lcb.infotech.monash.edu


Hello Graeme, This is my first time contributing to wiki, so I am still figuring out how all this works. This message is about your recent comment on my draft wiki page on the topic: SST (protein). About showing independent references to show notability, here are a few:

(1) See http://www.jbc.org/content/292/13/5418.short. This recent, independent publication in Journal of Biological Chemistry, the authors use the results of secondary structural assignment generated by SST. In the caption part of Figure 10 of that paper, the authors write: "SST is an information theory-based method that, by design, assembles small fragments of secondary structures into longer, more consistent assignments than DSSP."

(2) See https://sourceforge.net/p/pymol/mailman/message/35527992/ This post in the world-wide mailing list for Pymol users, the chief developer of Pymol Thomas Holden (https://www.linkedin.com/in/speleo3) said: "A nice tool that can assign secondary structure with CA trace only is SST". Both DSSP and STRIDE, the popular programs cannot handle such CA-only coordinate data.

(3) Here is the google scholar link to the list of peer-reviewed papers that have cited SST since its publication in 2012: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=4340406468578239997&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

Let me know if this suffices. Arun (contact details: http://lcb.infotech.monash.edu.au) Lcb.infotech.monash.edu (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Lcb.infotech.monash.edu welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for writing here. Checking the http://www.jbc.org/content/292/13/5418, they did use SST, but it only has 1.5 lines about it, so that's not substantial even though it is reliable. The sourceforge post is not counted as reliable, as just about anyone can say anything on a forum without any thought or checking or knowing who they really are. In this case you seem to know the poster, but still it is only four lines, so not reliable or substantial. Something in the Google scholar listing may be OK. I will not do the earching for you, but I will let you know that "A short review on protein secondary structure prediction methods" only has a passing mention. This sort of reference could be used to state alternative software, but does not prove notability. You only need one more good reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Graeme, thanks for helping out. Regarding the comment about 1.5 lines about SST in that JBC, please do see that in the very next page (the entire Fig 12) the authors use the secondary structural assignment generated by SST to substantiate their results. Additionally, as indicated in my original post, that sourceforge post is the main mailing list for pymol -- most widely used molecular graphics software -- users world over, and the poster is the chief pymol developer. See: https://pymolwiki.org/index.php/User:Speleo3. I don't know the poster beyond the fact that he is the chief developer at Pymol, and, for authoring a wrapper/script that integrates SST results into pymol. About one more good reference, would this independent publication in Acta Crystallographica that cites and compares SST with other tools help? See http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?dz5360. Thanks, Arun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcb.infotech.monash.edu (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That Acta Crystallographica paper does have a bit more, but it is only three or four lines and a few table rows. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student projects

I have started a discussion on the Education noticeboard that may be of interest to you. Although I mention there that students don't normally need to do QPQs at DYK, I am aware that you did a lot of QPQs on behalf of your students during a class project a few months ago, and that was much appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder theory

Can you please userfy, I have found additional sources such as this, which cover the topic comprehensively. Valoem talk contrib 06:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done see User:Valoem/Ladder theory. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, this article is a mess. I'll try to fix it. Valoem talk contrib 20:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Baratunde A Cola

Please let me know what I can do next? I've sent and email to show that I owned the copyright and have not heard back. Am trying to get my page up as soon as possible. Thank you. Kingsheis2017 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsheis2017: The OTRS team will eventually respond. This may take a few weeks. You should get a reference number. The OTRS volunteer will ask for a REFUND Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will consider reasonable requests to provide copies of deleted pages

