User talk:Graeme Bartlett/archive 27

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett/archive_27.

	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 archives. Please add your talk at the bottom of the page:

Please undelete article Africa at Miss International as I am also looking for reliable source for the aticles needed. If you need can edit with reference as there are some reference in the official site also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T4mb4y 22 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete article Adya Prasad Pandey as he is Vice Chancellor also if you need can edit with reference as there are some reference in government sites also117.199.177.5 (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme, am not sure how to post answers to your messages but, if you can see this, please note this observation: I've taken a look at the article above and the content is from an openly licensed document. The copyright statement is on page 4 of this PDF (5mb). I notice that  This article incorporates text from a free content work. . Text taken from . was used to declare that the content is openly licensed, but it still got picked up by the copyvio report. With high quality content being released by UNESCO it would be beneficial to integrate it into the encyclopedia, especially as this addresses an under-represented area. But this may produce false positives where openly licensed text is being flagged as a copyright violation. Any ideas how to deal with this? Nev1 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC) and Susan Schneegans, 2 February 2017Susan Schneegans (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme, I have prepared a new version of an article previously deleted by yourself (on 11 March 2016 ) and would very much welcome your thoughts and feedback if possible? Please see my sandbox for the revised article and updated references of notability. If you are happy to do so, could you please reinstate the original OnTheMarket page, incorporating my revised sandbox article? Many thanks for your support and I look forward to hearing back from you. HarkenMotet (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:HarkenMotet I have moved your sandbox to OnTheMarket and history merged. At the moment coverage is a bit unbalanced, not including the protests about anti-competitive behaviour, or those agents excluded. Can you write about that too? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett Many thanks for your swift response and feedback, all very much appreciated. Let me do some additional research and I'll see what I can do to balance the page. --HarkenMotet (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made some additions to the OnTheMarket article following your previous feedback, although there have been significant changes made thereafter. I was initially happy to see the article grow and develop so quickly, although its seems to have been mostly negative contributions, rendering an imbalanced article that I have been told not to edit further(?). Are you able to review and advise your thoughts? I'm unsure how best to proceed from here. Thanks in advance. HarkenMotet (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HarkenMotet: It is probably time for you do something else on Wikipedia. I do not consider you are banned from the article. However it does look to be the only thing you have worked on, so you need to broaden your horizons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graeme Bartlett, I've added a few brief updates on some of the pages I was looking into, although I hope to expand further when I find the time! There are a selection of other articles I'm reviewing and keen to contribute more in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarkenMotet (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The

Graeme.

Can you please have a look at the last IP edit on Talk:ACT Policing which I have undone. It was ostensibly naming names and while it looks like a fake name or a typo, it might need a complete deletion rather than just the undo I have done.

Thanks in advance. Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the request. I have actioned it. Next time just email me! As leaving a message here may just draw attention to the problem from others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and noted. Aoziwe (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2016 (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:

• On the Argon compounds page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

On 24 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Argon compounds, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that argon oxide, an argon compound, interferes with the detection of iron-56 in inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Argon compounds. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Argon compounds), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 3049 page views

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Parry (poet) 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/David Parry (poet) 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. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of importance is subjective, also I was unable to even fix it, which seems to the be the standard according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deletion_of_BLPs_of_relatively_unknown_subjects.

I still feel that this deletion is in violation of the above standard, and the subject will just get salted and thus not available any longer. I guess a major class action lawsuit against disney is not important enough. I would love to hear from you, but I know you admins never respond to these things.BrianRFSU 22:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianRFSU (talk • contribs)

• @
  WP:LEAD sentence that tells straight away what the most important thing about the person is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If there was a beginners guide I could reference, that would be great.. LOL BrianRFSU 22:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianRFSU (talk • contribs)

and yes, a draft would be greatBrianRFSU 22:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianRFSU (talk • contribs)

• @
  Wikipedia:Your first article. I will restore the useful part of the article history to a draft at Draft:Domenck Lazzara. (when it's blue it is there). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See Draft:Domenick Lazzara We will need independent substantial references too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent as in outside wikipedia? BrianRFSU 23:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianRFSU (talk • contribs)

@

Reliable source, but may have references to other reliable sources that you could use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you BrianRFSU 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianRFSU (talk • contribs)

@BrianRFSU: Also note that copying text from websites is not permitted as it is a copyright infringement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not CI when you own the site, K. But once again, no chance to fix it/contest it before it was deleated. BrianRFSU 23:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just wanted to thank you for all the work you have been doing recently on reviewing nominations at DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Argonium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that argonium, an ion composed of an argon atom and a proton, was the first noble gas molecular ion to be found in interstellar space? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Argonium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Argonium), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 4385 views

ComputerSupport.com + talk page, Talk:Autocunnilingus, and Talk:Cacti (software). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Dominick Lazzara. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BrianRFSU 00:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC) BrianRFSU 00:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, back in 2014 you helped the 5pm article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5pm) by removing speedy delete tag, stating that the article is not spammy. I contributed to 5pm article lately, but it was again marked as not having notoriety and deleted, before I was able to make updates. I seek your help and opinion in this matter. Could you please voice it on the deletion discussion page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/5pm#5pm. Thank you. NancyJeanGF (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NancyJeanGF: The debate will be final in the decision. You can still update 5pm until it is deleted, but unless you can pull up more substantial references it won't sway voters. So I would suggest working on something different to avoid getting too depressed about the deletion of an article. When you say "notoriety", it would have been notability. I will take a look at the current sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking your time to look into it... I thought the sources are good. Let me know when you check them. NancyJeanGF (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It already seems to have been recreated. Anyway I have restored the non-overlapping history part. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Victor Despeignes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that French physician Victor Despeignes thought that cancer was a parasite which could be killed with radiation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Victor Despeignes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Victor Despeignes), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2658 views

Hi. The

]