Hi. I notice this tag on your profile. Could you please explain how this works. If I click on the links in that tag, I get taken to a page where people can request that articles are undeleted. In my case, there are two pages where I would like to privately view the content of the deleted page, but not have it undeleted. One page was deleted for copyright infringement, though the page pre-dates the material it was supposed to infringe. In this case I have already written a new page. If I could view the previous deleted page then I could check that the new page covers the same topics and merge (appropriately, being careful about copyright infringement) older material in. In the other case, a page has been deleted for being excessively promotional. I have not yet written a replacement page for this one. So, I would like to see the old content to see if it can be rewritten into a neutral POV. In the third case, the page was deleted because it was claimed that the subject was non-notable. I have written a new page for that person with references to coverage in the press and other third-party sources. But, again I would like to see the old content to check if the new page misses anything. How can I request to see the old pages? I don't want them undeleted. The reason that I haven't mentioned the pages here is because I'm asking for general guidelines at this point, rather than asking directly for specific content. I.e. I want to know how things work, rather than have things done at this point in time. Ross-c (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ross-c:. The general method is to place a request at WP:REFUND. You can also post a request here on my talk page, but if I am offline this may delay action, and also I may not want to do it for some reason. The last method is to send me an email if you want to request out of the public eye. Different actions that can happen, is restore to a sandbox or draft page, just a plain restore if the deletion reason seems to not apply, a history restore of old versions, a small quoting of the content, or emailing the previous content. Remember that if you do use earlier versions that attribution is required. If you believe that a copyright infringement delete is wrong, you can also ask the deleting administrator to reconsider. Yet another alternative is to ask at WP:DRV if you want to overturn a delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I really don't want to WP:REFUND as I don't want the pages undeleted. I just want to see the content. As a trial, could I see the deleted text for Coup D'Etat (band)? Not the new page which I created yesterday. According to the deletion reason, it was supposed to infringe on copyright from Audioculture.co.nz, but the Wikipedia page pre-dates the page on Audioculture, so ?!?!?!? We have John Dix's book, in case that is where the Audioculture.co.nz material came from, so can check that as well. I don't want to recover the original page, I just want to see if there was anything there topic-wise that should be in the new page. If I find any such material, then I will write new material for the new page from scratch, not copy from the deleted material. I'm not in a massive hurry. Ross-c (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I will post a snippet here. The article contained this to start with "Coup D'Etat Was a New Zealand Band" immediately followed by text identical to that seen at http://www.allmusic.com/artist/coup-detat-mn0000781850/biography , then followed by a discography with one broken entry: " Coup D'Etat (1981) – "NZ Albums Chart|NZ]] No. 14".
It was deleted the same day it was created and it was allmusic, not audioculture claimed to be the source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can I ask when that page was created. And was it created by me? Are there earlier versions of the page? (E.g. was it deleted more than once.) If you compare the past page to the current one, is there anything (topicwise, not text) missing? Apart from a discography which is on my list of things to do once I have created a few more pages. Oh, and I'd like to see the deleted page for Limbs Dance Company. That was said to be "A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion" I feel I can easily rewrite the material to remove promotion, and the dance company has had significant coverage in many media e.g. reviews in the New York Times. I'm not hurrying on this as a book on Limbs will be out in September. Sorry about all the questions. Ross-c (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was created 10:18, 14 February 2015 by Dolheguymckenzie who has been inactive for over 2 years. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could you send me a copy of the deleted text for Limbs Dance Company? I've asked the deleting editor too. I've updated my preferences so that you can now email me. Ross-c (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Navy Board Flag and Admiralty Board Flag

Hi i noticed that you had some dealings a while ago with both image files the above flags that were originally released by the author under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication as his own work based on versions at CRW flags is correct and true. I have left comments here: File talk:Flag of the Admiralty Board.svg and here File talk:Flag of the Navy Board.svg explaining the differences in each image, no one bothered to place them side by side in photoshop or a similar editing program to check them and where you can clearly see they are two different images the non commercial usage version by crw flags and the authors own version. --Navops47 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Graeme Bartlett from James C. Phillips

I added the references in the proper format for Joanna (Joka) Maria Vandenberg. You also noted that this new article is an orphan, so to fix that I searched for related Wikis, one of which describes work that preceded hers Quantum well laser, and cited her there. This subject has a long and complex history, and its inventors got Nobel prizes, although they never made a laser! (However, by trying, they kept their patents, by virtue of "due diligence", for decades!) Thus even making one laser in the early days, costing > $ 1 million, that would last a few days, was a great feat! Manufacturing billions of such lasers for <$ thousands, with lifetimes > 25 years, is what has made the Internet (and incidentally, the Wikipedia) possible. Many engineering articles on lasers are filled with details, but miss this point entirely, because it involves complex chemistry inaccessible to academic laboratories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James C. Phillips (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James C. Phillips: Is there any reference that describes the reception of the Optoelectronics Award? More references about the person written by others will help. I am not concerned about that orphan tag, and in fact I have voted to get rid of it in the past. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:21:57, 18 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Vmugaz


Clarification regarding review decision

Dear Graeme,

I appreciate your review of the above mentioned page submission pertaining to the AES Electrophoresis Society. Given that this is my first submission attempt on Wikipedia, I would like to better understand the submission criteria in hopes of improving in the future.

Before creating this page, I consulted similar society pages and attempted to follow what appeared to be an acceptable framework established by those models. Among others, I looked at Federation of Analytical Chemistry and Spectroscopy Societies (on which the AES Electrophoresis Society is listed as one of the sponsoring societies), American Elasmobranch Society and Amateur Entomologists' Society (which I reviewed in my search of other "AES" societies). To my admittedly untrained eye, I am having difficulty identifying how my proposed page differs substantially from these examples.

Could you please help me to understand better how my proposed page differs from others (such as these examples), and ideally provide some guidance regarding specific kinds of modifications that would resolve those differences?

Many thanks for your help!

Best wishes, Victor Ugaz

Vmugaz (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that when you use the AFC process we make sure that the article is of a higher standard, with at least two independent references. American Elasmobranch Society would not pass through WP:AFC as it only has a self reference. The idea is that once past AFC review the article should not be eligible for deletion. (although it can still happen). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the clarification. Best wishes. Vmugaz (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Albu

Can you userfy this for me? Valoem talk contrib 04:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also World Boxing Hall of Fame, which should have never been deleted. Valoem talk contrib 07:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both  Done check the history, because latest versions may not be best. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy request

Yi Long is about a kickboxer born 1987. But there are no references and a fight record is stolen from Enriko Kehl, so I think no content there is trustworthy. Better to start from scratch. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise  Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, also can I get Summit1g and Brian Sutherland. Valoem talk contrib 08:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done See User:Valoem/Summit1g and User:Valoem/Brian Sutherland (better in history), but be prepared for plenty of writing! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Greeting to Graeme Bartlett from Youknowwhoiwillbe

Hello Graeme,

Thank you in advance. I will be doing a wikipedia page supervised by Dr Alex Webb this fall. I know it is a long journey but I am confident of it as I know I will get you and Alex by my side! Thank you.

Cheers, Youknowwhoiwillbe

Greeting to Graeme Bartlett from karaclc

Hi Graeme,

I will be in the class of regional geology this year. C ya.

Cheers, karaclc

Student from the University of Hong Kong (Regional Geology)

Hi Graeme,

I am Kit from the University of Hong Kong, I will make a geology wikipedia page in this semester. Thank you.

Regards,

Kakitc (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A student from HKU taking Regional Geology

Hi Graeme,

Nice to meet you! I am a student from HKU taking the course Regional Geology. Hope to see some interesting facts when making the Wikipedia page this semester. Thank you.

Regards,

tamjwh —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Acadfandom

Hello Graeme Bartlett,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Acadfandom for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geology student from The University of Hong Kong (Regional Geology Class)

Hi Graeme,

I am a student from Regional Geology Class 2017 Fall. Nice to meet you!

GeoJeremy

Greeting from Regional Geology Class of HKU

Hi Graeme,

I am Benjamin from The University of Hong Kong taking Regional Geology Class. In the coming three months, I am going to create a wikipedia page about geology. Hope I can learn from you and make a decent page soon! :)

Regards,

Benjamin

Student from regional geology class (HKU)

Hello Graeme,

Nice to meet you! I am a HKU student studying regional geology in this semester. Thank you in advance for your help in creating the wiki page.

Regards,

Wlamwk (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Student from HKU Regional Geology Class

Hi Graeme,

I am Leo from HKU taking Regional Geology. I hope I can learn from you and make a Good page on Geology! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonkh (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from HKU Regional Geology 2017

Hi Graeme, I am Patrick. I am doing a Regional Geology course in 2017 Fall semester and working on a wiki page about remote sensing. Thanks for the supervision in advance. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcpatrick6572 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me2B2H4

I realized that maybe I am editing articles that you created/improved and maybe cherish. My edits can appear to be brusque, but I was a preservationist in this case for the most part. So let me know if you see issues.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Menlo-college-blueseal.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Menlo-college-blueseal.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. GMGtalk 20:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for create article

With Respect, Dear sir this is Naman Mishra create this article please he is the famous person of madhya predesh,india. And upcoming husband of Raashi Khanna Is a partner now and soon both are going to get married. He also has one movie ....link is this news magazine news ..

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm9251800

https://telugumoviesfilms.blogspot.in/2017/09/naman-mishra-biography-height-weight.html?m=1 Please create this article i request

This has been deleted three times now. Be aware that blogspot and imdb are counted as unreliable references. For actors read WP:NACTOR Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this is a globally locked abusive sock farm that has been trying to log in to admin accounts and trying to reset passwords. I've also posted about this at WP:AN, the main account is Viraj Mishra. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you blocked the IP that posted this req? (user:47.247.8.3) (perhaps user:47.247.15.201 is also connected) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see this early enough, I've only been blocking the IPs when in use (Jio is ultra dynamic so blocks have to be short term only or there's likely to be collateral damage), he seems to have changed his ip twice or thrice since posting the original request. One of the perils of only looking at recent changes randomly for this stuff. Typically, he targets admins who've blocked him or deleted his contributions (especially on Commons where he's been sock tagging those who've done that). Anyways, the original account is Virajmishra. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of LAMOST 1

The article LAMOST 1 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable; could only find one paper (Vickers et al.) on the object

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loooke (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider Economy of Mangalore for Good Article (GA) nomination

I request you to consider Economy of Mangalore to be nominated for Good Article (GA) nomination.
Please review this article, and atleast rate it as 'B' class article for now, till the Good Article (GA) nomination takes place.
R4A2DS5C1 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have not been involved in "Good Article" for many years. This should at least rate a C. I would suggest that the article has more money figures in it, possibly in tables. That would deserve a B rating. Also under Manufacturing industries, the subsections are very short. They should either be expanded or just reduced to one section header. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Thanks for reviewing my article

Thank you for reviewing NGC 479. :)

– Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my ref formatting

I messed up all my dates — I think I was trying to put them in ISO format or something, and I had a spare field — and while I was AFK, you fixed them all for me. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. HLHJ (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a date field put the year in there. Don't have a year and a date. Also the day numbers have no th or nd. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signaure

Thanks, fixed. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 01:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cupitheca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Camerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks on Cristiano Dal Sasso

Thanks for pointing out that references were missing; I have added some now and will complete later when I have more time. Hope that is OK to keep the article.