Barnstar

		The Accessibility Barnstar
		To Graeme Bartlett, thank you for fixing my view settings and enabling me to return to editing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that @Axl:. I look forward to seeing some Wikipedia contributions. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links at the top-right are orange too now. Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you granted Adotchar the new reviewer right as a grandfathered user. That user was asked three times not to patrol new pages due to CIR [1]. Even now they have continuing problems at RCP with improper warnings [2]. I firmly believe they do not meet the 'uncontested patrols' requirement for grandfathering. Jbh^Talk 22:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 22:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jbh^Talk 22:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone else? I am just going through the lists of qualifiers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just restored the right to User:Ktr101, who has been banned; I believe the account was stripped of all rights at the time. Do check first, but perhaps this right should be withdrawn? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that change within a couple of minutes, firstly I considered that new page patrol would have been outside the scope of the restriction, (because it was not "advanced" at the time, but when I saw he was globally locked then I realised that Ktr101 should not have been on the eligible list. It would be because he was not blocked in en.wikipedia that the eligible list appearance was made. I am more concerned about Faizhaider, Clubjustin, Catmando999, Adem20 and Adog104. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know what exactly makes you concerned about me?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was that your user was on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3 accorded tagged tmi. This would be because of the number of complaints on your talk page. This was my problem that I looked at list4 before list3. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not permitted to review pages due to a few horrible mistakes of mine in the first few months of me being here. Thing is though, of the few hundred edits I'm starting to make weekly only one admin has complained, for a total of 4 of my edits over the past month. And since then, I've been perfectly fine.

reply here 14:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There will be some other requests for permission process as well. Though unless you do it, how can you prove your are fine? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 01:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - As a part of

@

2010 Commonwealth games." see https://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Anita_Tomar When I look up the Wrestling at the 2010 Commonwealth Games article we can see that it was Anita Sheoran that did that. Alka Tomar was in the 59kg class in the same games. Perhaps there is a confusion between the two that they get blended together. The only reference [3] does not include Anita's family name. And in the early version of the article there was no surname. But if you can prove that Anita Tomar is a notable wrestler with reliable references then go ahead and start an article. Just be very sure she is a different person to Anita Sheoran! Doing a search I can see that there is a botanist, and a mathematician with that name. Possibly there is a misconception about wrestlers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Graeme Bartlett:Thanks for clarifying. As I look closely, it seems they are one person. It could be maiden name and name after marriage but I don't have references to support. Appreciate your time. Thanks!--Parul Thakur (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you assessed Turvo State Park as "start class": "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources. Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. 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." Everything is sourced. What types of information do you feel are missing? How would you re-organize the content? Where do you see problems with grammar etc.? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to C. Mostly for new articles I would either give a stub or start rating, just based on the amount or variety of content. Being "start" does not mean it has all those problems. For example organisation looks OK. There is a locator map, but we could do with a zoomed in map showing the park, river, waterfall, road etc. What the the planned Garabí Dam will do will be worth mentioning. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an article on the Garabí Dam, still just a beginning, and then expect to go back and add to the Turvo State Park article. I suggest it would be better to give a new article a few days before assessing it. It is disheartening to see a "This is Crap" notice slapped on an article within hours of saving the first cut. Perhaps you could help with the map – I am sure there is one online you could use as a basis. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start does not mean it is crap at all! It is the most common assessment. The main point is to tag it for a project, so that the people in the project will know about it. If I tag with importance=none that suggests that I don't think the article is worth having, but even that is not saying anything about quality. There are a number of other tags to put on an article to say more specifically what the problems are. Note that none of these were applied to Turvo State Park. We would not have such a vague tag as "this article is crap". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "start class" sounds like "crap" to me. If you do not have time to review the article, or if the article is very new, the obvious approach is to tag it

{{WikiProject xxx |class= |importance= }}

That puts it in a list of articles for review. Someone from the project can later rate the article, maybe improve it, and decide on the importance of the subject. An article rated "Start" is unlikely to get any further attention. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graeme Bartlett, how was your day? want to know how can a wikipedian be one of a group membership just like rights? --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 20:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

Right to fork and some right to privacy. For permissions, a person who counteracts vandalism a lot will find rollback useful. Or someone that does a lot of work with files, eg pictures may need file mover. If you have some kind of need and can prove you qualify, you can ask here: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the explanation it helps a lot --Music Boy (talk to me) 21:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that

Hi Graeme Bartlett, actually i wanted to create an article about a Nigeria music producer Indomix but it was previously created and deleted by a blocked or banned user as it was stated on the page. So i decided to create a draft Draft:Indomix so that i can develop the article to meet its criteria. I am done with the article but i can"t move it due to the main page Indomix is protected for only admin to perform the action. Still working on another draft article which i created Draft:Maryland Mall. Looking forward to your response, have a nice day --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 21:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First we will check if you are the same banned user. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett, I was wondering whether you could return to your review here, see whether the QPQ was okay, and post accordingly. This is now the oldest extant DYK nomination, and it would be nice to get it settled. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this AFC a few days ago and noticed the username was the same as the article name, and the only other edits are on pages related to cubing (i.e. speedsolving/solving). This makes it quite reasonable to assume the person making the article is the same as the subject of it. I don't really care much about Wikipedia rules (I am a cuber who occasionally visits Wikipedia, not the other way around), so I just left him a message on his talk page notifying him of the rule against creating articles about oneself in case he was not aware. He then deleted my message which was quite annoying and why I am bringing it up here. I'm not really bothered if anything is or isn't done, I just wanted to inform you of it. |Randomno| WP 08:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. What I will do is add the COI tag to the article. You are allowed to write about yourself, it's not banned, just discouraged. WP:Autobiography. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am working on my Regional Geology Wiki assignments (User:Jjyyu8/sandbox) and would like to insert an image I found from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (Image: http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/special/spray-combust/ftir.html). I am not so sure what I should do to obtain the Licensing from NIST. It seems to be in the public domain of the US but how can I can the Permission label if I want to upload it to Wikimedia commons?