Thanks again! MartinLX (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Le Mesle

I see you rated this article "Start" for {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Geology}}, and {{WikiProject Tunisia}}. That is, "not much use to anyone". I just started the article a few hours ago, but think I scraped the bottom of the barrel for information available online. See WP:ARTASS. It would be helpful if you would add notes on talk:Georges Le Mesle (not here) saying what additional information you feel would be needed to bring this article up to "C" class. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Article Deletion Inchicore railway works

Thankyou for spotting this and bringing my attention to it. I was not concentrating and made a mistake and copied from another Wikipedia article with attribution, probally focusing more on finding a suitable citation. I should have referred to WP:REUSE. There was also a question of an external source using this text which makes the issue even more serious which you have brought to my attention. I am therefore agreeing with Speedy Article Deletion and I may recreate from scratch. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help on this. I've enhanced and rewrote the article adding citations so I now hope its clear of any problems. Anyway any issues been free to talk, rollback, fix whatever.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion The Ogham Stone

Hi, I had added a link from a krowdster I created to wikipedia. I should not have. I will remove this link as they do not own the copyright of this image. Is there anything else you feel infringes copyright? I can make edits. Thanks roscommoner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscommoner (talk • contribs) 12:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscommoner: It will be better if you can rewrite such a page from scratch, not copying any text from anywhere. Also you should base it on what independent writers have said about it in the first place. I added the link to the krowdster, when I found out that text from there was the same as on Wikipedia. I did not see that you added the link. It may be possible for you to prove that you own the copyright, but the text was promotional as well. First I tried to tone down the promotion, but it was still a copyright problem. Since you are connected to the subject it is best that you leave it alone! WP:COI Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett It's a University Journal. I am a student. I am only fleetingly connected. None of the content in the journal is mine and once I graduate that is it, I will be completely disconnected from it. I wrote the krowdster. I will just delete it from the wikipedia or edit the krowdster to be different or delete the krowdster. The journal was founded six years ago by someone else, I think I have grounds for creating a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscommoner (talk • contribs) 17:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the krowdster won't delete the copyright. It will be much better to rewrite the page in new wording as it is the wrong style of writing. (that is promotional). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal castings

Please remember to do basic cleanup on submissions you accept through AfC. As a sysop, the articles you accept should normally already be marked as reviewed, and so are not added to the queue for new page patrollers. Outstanding issues may therefore persist for a exceptionally long period of time before anyone finds the article in order to fix them. GMGtalk 22:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RefDesk

Once a thread has been closed with a long-term admin commenting about the non-encyclopedic-ness of the question and closed by another long-standing editor, it's basic courtesy to ask/consult the closer and/or the commenter, before reverting the archiving with a ridiculous reason like:--cutting closure as question has not yet been addressed.Thank you!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your reverting my closes at RefDesk was out of line. Your after the fact explaination at Kudpung’s talk is unconvincing. I expect better behavior and judgement from an Admin. Since the ssue has been taken to ANi already, by another editor, I’ve brought up your conduct too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Medeis_.2F_.CE.BC.CE.B7.CE.B4.CE.B5.CE.AF.CF.82_violating_WP:TPOC_again Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your post at ArbComm [7] you simply reverted me and FAILED to discuss which makes your BRD excuse unconvincing. Engaging in discussion at a different RefDesk talkpage than the one you reverted on is not sufficient. Your reverts were brought up here on this page but you failed to respond here or in anyway notify me (here, on my talk, or by ping) you had posted elsewhere. I was inappropriately blocked for reversing your unexplained reverts. I hold you responsible for your rude reversals and failure to discuss or notify me properly. Try to do better please. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the reference desks use the same talk page, using redirecting to get there. If you click on the talk tab you get to that page. The WT:RD is the logical place to talk about an issue at any reference desk. I did not ask for you to be blocked, only take a deep breath and for every one to stop reverting. You must take responsibility for your own edits and not try to make others responsible. I am responsible for the first set of reverts, misspelling your user name and not pinging you. This posting was shortly before I stopped editing for the day, so I did not add any more talk till the next day, and by then a discussion at ANI was already closed. How about reviewing some more AFC pages. The backlog is still there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternary phase

@Materialscientist: You might check what I did to Tetranary compound. Never heard of that terms and it fails the Google test. But my friends in materials chemistry refer to binary, ternary, quaternary etc phases. I was going to shift binary compound, ternary compound etc to phases. When I get to my office in the morning I will locate a book to anchor these articles. Well my main point is that if you think that this direction is not a great idea, say so. At least binary, ternary, quaternary, etc phases are not OR. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements of Kubota engines article

Thank you for reviewing the article I created entitled "Kubota engines". In the notification, you gave a suggestion of making improvements on that page. Would you please tell me what kind(s) of improvements needed so the article will be better?