Thanks and looking forward to your response. Jennifer Yu —Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the commons wizard, it will ask if this is your work, You click others, then you will see an option to say public domain work of the US government. Pick that option. Give the link back to to the page and image. However the web site says this: "© 2016 by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the United States of America. All rights reserved." Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graeme I am 11lawpt1 and one of my images of the

Hello Graeme This is 11lawpt1. So if the author sends an email to [email protected] along with the original image, clearly giving out the consent for the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, then I'll be able to use the said image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11lawpt1 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey offering you a pre congrats on your soon to be 10,000th block. It is a huge milestone for admins to reach the 10,000 block marker. Though you have a long way to get to 100,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.77.134 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graeme this is 11lawpt1, can you please convert my sandbox to a live page? The following is a link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:11lawpt1/Project16Sandbox

@11lawpt1:  Done I have moved it to Pre-collisional Himalaya. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme, it's Beth from HKU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EHitchcock/sandbox). I hope I am posting in the correct place to contact you! I am having troubles saving my page. I have made some updates to it and it says there is an unknown error when I try to select 'save chnages'. Previously it said 'docserver-http:HTTP 404'. I don't know if there is a way of correcting this or if I just have to press x and redo the changes I have just made. I want to be sure this doesn't happen again because it is very time-consuming having to redo the work. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHitchcock (talk • contribs) 04:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme Bartlett.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme. I was rather disjointed several days ago by the comments of one user who inferred/implied (or so I understood it) that my work on this NPP user right roll out was no longer required. I therefore abandoned the work of according rights to the grandfather list and you kindly took the relay. I've noticed more by coincidence than design that those who were grandfathered don't appear to been notified yet. In which case, it would be understadable as it was my original intention to complete the grandfathering in one session then notify them all by a mass message - the same template that is sent as a notification to all newly created rights holders. Could you let me know to the best of your knowledge if all the grandfathering is now complete, and if so, which is the master list? (pinging xaosflux to keep him in the loop). Many thanks, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added all the remaining people on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List4, and then removed the entries that I had granted the right to. Cenarium had done similar deletion of those grannted. But Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3 accorded is not fully done. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List 3 is ok.I can get a mailing list made from that. List 4 is more complicated - because the entries were simply deleted after being processed, there's no knowing what the list was (except for it status at creation) and who was actually accorded the right and who wasn't. I could do it manually by opening all their user pages, then opening their rights changes log, and checking. But I don't have two hours to spare. Maybe you know of some regex or something that can piece it all together again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that everyone apart from KTR on list4 was given access. I only deleted entries that I provided the bit to. I have now been through list3 fully. All the remaining entries were grandfathered from list4. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graeme, I am trying to make my page go live but I can't seem to work out how to do it. Could you help please. Thank you for your help on saving. I did not manage to resolve the problem but copied what I had done with my corrections and it seems to be working fine now. Thanks. Beth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHitchcock (talk • contribs) 08:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EHitchcock: moved. It is complaining about one reference still. See Geological history of Borneo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grame, I am Christy (User:Christyyc) Could you help on making my page live? This is the link of my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christyyc/sandbox Thanks a lot for your help. Christyyc (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Christy: Your page is now moved to Okavango Dyke Swarm. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grame, I am Jupiter (User:jupmira104) in the regional class, doing the wiki assignment. Could you help on making my page live? This is the link of my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jupmira104/inclasssandbox Thank you so much!:). jupmira104 (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Geological mapping of Venus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manngaa_Jenny/paleostresssandbox

Thanks a lot!Manngaa Jenny (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Manngaa Jenny: Your page is live at Paleostress inversion.

Dear Graeme,

Could you help check if my wiki page has gone live or not? Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Geological_framework_of_Iceland

Regards, Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronlau817 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Geological framework of Iceland. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Regards, Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronlau817 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronlau817: no problems, I have moved this to Geological deformation of Iceland. Note that this page has far more on it than Geology of Iceland, so perhaps your page can replace that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Graeme,

We are stduents from Regional Geology Class. Could you please help us check whether these two wiki pages have gone live or not? Thanks!

Belows are the links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeozoic-Mesozoic_Lesser_Himalayan_Strata

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

@yuen919

Best regards, Tanya and Roberta

@Yuen919: Tanya and Roberta, These are both live articles. I am going through now and moving those others requested. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme! I am also a student from regional geologyy class. Could you please check if my wiki page has gone live or not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Fourier_Transform_Infrared_Spectroscopy_in_Geology

Regards & Thanks, Jennifer Jjyyu8 —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:CITEVAR, but it is a little unusual for the same editor to use multiple styles since most people typically have one style they prefer. Did you, by chance, copy and paste some content from other articles into your draft? This would explain the different methods. Anyway, you can settle on one preferred style/method for all the citations if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

copy-and-paste move. This is not really how this thing is done because it can create problems related to the article's edit history. It might be a good idea for you to refrain from any future page moves and ask for assistance first, so that you don't unintentionally create problems which an administrator will have to fix. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! Please ignore the previous link. Could you help me to make the sandbox below go live? Thanks:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jjyyu8/sandbox

Jennifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjyyu8 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BOT does not have to come around and do it for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Marchjuly! Thank you very much for your time in giving helpful feedback. It's my first time using Wikipedia editing. I am truly sorry for causing these problems. Jjyyu8 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK now. I have moved the talk, redirected the draft, and added some categories. The idea was not to use AFC process! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GEOLOGY. They probably would be happy to have an editor such as yourself helping out with things over there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for all the troubles! Thank you so much! Jjyyu8 (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki go live

Hi Graeme,

I am Skylar form the regional geology class. Might I ask for your help in making my page go live? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SkylYip/inclass16sand

Great thanks, SkylYip (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @SkylYip: The page is live at Monazite geochronology. We have lost the talk page with the reviews though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki go live

Hi Graeme, I am Wayne and would need your help to let the wiki draft goes live.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Consequencewayne/sandbox

thank you!!! Consequencewayne (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Precordillera Terrane page, as it is much better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi Graeme,

This is 11lawpt1, and for the gif 'Tectonic Evolution of the Accreted Terrane Model, Grey= Oceanic Plate, Blue= Lesser Himalaya, Pink= Greater Himalaya, Green= Tethyan Himalaya' on my Pre-collisional Himalaya page, I have uploaded a new version of it with an additional frame, but it seems like it is not displaying correctly. Can you help me check?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11lawpt1 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@11lawpt1: It looks OK to me, I assume that the new frame has the green bit added and the sutures labelled. Perhaps you had a caching issue. Though I would make the timing slower particularly on the final frame as it is the most complex, and then it gives the viewer time to read the labels. Also it is a good idea to add your talk message to the bottom of the page, then I can find it quicker! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki go live Jeffrey

Hi Graeme, This is Jeffreyfung from regional geology class and I'm writing to see if you can check if my page has gone live or not. Title of my wiki article: 3D Fold Evolution. Thank you for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyfung (talk • contribs) 06:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jeffreyfung: yes your page is live. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -Jeffrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyfung (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WIki go live Lydia

Hi Graeme, I am Lydia Yip from Alex Webb's Regional Geology course. I am waiting for review of my page. Can you help my page to go live please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lydia yip (talk • contribs) 07:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lydia yip: Hi Lydia, you are the last to ask, and I was wondering if you were absent today or some other situation. We were not planning for any more AFC review, as it would slow you down too much. But I have moved your page to Huangling Complex. It is live. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images

Hi Graeme Bartlett. It seems I stumbled in upon some kind of school project you are a part off. I apologize it I was clumsily stepping on toes or may have discouraged some of these students. I think

WP:F5

. Since you are an admin, perhaps you can delete them. You might also want to mention that essentially separate image files should be uploaded separately whenever possible and not as updated versions. A source url is provided for the file, but I cannot find the image(s) at all on that webpage; it would make copyright verification a little easier if there was a direct link to the image file.

Finally, and I just feel I should ask, but have your students checked Commons or other places for freely licensed images. There's

WP:NFCCP. So, if might help if you're students can beef of the rationales a bit so that the connection between image and content is better established. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for spotting this one. I had already found some other images lifted out of journals, perhaps with permission for Wikipedia only. I will give it the chop. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:F5

both serve a rationale that non-free images that are not used in any articles should be removed. I have been aware of this rule as I was trying to upload this images a couple of weeks before. The article I am working on will go live these few days. I re-uploaded this image yesterday to get ready for this upcoming article. It provides a reasonable exception of the non-free use of this image per WP:F5. I don't understand the reason of uploading this image separately as there are just some extra components added on the previous version. Grateful if you can explain a bit further. I am providing the source of the online version of the journal where I directly extracted those images, yet I don't have a direct URL linking to the image.

I have searched Commons for any useful freely licensed images, yet most of them are photos of big crystals that are not very useful for my topic. I agree with you the misuse of File:Monazite dating age histogram.png. However, as mentioned in the article, the uses of File:X-ray map of U in monazite.png and File:X-ray map of Th in monazite.png are coupled together, and I think there is no free equivalence of any one of them. I am new to Wikipedia editing. Happy to learn if you can help pointing out the mistakes. Thanks.SkylYip (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SkylYip: This is not just Wikipedia, but will apply to any publication. Replaceable does not only mean that you can find an image already there, but whether you could make a new image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer request overlooked

| Hi there, @Graeme Bartlett: I've added my request for New Page Reviewer and after some time, I believe it was overlooked by Kudpung. Could you take a look at it if you have the time? CyanoTex (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked but you have little recent experience, so you need to build this up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-0

Hi there,

I see you restored this category about a year ago, citing "Requested at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) by Nyttend" as the restoration reasoning. After some searching in the archives, I believe I found the related discussion: link.

While reading over that, I didn't see anything talking about this category. Could you point me to what from that discussion drew you to restore this? As the deletion log indicates, there was a unanimous CfD resulting in deleting this category, and none of the rationale has changed since that discussion. Furthermore, there is extensive, sound precedent for deleting all 0-level categories - we don't categorize people by something they don't do (or in this case, don't speak). I would ask that you reverse your restoration of this category and honor the still sound past CfD decision. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation that you found was a long time before the restoral, so I do not think it had anything to do with it. It may represent Nyttend's views, but was not a request to have this back. That debate in CFD was so long ago, 9 years, that it is certainly not going to reflect the users around today or consensus. The category has a fair number of pages in it, so several people may think it is worthwhile. It is not an article category, but instead a way to identify users. So therefore I will not be unilaterally deleting it. Instead you may start a new CFD. There could be a serious problem for the users in it as they claim not to know English. So you may be getting a very biased input if they cannot participate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the discussion, after further searching apparently it was again discussed here. I think it was a mistake for that discussion to occur there and not deletion review - far less pairs of eyes reached that discussion than would have on deletion review, and also brings up whether process was properly followed to restore this category. It's disheartening to see a small side conversation overturn a well-participated CfD where absolutely none of the rationale behind deletion has changed, and the reasons for deletion have been reinforced in multiple CfD decisions since - it's irrelevant whether the deletion occurred 10 days ago or 10 years ago if no new information or rationale has come to light. Of course consensus can change, but the user requesting restoration had no new arguments or evidence that it had other than their own personal opinion on the category (which I would submit was based on flawed reasoning, but that's another conversation). I'll be bringing the category to CfD shortly, although I believe that this sets a bad precedent that it's okay to allow re-creation of previously deleted content and force a new discussion even when no new arguments have been presented (and the discussion for allowing it back occurred at an inappropriate venue). VegaDark (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 01:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talk:Application of Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy in Geology