Thanks. Desianto F. W. (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Desianto F. W.: That was OK. The article needs more different sources of information. Not just the official web site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I've already had a few links of external source with me. Still figuring out how to put it on the article.

Thank you! Desianto F. W. (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Desianto F. W.: Read WP:Referencing for beginners. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's very helpful!... :-) Desianto F. W. (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick apology ...

… for this mis-click, and for the unnecessary notification it will have sent you. Sorry, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problems! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Hiss quotation

I saw that you noted concern about one or more quotations in the new Priscilla Hiss article: could you please provide some details? And perhaps we can use the Talk page for that entry? Tnx!--Aboudaqn (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto University of Law and Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Dewan University

I want to rewrite and improve with suitable sources thanks! Wisalahmad523 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For Taking the Time
Dear Graeme,

Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge the edits I made to your PPMV1 article. Your feedback is encouraging, especially because I am new to Wikipedia. Yours truly, Roget's Minion Roget's Minion (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK review

To a punctillious reviewer
Thanks for the scrupulous review, namely, Template:Did you know nominations/SS Andaste. "One cannot say that water babies do not exist, unless one has seen them not existing." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ship SS Andaste is in. Or the picture is, at least. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch?

Is this a glitch, or did the Steven Lamprell article literally go seven years with a speedy deletion tag attached? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61, the page was PRODded back in '10 and refunded recently. See the logs for more info. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
WikiDan61 It did have a speedy delete for no significance claimed, but the 300,000,000 pound worth is a claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I get why the speedy was rejected, I'm just surprised at the seven year hiatus. The page history, as it appears now, shows a page with a speedy deletion tag in October 2010 followed by (in the next revision) the restored page (without tag) today. It's a jarring history. Primefac's explanation above makes sense of it; I was merely surprised by the evident history. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a request at WP:REFUND to restore it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AppyStore

Hi. Thank you for restoring the page AppyStore. Just wanted to understand, has the following tag been placed because I requested for an undeletion? {{UDP}} RajkGuj (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well user:JJMC89 added the tag. It would not have been added if the article stayed deleted. The tag will relate to the writer user:Becktea. However if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose it, on your user page is good, and on the talk page of article you are paid to do things with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks for the clarification because I am not being paid to edit the page for this brand and I wouldn't want any negative looks on my profile. RajkGuj (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belhaven Heights Historic District

Hello. Do you have the draft for the Belhaven Heights Historic District please? I've just chanced upon it while working on Emmett J. Hull. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: I have restored Draft:Belhaven Heights Historic District but it is not very great! You will have a lot of work to get it to an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to find pictures of the houses designed by Hull please?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Belhaven Heights was probably named after Jones S. Hamilton's old house, as were the Belhaven Neighborhood and Belhaven University.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please take control of Belhaven Heights Historic District and fix it up! I have no secret powers to find pics. See https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Emmett+J.+Hull&num=100 but these will not have a suitable license to use here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant on Commons, because your draft includes pictures. But perhaps there aren't any!Zigzig20s (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was written by User:GilbertThompson, all I did was move it out from mainspace. I can't see anything mentioning his name on commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rheinmetall High Altitude Truck Expedition

Hello Graeme Bartlett,

Just a quick thank you for taking the time to review the Rheinmetall MAN High Altitude Truck Expedition page I created. Thank you also for your tidy up work. I had planned to reduce some of the copy-text as I updated over the next few days. I of course accept I should have done this before the page went live! My only excuse is it was a shortage of time thing and I figured as the page covers a very current event it would be better have a 90% page than wait an extra day or two to get a 95% page. My apologies for making you work. AS I mentioned elsewhere, I aim to work on maintaining the page in the coming weeks as a pet Wiki hate of mine is people who create pages like this, and then without good reason (get bored etc.) vanish into thin air! Very best - --SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SurfaceAgentX2Zero:, yes please stay around and improve the page. I expect there will also be other pages of interest to you you can improve too! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Joe Ikhinmwin article

Graeme, hi. Please review Joe Ikhinmwin article. Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already handled by Sulfurboy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is better not to ask me, as I only review AFC sporadically. Submit will reach a bigger crowd of reviewers. But if you do ask here I will take a look. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Autrecords-logo-hi.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Autrecords-logo-hi.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Your revert at neutrino

Hi, just a quick comment: The revert was right, the edit comment was not. On Earth the most common decay is beta minus which produces an electron and an antineutrino. There is also beta plus producing a positron and a neutrino. As the article discusses a neutrino before it should be kept consistent so reverting the change was right, but the production of antineutrinos is actually more common. —mfb (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the lead of neutrino needs checking and a reliable secondary or book source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't distinguish between neutrinos and antineutrinos, apart from the fifth paragraph where the two beta decay options are discussed separately. --mfb (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Mansurova

I take your point, but she's listed in a biographical dictionary titled Prominent Tajik Figures of the 20th Century. (It's digitized here, with a link to download a copy.) Slightly-more-than-cursory examination of the source suggests to me that it's more than simply a Who's Who-type dump of names, and that there was some threshold to notability to get oneself listed in it, and it is an academic publication. The problem is compounded by the fact that a.) I don't speak Tajik, and b.) other internet sources appear to be quite scarce on the ground. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can find Russian sources, particularly find out publications. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh...I don't speak Russian, either. (Though there I can probably get a little help.) I've been relying on Google Translate to get Cyrillic to search with. Kind of an involved process.
She appears to be a member of the Tajikistani Academy of Sciences, too - surely that would help with the notability? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably that is a good claim of importance. If there was no claim of importance I would have nominated for deletion. But it is not that bad! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll find the source for it and add it tonight, then. Thanks, and happy editing!--Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of Sicily

Hi Graeme. Geology of Sicily has been Cut and Paste rather than moved from User:FieldsetJ/sandbox. Not sure if histmerge is required given User:FieldsetJ was sole editor, but talk page should probably be moved over. It looks like you're involved with or facilitating the class. Is there associated WikiEdu template, etc, that should go on the talk page? Could the class members please be informed to move (or have the article moved) rather than C&P. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste is OK, as you say it is one author. Perhaps I will stitch on the history tomorrow, so you can see the development, and match that with the comments given. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hooking sentence & problem of page moving

Dear Graeme, I am Jay who wrote the Geology of Sicily page. The hook sentence of this page would like to be: Do you know that Calabria was once attached to Sardinia before it moved to Sicily?

Also, I have noticed that there is a comment about my page as I copy&pasted my sandbox to the live page. Can you tell me what I should do to fix the problem?

Best regards, Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by FieldsetJ (talk • contribs) 11:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FieldsetJ: You don't have to do anything different at this point, as you are the sole author of the draft and the live page. I just would ahve been easier to move the whole, rather than copy it all in as you did. But you already did it, so now people will come from various places and fix more things up. I think that your hook sounds OK, So I will include that in the DYK nom. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Tsoukernik and Elton Tsang

Requesting indefinite page protection. Both pages have been under attack by POV editors removing information regarding Tsoukernik misconduct. Gitosin (talk · contribs) and Marie Edwige (talk · contribs) are two of the multiple editors in question. Valoem talk contrib 09:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, one more request can you move Stewed meatball back to Lion's head (food) per WP:COMMONNAME. It turns out Med Nyin (talk · contribs) moved the page to Stewed meatball per China Daily, however in English stewed meatball actually refers to multiple dishes primarily a Spanish dish. Valoem talk contrib 12:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please revise all the changes made by Valoem (talk · contribs). All the information were resourced and are valid, deleting of such information has no factual reason. The attacks of this user and his way of editing the page are against the Wikipedia policy. The page protection is correct, but shall be first used to protect valid information. Resourced and relevant information shall not be considered vandalism and Valoem (talk · contribs) never provided any reasons for deleting the content.--Marie Edwige (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marie Edwige:, this isn't our first rodeo. You are an SPA with the intention of promoting Tsoukernik and are doing so by blatantly attacking Tsang through synthesis. In this edit not one source you mentioned says Elton Tsang is a "controversial persona" connected to the Triads, all sources you showed Business Insider, Calvin Ayre, ESPN, and Poker News do not mention Tsang's name once and talk only of Paul Phua (sources also do not say he is a Triad). Yet you attempted to link Tsang with the Triads. With your edit here, blatant removal sourced material which state exactly what is said is improper. You are a new account with no edits outside of defending Tsoukernik, and Tsoukernik has a right to state his side. The court judge mentioned moral misconduct this source. Leon's defense is that he was taken advantage of when he was drunk which is included in the article. Also your use of multiple sock accounts such as Gitosin (talk · contribs) to make this edit is completely transparent. That edit is filled with peacock terms which exaggerate what was said is a violation of NPOV. I removed those terms and left his defense. Valoem talk contrib 18:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the talk pages of the articles to discuss or request changes so that all who are interested can join in the debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: I have followed the case deeply. I do not protect one or the other party, but I believe that detailed information shall be provided. The facts are: 1) Elton Tsang was introduced to the game by Richard Yong, who is an infamous persona in China (arrested in US with connection to illegal betting, debt collection using triad members etc.) Tsang's connection to this person is a very important fact to describe the whole case. It is highly probable that Tsang was playing Richard Yong money, as by that time he had no actual profitable enough businesses neither success in poker. There are no reliable sources showing where and how Tsang could get bankroll to participate in such a high stake game. 2) Elton Tsang was convinced of running an illegal gaming operation in HongKong and was sentenced by the court. This edit was also edited. I am a vivid poker fan, however not that skilled on Wikipedia. However I read all the rules and one of the main is that Wikipedia shall be welcoming to new editors and also positive. I believe that my edits are well resourced and bring valuable insight into this story. If there are any information to be changed or rephrased by more skilled editors, please do so, however deleting does not show any interest in bringing more insight and information for the community.Marie Edwige (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marie Edwige: Please talk about this on Talk:Elton Tsang. That is where editors can work out what should be written. I will state that things in Wikipedia have to be based on reliable sources, and not speculation. The court case sounds verifiable though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! Keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd suggest trying out the new Rater tool which makes adding WikiProjects to new articles a breeze. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my articles(Shin Seok Jeong, JEI Corporation)