Hi again Graeme Bartlett. I've been reading some of the comments on

bold and make them. They understand that anyone, not just the people in their class, can edit the page, right? Maybe they should directing their comments more to the community as a whole than the article's creator. I was going to post something along these lines on that talk page, but I'm not sure how much the students understand about Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

They may not be aware. Perhaps I should post a note. However the reviews would be happening as that would be a course requirement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Graeme. As long as they realize that some of the suggestions they are making can be made by any editor and not just the article's creator, there should be no problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use policy

Hi Graema, I am a student from the regional geology class. I noticed that you have removed a few images appeared in the article monazite geochronology according to non-free policy. Might I know in detail which part of the policy do those images violate? I have asked for the permission of using those images in Wikipedia from the publisher. I read the non-free policy but still I am not very clear about that. Could you help explaining this case a bit further? Or do you have any suggestions to illustrate the content in the article if those images cannot be used? Thank you so much. SkylYip (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Hassard

Thanks for kicking in on the editing. I'm going to start looking for better sources for the content and figuring out where to put the inline citations... and let you do your thing in the meantime.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: I am moving on to other articles now, but you can itallicise the books too if you want. Hopefully no more edit conflict Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/PSLV-C5

Graeme Bartlett, I was wondering whether you'd be willing to return to this nomination to continue your review now that a new hook has finally been proposed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 November

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

• On the
  List of rallies for the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

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,

talk) 00:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

LinkNow Media deletion

Hi there. You deleted the LinkNow Media page a few months ago. I'd like to recreate the page with a few more sources that I think better demonstrate the company's notability. Should I just recreate the page and let people evaluate the notability then, or would you like to see the new sources first? Lauchlin MacDonald (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AFC process to get it into article space. If you want I can restore your earlier work to this draft. Do you want to do that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Graeme Bartlett: Yes, please! As you can probably tell, I'm not the most experienced Wikipedia editor, and I want to make sure I'm doing everything according to the rules. Thanks for your suggestion! Lauchlin MacDonald (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lauchlin MacDonald: the page is now at Draft:LinkNow Media Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhtree

Because you participated in the previous deletion discussion for Bodhtree, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the renewed one. agtx 17:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I had created a new sandbox for the UV filters article to edit it and adjust the errors that need to be fixed .Then , after editing it i moved it to replace the old one with the errors . However, my new fixed one was removed with all my edits and i am left with the old one . i am the same person who was working on the article since september. i meant to replace he old one with the new one without all citation , no grammatical errors or copyright. So please let me know why my edited page was deleted and if i can recover it as i was editing it and working on a project and now i lost all my edits and left with the old one with errors.--Gabdal1 (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Thank you .[reply]

Hi Graeme Bartlett -- I was a Talk page stalker here and I butted in trying to respond to this, at User talk:Gabdal1#Your contributed article, UV filters and their photodegradates, metabolites and disinfection by-products in the aquatic environment. However I was mistaken about dates and about who deleted the version that Gabdal1 inquires about. Perhaps you could follow up there, if you can fix this? I do think the editor Gabdal1 should have access to the deleted version (and perhaps so should others) so that whatever problems are in the version can be explained. TIA, and sorry if I confused matters. --doncram 17:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

UV filters in the history and undid my conversion to a redirect. A permalink to your last edit is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UV_filters&oldid=752504386 . I did not delete the page. However as it stands it is very similar to the UV filter page. What should have happened is that you edit UV filter page to add your new text. You can still do that. It will be confusing to have two articles on the same topic with similar names. Are you from the LSU environmental chemistry class? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, i would like to clarify that what i intended to do is to fix the errors in the sandbox and then replace the old one with the new corrected one. It seems that i did something wrong. yes, i am LSU environmental chemistry course student.--Gabdal1 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

UV filters. You can still edit that, but I am recommending that if you want to change the UV filter article you copy your new version, edit the old UV filter page, replace the content by you new draft and then save. That will merge the content and retain copyright attribution for your changes. The Wikipedia community do not want to have two different pages on the same topic, so either you merge it together, or someone else does it for you, or we can move the page that you wrote back to a sandbox. When does your work all need to be completed by? We want to give you enough time, but don't want to leave problems for too much later. The something wrong is the "title" of the page. We use the singular for the name of the topic, for example "UV filter". Duplication is the other issue that is sorted out by merging the content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you so much for your patience and understanding.My work should be completed by the next week, so as soon as i finish my finals i will do the merging to save the edits and avoid duplication. Thank you again for your help. Gabdal1 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand that this wrong. The issue is that it was a mistake from me while moving my edits to the old existing article.I would be happy to fix my error and delete it if i can.Thank you --Gabdal1 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making

redirect with this edit and posted an explanation as to why he did so in his edit sum and above, but you undid that edit for some reason. I then changed it back to a redirect with this edit and also posted an explanation in my edit sum and above, but once again you undid the redirect. I understand you are doing this as part of a school project, but you need to try and understand all of us are expected to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole, and not for own on particular self interests. So, if you continue to edit this way, you're going to start having problems with other editors who might not realize you are working on something for school. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Graeme Bartlett: I know you're trying to help these students out, but perhaps you might (if possible) ask their teacher(s) to better explain Wikipedia to them. Duplicates of existing articles run the risk of getting turned into redirects at the very least, but may also get tagged for speedy per

no editorial control per se over the article other than what is given to all editors by relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Marchjuly: User:Helaine (Wiki Ed) is the person trying to sort this out with the instructor. At this place: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Louisiana State University the Chemistry project is tracking the pages, and will clean up any problems, and save useful work once the activity dies down. But that project is interested mostly in the content rather than the people. You may wish to make comments about what to do in the comments column. Some pages had already gone to AFD, on the case discussed here redirected. AFAIK Gabdal1 is the only person from the class who is talking. If you look what they are doing, they have also added text to the UV filter page like we requested. I think Wikipedia is being improved. I have actually been helping out another class in Hong Kong, where the main problem was copying pictures, but the articles are pretty well written and useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment at the WikiProject Chemistry page. FWIW, I'm not trying to bite any of these students and glad that they are trying to contribute positively; however, it seems from looking at a page like