Graeme, hi. Thank you for reviewing of Daewangam Park. However, there are some articles that have not yet been reviewed. Please review my articles further.(Shin Seok Jeong, JEI Corporation)Shinfull (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing! JEI Corporation is an educational company with 350,000 members in Korea. And in Korea, it is also famous for the CM song called 'Self song.' Thank you very much for being interested in my articles anyway. I would appreciate it if you would care about the other acticles I wrote. Thank you. Shinfull (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Gravity of Mars

Hello! Your submission of Gravity of Mars at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 11:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image use in Northeast India

Hi Graeme. Since you sometimes close FFD discussions and have a pretty good feel for how non-free images can be used on Wikipedia, and since you've already posted at User talk:Renzut for another reason, I am wondering if you would mind taking a look at User talk:Renzut#Non-free image use. The discussion is about three non-free files I removed from Northeast India per WP:NFCCE. I don't seem to be doing a very good job of explaining WP:NFCCP to this editor and they seem to be getting frustrated with my attempts. Of course, it's possible that I am also wrong about some things. So, if you notice anything I posted which is incorrect, feel free to pipe in and clarify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this Graeme. Your user talk page post more clearly explained things and seems to have been accepted by Renzut. Just for the record though, my concern was only about the way non-free content was being used in that particular article; I wasn't advocating that the PD or otherwise freely licensed symbols also needed to be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of G13 CSD from Draft:Odoo Community Association

Hi! I have questions on why the G13 CSD was removed from Draft:Odoo Community Association. The article has not been worked on for over six months. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 20:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kiteinthewind:. The page was deleted, but then the writer asked for the page to be restored on the WP:REFUND page. I restored the page and removed the g13 so people can keep improving it. G13's are very easily reversed on request by just about anyone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I should have checked the logs for the draft in question. Thanks! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palace Station.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Palace Station.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of honorary professors of the Moscow State University

Dear editor, I added two more categories. Do you think I can remove the 2nd tag (absence of categories)? I am still working on supporting evidence. It exists, but requires a lot of manual work to insert. I am now busy with the Russian article; when I am done, I will provide supporting links for all the cases. In fact most of them come from one site of the University. Maybe it is sufficient to add this site in section "links"? I will do it, can you have a look?--Asimsky (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have removed the tags, even one category is enough to avert the requirement for no categories tag. In fact it is so easy to find and add categories that I wonder why people add that tag! Please add more references though! I added the page to my watchlist, so I will see if your changes work OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Geology of Myanmar

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2669 page views

Please move New Jersey tomato pie to Trenton tomato pie

Common name error this is referred to as Trenton tomato pie as primary name, Pizza Today and NJ Monthly. Can you merge the history and move to Trenton tomato pie? Valoem talk contrib 13:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks can you also userfy Moe Greene? Valoem talk contrib 08:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done see User:Valoem/Moe Greene and talk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy request

Hello, can you please userfy the following per User talk:Hmlarson/Archive/7#SvG clean-up? I am working on expanding and re-publishing. Thank you!