WP:YFA so they can better explain what Wikipedia is about to their students. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I stumbled across

UV filters while disambiguating links to DAB pages and set it back to being a redirect before seeing the context here. Sorry if my edit causes any additional chaos, although honestly I think it's better to let the student try to merge changes from a historical revision of the page rather than maintain a duplicate until their work is finished. Just my two cents, and I won't further edit the page if my change is reverted. For what it's worth I was once involved in a similar project helping students who weren't native English speakers edit the wiki and I understand how trying it can be for students and helpers alike. Good luck! -- Fyrael (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ed Rush

Graeme Bartlett, I was wondering whether you'd be willing to take another look at this nomination now that a new hook has been proposed. Since you reviewed it earlier, you'll know whether your issues with it have been satisfactorily addressed. Many thanks either way. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion to avoid trolls ?

hi Graeme, I was working on page review backlog, and in that process I flagged two list articles National Register of Historic Places listings in Union County, New Mexico , and National Register of Historic Places listings in Curry County, New Mexico . The editor seemed grossly annoyed and started writing all kind of nuisance on my talk page as well as in the reverts he did on the article. I found the person politically inclined by his last message as well. I would like to keep my promise of reducing backlog and avoid such deterrents. Can you please suggest best way to handle it when you get time. Devopam (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BRD. In this case you boldly add a tag, someone reverts, and the next step is to discuss, either on user's talk page or the article talk page. Just ignore the suggestion made on your talk page and move on. The suggestion is taking things to extreme, and they don't seriously want you to do that! Before mass tagging or mass changing articles, discussion should take place as it is sure to be controversial. Have a cup of tea, take a deep breath, and when you are relaxed start some different Wikipedia work. Perhaps you can check the articles with prod on them to see if they should be deleted or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Graeme Bartlett:, thanks for the suggestion to keep away for some time. I don't like edit wars at all, hence didn't revert their change. Asked him to assess and revert , instead got an elaborate writeup. I have marked the pages un-reviewed as well so that someone else can take them up. I was rattled by the Trump remark very much. Devopam (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Donald Trump remark is just to tease you. Another remark not to take seriously. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The curator toolbar

Hi Graeme - since being granted Reviewer rights I have been busy making use of the awesome Curator's toolbar, and have done a lot of good with it. When I dismiss it from a page though, I can't find how to get it back. Please let me know how. Thanks - Mark^Dask 18:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Markdask: Sometimes I see a "Curate this article" link over on the right. When I click that it reappears. Old articles don't get this link. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graeme - all sorted. Mark^Dask 04:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?

this is very hard to understand. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a notable topic even if there are problems. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying!

Autism is a topic with important public health consequences where, due to the desperation some parents feel, there is tons of woo on the internet and tons of people trying to take advantage of that desperation. There was only one MEDRS source in the draft and there were problems even with it. Almost all the sources came from two guys (always a bad sign) who also happened to have filed a patent application on methods to diagnose autism and other stuff based on detecting those folate receptor autoantibodies. In my view that article was not even close to ready to move into main space - it didn't summarize accepted knowledge, which is what articles do per the policy,

WP:NOTEVERYTHING

.

Sometimes folks reviewing drafts about health bring them to

WT:MED and ask for input; would you please consider doing that in the future? Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (

NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK nomination of Geological deformation of Iceland

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) 01:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Prod of 'Top 50 Influential Women in Engineering'

About your prod of Top 50 Influential Women in Engineering, the creator of the list declared a potential COI here. That is presumably the same "Dawn Bonfield MBE, Chief Executive of the Women's Engineering Society", so she could be asked about the copyright issues. Would you be willing to do that? See also the discussion here. If you know more about this, you may want to comment there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graeme, I am new to wikipedia and really struggling to know how to even write a reply on your talk page - is this the way, I wonder, let alone know how to respond to your question about copyright violation. I have been away for the weekend and have not been able to research this in more detail, but would be sad if the page got deleted before I had chance to fix the issues. I am part of the team working to get more women listed on wikipedia and this page is my contribution to encouraging all 50 of these influential women to be included. Any help you can give me with the actual editing of the page so that it become compliant would be appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnbonfield (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hmm

having worked in seismic crews I cannot believe how pathetic our info on wp is re oil and gas in oz. oh well thems the breaks JarrahTree 23:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What other oil fields are there in Australia? Halibut Oil Field was written by a student as a class exercise. They were writing about oil fields all over the world. We could suggest topics to that class for next year! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha i can tell youre a hard rock man - problem - each sedimentary basin in Australia as oil and gas shows or fields - when i re-processed old shell data for the officer basin in a previous lifetime tell tale formations showed but other contributory factors were missing for adequate traps - why there was/is even a weirdo millionaire funding a very odd research project into oil gas under tasmania proper  :) - to answer your question every basin has 'shows' - the actual fields see http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/petroleum-resources/oil - the map with grey shading - and the tell tale text Most of Australia’s known remaining oil resources are condensate and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) associated with giant offshore gas fields in the Browse, Carnarvon and Bonaparte basins. In addition oil resources are identified in the Perth, Canning, Amadeus, Cooper/Eromanga, Bowen/Surat, Otway, Bass and Gippsland basins. - wp has hardly anything on all of that... JarrahTree 00:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah WP coverage of geology is pretty patchy and mostly lacking any detail. We could do with articles on more basins. But I have now found Category:Oil fields of Australia Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP tagging Russell Cecchini with BLPPROD

Hi there. You tagged Russell Cecchini with BLPPROD. However, in the time that it would have took me to tag it, I popped the name into Google, and the first result was the official Canadian Paralympics Committee page on the athlete, which confirmed his awards. I have added the source. Next time, before tagging, I ask that you pop the name into Google to check. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 09:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the page was so poorly written, that it may as well start from scratch. I have tagged a couple like that recently. Thanks for improving it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel of copyvio

Do you mind revdeling

talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Zupotachyon: hidden. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks a bunch.

talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Mintlinux listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Mintlinux. Since you had some involvement with the Mintlinux redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK

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! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Talkback

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Boron monofluoride monoxide.
Message added 02:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, my friend. May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits)

regarding the page Priya Singh Paul

This page does not violate any copyrights. the website www.priyasinghpaul.com belongs to the person Priya Singh Paul who has full rights over the contents posted in her wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinking.guru (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That user User:Priya Singh Paul may be the same person as the subject of the article and have the rights to reproduce the page, but the content was inserted by you User:Thinking.guru who has no rights proven to that content. In any case the material was unsuitably promotional. AND IT IS NOW DELETED. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

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! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK

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! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK

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! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ed Rush redux

Graeme Bartlett, it looks like yorkshiresky won't be able to make all the changes you requested, and is prepared to withdraw the nomination if no one else can take care of them. If you aren't able to or don't wish to, I can't imagine that anyone else would come around, so I'll let you reply and/or close it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I share your concern about the notability of National Concrete Masonry Association. I reluctantly created the article, after I kept seeing "NCMA" in numerous technical discussions, but could not find a definition in Wikipedia. After much Google searching, I finally tied NCMA to the National Concrete Masonry Association.

I found many references to "National Concrete Masonry Association," mainly in the form of citations to their many publications. I have found the organization mentioned in passing, but never covered in depth as required by the MOS. Also the organization is mentioned in at least two Wikipedia biographies, which I have since linked to my article. After seeing your tag, I cited "Concrete construction engineering handbook," published by CRC, because it references National Concrete Masonry Association publications, even though it does not discuss the organization in depth. "Landscape Architectural Graphic Standards" published by Wiley is another example.

I feel frustrated, because the organization is widely mentioned, yet does not have in depth coverage. I would appreciate any suggestions that you might have. Thanks for being an administrator and for maintaining the quality of Wikipedia. I will watch this spot, in case you respond. Comfr (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Lesser Himalayan Strata

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! SpinningSpark 19:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Tectonic evolution of the Aravalli Mountains

On 26 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tectonic evolution of the Aravalli Mountains, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Aravalli Mountains contain intensely deformed rocks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tectonic evolution of the Aravalli Mountains. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4944 page views

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Reference errors on 26 December

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

• On the Lesser Himalayan Strata page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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,

talk) 00:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Did you know nominations/Vice News Tonight

Graeme Bartlett, have your concerns been adequately addressed here? Please stop by when you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Okavango Dyke Swarm

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) 21:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Mistake?

diff He died in 1976. Adam9007 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Victorian Railways E type carriages

Happy to rewrite the last bit of the Sleeping cars section if you think it's necessary. Guessing it's too close to the Newsrail article, which I can't check because I don't have that edition anymore.

The old version of the page,

E type carriage

, seems to have had that text in place for at least three or four years without being flagged.

Anothersignalman (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

E type carriage

but I cannot tell which came first).

The tool I use is at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Victorian+Railways+E+type+carriage&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 it will highlight in pink. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayback machine has the text dated 2011 at comrails^[1], E type carriage history shows 2012. I'll fix it sometime in the next 24hrs. Anothersignalman (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

Done. Next project is to fix up the Infoboxes, because if they're all the length of the Sleeping car entry it won't work.

1. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20110726072252/http://www.comrails.com/sar_carriages/a0202_se.html

New page reviewer

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have removed User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR from the New Page Reviewer group. Reason: indeff blocked. If you have any questions or if you would like me to revert this action, don't hesitate to let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Priya Singh Paul page

Priya Singh Paul is a famous personality in India, the page created on her is deleted again and again. Please verify the links before deleting the page. I will make sure article will not be copied from her linkedin page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysoul22 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AFC and write your page at Draft:Priya Singh Paul, and then get it reviewed before inclusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Graeme Bartlett: please review the Draft:Priya Singh Paul and see if everything is written following wikipedia rules or not.

• @Happysoul22: The good aspect of this draft is that there is no longer a detectable copyright infringement. However the style is unsuitable, in that it is informal and promotional sounding. This is an encyclopedia with a serious tone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright infringement still exists, since the text is the same (or almost the same) that was found in the deleted articles. The text is removed from the web (except through the Wayback Machine) but that doesn't remove the original author's copyright. Sjö (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We will see if Happysoul22 can really prove the copyright. It appears they have control of the copied web site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Graeme, I think there is a procedure for when somebody wants to use his or her own work on wikipedia, but I can't find it. Since you are an experienced editor, perhaps you could direct the editor(s?) of the Priya Singh Paul article to that WP page? Sjö (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Sir, I have deleted the website www.priyasinghpaul.com and you can see that its no more functional, now the website is in web archives, and I have no control on at, but it does not violate any copy right as the original website doesn't exist and my page and my draft has been deleted. Please restore my page.

And I am not paid to write this article at all, and this is no promotion, I have posted a lot of links to prove that she is a important person.

Happy New Year, Graeme Bartlett!

Happy New Year!

Graeme Bartlett,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

File:Foreigner-I-Want-To-Know-Wh-297484.jpg

The copyright status of this image is discussed; I invite you to comment at FFD. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ecuador 2017

It is preposterous that this has to go back to AFD less than 3 days after the last AFD was closed as a clear delete. The consensus was clear from the three non-nominators- TOO Soon and questionable notability. How have those two issues changed in three days?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about converting to a redirect to Miss Ecuador? Because the page is different G4 is not appropriate. I will support keeping this as a redirect and not expanding to an article untill there are good references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it plus SALT it. A redirect will just be turned right back into an article. The changes bloody don't matter, another AFD is going to end in a delete and the changes didn't alter or impact the views of the three non-nominators. TOO Soon and Notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about evident sockpuppetry at work? A first time editor who creates a new article like this is a Sonic boom case of

WP:DUCK....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Since the first was not English, I suspect different people, but MEATPUPPETS are possible. I have made this a redirect protected for 2 months. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of documentation and sandbox subpages from deleted templates

Hey Graeme, about 30 minutes ago, you deleted the templates Vgrtbl-bl, Vgrtbl-tx, and Vgrtbl/text as a conclusion to the respective TfD entries opened by me. However, it seems like you forgot to delete the respective subpages,

✉) 12:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you have deleted the pages in question. Thank you! I have closed the respective TfD entries.