Hmlarson (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: all done. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Dinosaur dental histology

Hello! Your submission of Dinosaur dental histology at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of North China Craton

Hello! Your submission of North China Craton at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-dichlorodiammineplatinum(II)

Nice catch that ChemSpider got Trans-dichlorodiammineplatinum(II) wrong. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get good response from the chemspider curators in my comments. In this case they deprecated the record rather than "fix" it. We need a new record to be added that is correct. Every time a new chemical page appears, I will check pubchem and chemspider. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Remote sensing (geology)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Collimated transmission theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Substrate and Extinction coefficient
Bam A (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Antiparallel
MP196 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to ATP
Microscopy with UV surface excitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hoechst
Phakopsora euvitis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Darwin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Gravity of Mars

Hello! Your submission of Gravity of Mars at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Qinling orogenic belt

Alex Shih (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Divergent double subduction

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for North China Craton

— Maile (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lutetium-hafnium dating

Alex Shih (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Hadean zircon

Hello! Your submission of Hadean zircon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Brick deterioration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Mortar and Exfoliation
Collimated transmission theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Extinction coefficient
Pi electron donor-acceptor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hydroxy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Numerical modeling (geology)

Hello! Your submission of Numerical modeling (geology) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity of Mars

Hello and good day Graeme Bartlett. This is a reminder that it has been almost a week since I left my comments on the aforementioned article, and the lead expansion has yet to be done. It's fine if your busy, you can take your time if you wish, but the nomination will not pass unless the lead is expanded to an acceptable length and format. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Geology of Hainan Island

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dinosaur dental histology

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Govt Model Secondary High School Khulna

Can you take another look at this article? It was my fault for accidentally hitting G11 when I meant G12. The article has already been speedily deleted twice for the same reason. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: what is this page copying? Just tag it with a g12 template and the violated page as I could not find it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for G12 with the link. Sorry for the mistag, I should have realized the error when it did not ask for a link.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gravity of Mars

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:2RPH logo 2010.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2RPH logo 2010.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna Lucky Star 7inch.png

Hello. You deleted File:Lucky Star Single Cover.jpg per FFD discussion. May you please tell me whether File:Madonna Lucky Star 7inch.png is exactly similar to the deleted image? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: The images are not identical. They are both from the same cover, but the deleted one has more saturated colour, and is slightly bigger. In the deleted one the hair on the left of the pic is more visible, but the hair on the right side is a bit over exposed and less distinct. Another deleted revision is much bigger, but has a texta cross on one corner, and has varying solour and a ?crease. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost like this one? George Ho (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No - that one is very different, the first two are quite similar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pacpizza

Can you restore this article I am contesting prod. Valoem talk contrib 08:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem:  Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Geology of Sicily

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Paine Plaza

Userfy if anything of value is there. Valoem talk contrib 23:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually can you restore the page plus talk and if you feel like it slap the admin who deleted it. I don’t care about drama that much but deleteing that was a clear mistake. Valoem talk contrib 00:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was created by a banned user, so deletion was in order. You will have to improve the page to avoid G5 deletion again. Also there was no talk page to restore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pressure-temperature-time path

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hadean zircon

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Eoarchean geology

Hello! Your submission of Eoarchean geology at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moment Distance Index

Hi, just a note that I've promoted Draft:Moment Distance Index into mainspace. You've rejected an earlier version of this draft, and although it has subsequently been substantially expanded, I think the issue you identified is still relevant. However, I don't think it's that relevant for articles in such niche areas to be easily accessible to people outside of them (I for one don't understand currently published papers in most of the disciplines I've studied at university). If the text is too technical, then hopefully a reader will notice and fix it. Aside from that, it seems likely the creator could be one of the authors cited in the text, but I don't get the impression they're here to promote their own work. Cheers. – Uanfala (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unicom Group

Can you userfy this for me? Valoem talk contrib 01:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: the page was basicly an advert and likely a copyvio from the web site at http://www.Unicomg.com .There were no other references used. So you may as well start from scratch. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, how about this Sunpentown. Valoem talk contrib 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Valoem/Sunpentown Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Numerical modeling (geology)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra meetup

Hi, there will be a meetup in Canberra on the 20 January 2018 at 7pm, I hope you're able to make it but understand that this is very short notice. Bidgee (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14 years of editing, today!

Hey, Graeme Bartlett. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlorah Nadroj listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dlorah Nadroj. Since you had some involvement with the Dlorah Nadroj redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Instead of big lists of Presentations'

Hello Graeme Bartlett Thank you very much for your advice! I have already made some changes and improvements. GogouAnastasia (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for review

for my article Gerhard Jorch.--Springer54 (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of personal finance software citations

Let me know if you think that tag still applies here: List of personal finance software

Thanks! JustaZBguy (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Hello Graeme Many thanks for reviewing the page I created "Cohesion number". All the best Mohammadreza Pmmab (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dukuhjati Wetan 02 Elementary School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tegal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments, controversies, challenges in Islamic finance

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay ...
Have made some changes in an attempt de-essay-like the article. What specifically do you see as a problem with it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunpentown

Can you restore the talk page, also can you restore full history and talk of Steak and Blowjob Day?

@Valoem:  Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any history that can be merged from here? Valoem talk contrib 01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is stuff there, but much less appropriate, with bad tone. It will just confuse the history to merge. Also there is Steak and BJ day. With similar merge issues. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day (Third Nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Compound NJ2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dimer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]