✉) 12:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Draft:Sukuma calendar - Deletion/Blanking

Dear Graeme Bartlett,

@Graeme Bartlett:, I am taking for granted that you deleted/blanked the said draft with a purpose. Let me know why. Are you suggesting I have got to seek a deletion review?

Please reconsider the deletion.

Thank you(Nghwaya (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

@Nghwaya: the reason the draft was deleted was because of the MFD linked in the deletion reason Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sukuma Calendar. Normally if an article was deleted after a debate, a draft could be allowed to address the problems. But in this case there was a debate to delete the article, and one to delete the draft. When it comes to hoaxes it is possible to have an article about the hoax, but it should not give the impression that it is true. Perhaps you are a believer, which will make it tough for writing about a point of view matching the idea of fabrication. A deletion review will be needed to progress towards having a page here. (I have had nothing to do with Draft:Sukuma calendar (2) so far, as it appears that you blanked it. This page is eligible for G7 deletion unless you put something there such as "please do not delete"). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett:, ==Deletion review for Draft:Sukuma Calendar==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Sukuma Calendar. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nghwaya (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MassMutual logo.gif

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X2 declined

Hi Graeme, just in response to this -- yes, it was understandable. All X2s will be. If the content wasn't understandable to an English speaker we would use G1 or A2. Would you mind looking at that again? Cheers—S Marshall T/C 21:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is it better for Wikipedia to have this or not? You may also note that I also copyedited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Boron monofluoride monoxide

On 5 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boron monofluoride monoxide, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the condensate of boron monofluoride monoxide is reheated, it forms a glassy, popcorn-like froth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boron monofluoride monoxide. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Boron monofluoride monoxide), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6688 page views. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for

The "under construction" tag at the Turkana Basin template! -Darouet (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was not me that put it there, I only tagged for the project. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested BLP PROD

I see that you restored

talk) 22:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Normally I will restore a prod BLPPROD on request and reset the timer to allow countdown to deletion again so that the requestor will add references. Looks like I missed the timer reset. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't miss the timer reset. My whole point is that restoring the article and resetting the timer is, as far as I can see, against policy. Policy is that a BLP that has been tagged with a PRODBLP tag and still has no reliable sources after a week is deleted, not that it may be deleted but it can be kept for another week if anyone doesn't like the deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 09:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The policy is at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Undeletion "pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, undeletion may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion". These BLPPROD's fall into the "not following community discussions" group. Perhaps BLPPROD should be explicitly mentioned in this paragraph. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for pointing that out to me. I hadn't noticed those specific words, or had forgotten them. I do wonder, though, whether that really makes sense for PRODBLP. The reasons why PRODBLP was introduced were complex, with a huge amount of argument involved, so it's hard to tie everything down precisely, but the essential point was that policy was that an unsourced BLP should not be allowed to continue, but there was disagreement as to whether that should mean that they could be summarily deleted without warning or not. Letting such an unsourced BLP remain for a specific amount of time for sources to be provided was the compromise that was eventually reached, and extending that to make it indefinite (which it is if anyone can have the clock reset on request) seems to me to be contrary both to the intention of the agreement that led to that policy and to the wording of the policy itself. This seems to me to be one of the many cases when two different policies, developed independently of one another, come to be inconsistent with one another. I'll think about that. However, I do now see that there is a policy justification for your action, which previously I thought there wasn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

We could add a requirement for WP:REFUND, that the requester mentions a reference. But many times the requester does not even know why it was deleted, and may not be the original author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lesser Himalayan Strata

On 6 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lesser Himalayan Strata, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that rocks from the Lesser Himalayan Strata show that the northern part of the Indian plate submerged in the late Cretaceous period? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lesser Himalayan Strata. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2609 page views

Hi Graeme

I saw you have moved two articles from Draft to the Mainspace; Las Pavas and La Pita, two emerald mines/mining areas in the Western Emerald Zone of the Eastern Ranges of the Andes here in Colombia. Reading the article texts, however, they didn't seem ready for publication; proof-reading was missing as many sentences were either badly translated from Spanish, not even complete, the refs were wrongly assigned, etc. I have done considerable work on Las Pavas to improve the article. I will contact the author of the articles to ask him to perform similar work on La Pita. But for you as reviewer, in the future can you proof-read and edit the article and ask the author to do the same and for other Colombian geological drafts contact me for a review/work? Thanks a lot, I see we have quite some things in common; geology and the Netherlands as obvious ones. Tisquesusa (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Hydrogen Therapy

Hello Graeme, recently, the article I was working on (Molecular Hydrogen Therapy) was moved from Template to Draft; thankyou for that. I was still learning how to use the formatting and saving features in Sandbox. I have finished the article and was wondering if you could help with publishing it. I have already moved it from draft to article but was wondering if anything additional needs to be done to make it an official Wiki entry? Thankyou in Advance. Kmharpalani (talk) 05:54, 6 January (UTC)

Texas Technology Students Association

Good morning. I saw that you deleted my article for an unambiguous copyright violation, however the material in the claim in not copyrighted and our organization makes no claim to the copyrighted nature of it. I sit on the Board of Directors for the organization and have full authority to create the wiki article for the organization. Please consider restoring it, or let me know if you have further questions. Thank you! Ethridgem (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Geology applications of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

melt inclusions in mineral grains? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 00:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply