User talk:Graeme Bartlett/archive 26

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

Talk

Nigel Konstam

Dear Graeme, You will recall that back early January I requested you restore my draft article on Konstam on my Sandbox page where I was gradually improving it after initial comment last year. I had also requested to enquire what area you had specifically picked up that you felt was from copyright material. I can get Konstam to sign a form about that as required, or edit it if you are more specific. Also, Konstam has now had two new pictures taken which will replace the previous versions that also caused difficulty regarding copyright. Many thanks. Tony

Graeme, I would also add this as I cannot seem to find previous threads of our conversation on your site.

Just to be clear, I have drafted this whole article in my own style from scratch, and not copied (certainly knowingly) directly from http://www.verrocchio.co.uk/cms/index.php/sculpture. Inevitably, because I am having to provide evidence to substantiate my statements or claims some citations will refer to that, and other Konstam publications. I spent some time correcting the tone and citations, making sure that they are correctly formatted, stemming from the initial criticism of the draft article. Indeed, I have specifically asked Konstam to post copies of various letters and articles and so forth, written by third parties, so that they can be visible to the public at large and properly referenced. A number are quite dated - before the internet age, hence difficulty in locating them. Please can we all 'work together' to get this article appropriately promulgated?

Finally, Is this the licence/form of words that I need to get Konstam to agree to - and I assume post somewhere on the article talk pages?

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:

  	This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

You are free: • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work • to remix – to adapt the work Under the following conditions: • attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). • share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Many thanks again. Tony

for the text at http://www.verrocchio.co.uk/cms/index.php/sculpture, the copyright notice should be linked or placed on that page somewhere. Actually we prefer Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Generic license or CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL for text. He can use the WP:PERMIT process to send the email to the OTRS team. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. Tony Thornburn (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Graeme, I am getting Nigel Konstam to complete the necessary CC licences. In the meantime I have copied back to my Sandbox the draft I had submitted (having saved it on my computer on 30 Dec before submission) to work on again, but all the reference links are now messed up, because I copied the final page rather than the edit page. So as an interim measure I have copied an earlier version to at least get the article looking correct, but it was considerably edited not withstanding the citation aspects.

Please could you therefore copy-back what you had deleted and replace on my draft page please? I will then start re-editing.

New attributed images of Nigel Konstam and his model pictures have been taken so I will replace the previous ones (with certificates) - but it would help me if the previous ones were left in initially so that I can get the new ones located correctly (and then delete the others). As you will probably be aware, unless one is constantly drafting articles it is easy to forget what goes where etc.

Many thanks. Tony Thornburn (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Reason of deletation of an article

I had made a article Vishal Umavane it had recently deleted by you I want reason or restore my page. You ca get my reason of creating by searching Vishal umavane on Wikipedia or Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vumavane (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Doraemon media

This is a notice to say that I have created an [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doraemon media|AFD]] for this article you have restored. While I have no reason to criticise your handling of the request for undeletion I believe the full context is missing. The page isn't simply redundant due to the navbox, but the content is actually either present and/or linked from Doraemon and the Media list page simply isn't required anymore. The navbox does serve as as a replacement, but is not the entire reason the page should be deleted. It is cleanup of outdated articles and formats that the Anime and Manga project no longer use as much as it is redundant to the nav box.

This is a courtesy message and a response isn't expected, however if you wish to discuss it, your contributions are welcome.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Couple of issues

Hi Graeme. At the end of my tether with a serial vandal on the Adele page. The source in the article states her mother was 20 when Adele was two (Adele was born in 1988 so that would make her mothers birth year circa 1970). A nuisance editor keeps inserting her birth date as 1968 despite there being zero evidence, and is contradicted by the reliable source in the article. This vandal then sent me this link in some bizarre attempt to convince me she was born in 1968... http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/music/3473210/The-truth-behind-Adeles-struggle-to-stardom.html ...Adele is 22 in the article, and it states her mother is 40...so as Adele was born in 1988 that would again confirm her mothers birth circa 1970. 1968 is impossible and the vandal has repeatedly ignored this. Need admin assistance on this (and also go through their previous posts where the date is changed). The second issue is the David Bowie page has become unlocked, and given the huge traffic at the minute it is ripe for nuisance ip edits which have since started...so seeking an extension on that page (few weeks perhaps). Thanks for your assistance.RyanTQuinn (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I have semi protected, David Bowie again for 10 days. I have undone the change to 1968. But it is not vandalism, just a dispute. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. I've one more request...Alan Rickman who has just died, his article is being met with heavy traffic and as a result heavy vandalism from ip addresses. So a short term lock would be ideal (perhaps a week?). Regards Adele, the reason I called it vandalism (after many many edits) was that the two sources both claimed a circa 1970 birth..."when Adele was two, her 20 year old mother"...and "22 year old Adele and her 40 year old mother" (and this from the source the editor bizarrely posted to me)...so 18 year gap with both...Adele born in 1988....a 1968 birth of her mother is impossible in regards to both sources. I want accuracy, I'm not pushing any year...only what the sources state. I asked the editor repeatedly to provide a 1968 source and none came...a database which doesn't specify an individual identity is not a proper source. Cheers for your input on this matter.RyanTQuinn (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Alan Rickman semi protected for 3 days. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Graeme. I've edited it back to circa 1970 as per the sources...and common sense. My edit summary reads as follows; "Not leaving this nonsense sitting like this; "Adele born in 1988, mother Penny born 1968, Evans left when Adele was two, leaving her 20-year-old mother to raise her. Anyone reading this will give up". The article is killed in the first two sentences as it stood previously. A database is not a proper source. I was in the same classroom with someone who shared my name. It needs to be a specific source that refers directly to the individual in question..and in two sources, both stated an 18 year age gap. I will take this to talk as you have requested.RyanTQuinn (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply.

Sure thing. Sorry about that. --XenaDance-- (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC) --XenaDance--

• I have been doing much the same thing as you! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Flow-based Programming by JzG

Hi Graeme, thanks for your support with my unblocking issue. I would really appreciate a little advice: I am unhappy with JzG's changes to the above-mentioned article, and he has not been forthcoming in explaining his logic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#Flow-Based_Programming_primary-inline_tags - and I have issues with some of his other changes as well. However, I don't have the least idea on how to go about getting some of the deleted information back into the article, while still up to WP standards, given that it is about a technology that is becoming very important in many areas of computer science. There are a number of links supporting this statement in the article, so it is not some figment of my imagination! While I have the impression that WP is not well-adapted to describing emerging technologies (although FBP is over 40 years old now), I think there must be some middle ground so that readers can at least see how to get more information. IMO JzG could have suggested (or made) constructive changes, rather than just cutting rather drastically! I see a number of conflict resolution mechanisms in WP, but I have no idea which, if any, would be appropriate. I also don't want to get into an unnecessary war. Help would be much appreciated. Cheers. Jpaulm (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jpaulm:. Actually I was not involved in your unblock. But for the autobiography I did not restore it, instead referring you to the wrong person Guy Macon when it should have been JzG. Really the userfication should have included the whole history for copyright credit. Anyway on the topic of Flow-based programming, if you have any issue with the content, since you are not permitted to edit the page, you must propose what you would like to change on the talk:Flow-based programming page. Primary sources are allowed to support simple facts, but not controversial ones or to prove notability. I see that JzG has removed text by claiming that it is either original research or promotion. So to avoid these claims, please make sure the proposals include references, particularly ones not written by you alone. Because of the limitation placed on you with the unblock, it may be more enjoyable for you to edit other pages on Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so promptly! I do have a number of questions, for which I apologize! 1) I guess the History is gone if we ever restore my status as a WP notable - could this be a problem? 2) For now, I am concentrating on the FBP article, not the autobiography, as JzG has decided I am not notable - even though it was decided the other way about 10 years ago 3) Is FBP controversial - I didn't think so, after 40 years, and the large number of products now using its concepts - but I may be wrong! 4) If I put a proposed History section up on the talk page, is there a way to get an administrator to modify it to conform to WP rules - as I really don't understand most of them?! :-) 5) It's not a question of "enjoying". The History section is not acceptable in its present form - JzG did a real hatchet job on it. 6) I did include a number of references, but I put them in References or External Links - I assumed people would look there, but maybe that's the wrong place...? 7) Sorry to be dumb, but I still don't understand JzG's "primary-inline" tags - 3 of those articles were not written by me, and the one that was was thoroughly vetted and approved by experts within IBM (I could drop that one if you require it). Thanks again for your help, and best regards. Jpaulm (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that one of the refs that JzG "primary-inlined" has my name on it when it shouldn't have. I have asked JzG whether correcting that might change some of his decisions. Apologies! Jpaulm (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just received personal abuse

Hi Graeme. It's not often i contact admins but I have no other option on this. At the bottom of my talkpage Client5 just told me to #### off ####. The user hasnt edited long and already has had constant disputes (the latest on the Amy Winehouse page). RyanTQuinn (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have redacted the comment. You do not have to leave this sort of thing on your talk page! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please restore Talk:Samra

You restored Samra back on the 5th of January, and it is now the subject of an AFD. Could you also restore the talk page for us? I think having the talk page history would allow those of us less knowledgeable on the subject to understand the arguments expressed in the AFD. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Bowie/Adele protection

Graeme, I'm requesting more longer term page protection for both Adele and David Bowie. Both pages had indefinite locks but this changed when an admin lock was inserted to prevent any edits other than from admins..and once that expired the page then became unprotected. Surely when an admin lock is installed, once that period is over the page should return to its previous status. Ultimately the admin lock only serves to make the page more susceptible to vandals in the longer term. The traffic on both pages are extremely high, much higher than articles with existing long term locks. Adele is averaging 20k per day, Bowie (before his death) around 8 to 10k. The Adele page is manageable with the lock, plus her page is only going to continue being among the busiest on the site for the foreseeable (awards show appearances; upcoming Garmmys, Brits, plus new single releases)...Bowie's being a featured article plus the high traffic also leaves it susceptible. For this reason (the same reason they were given indefinite lock status in the first place) I'd like to see their protection returned. Thanks.RyanTQuinn (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I extended protection for Adele, it had not become unprotected yet as you feared. But for David Bowie, protection has expired and vandalism or disruptive editing has not restarted. Normally we prefer to allow IP editors to edit constructively. WP:RFPP is the preferred place to ask if you do see trouble that needs protection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahh ok. I had seen you lock other articles in the past so thought it was customary to alert an admin directly if an article was being messed with. Cheers for the Adele lock, that will save a lot of cleanup. Regards Bowie, I ≠haven't edited much at all on it (bar a couple of edits in the past week), but I especially hate to see disruptive edits on a featured article. Previous editors put so much work into those. I've see articles lose featured article status because of endless weak edits and outright vandalism. Looking at the Bowie article I see it has had seven different reverts in it's first 18 hours since being unlocked, and all those edits from ip addresses or editors with few edits. More experienced editors (and non vandals) have better understanding of what is and isn't encyclopedic content. A featured article with heavy traffic is much more susceptible to lose its status when unlocked.RyanTQuinn (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions about ExxonMobile RfC closure

Thank you for closing the RfC here [[1]]. I do have a question about the justification for closing. I understand that based on a basic count of votes the exact statement would be included. However, I didn't see anything thing regarding a consideration of the various arguments as well as the numerous issues with the way the RfC was conducted.

• The RfC was stated in a less than neutral way because for all but the last week or so the RfC it was NOT clear that the MJ reference was in the article, just not with the exact sentence HughD proposed. Thus some editors may not have realized that support was approving an exact quote, not a general inclusion. Almost all editors support some form of conclusion. I would hope we would have an overwhelming consensus to include an exact sentence.
• Second, a recent RfC for the same reference here [2] resulted in "include but no consensus on exact format". I think that would be a reasonable conclusion here as well since I don't see an actual consensus for the exact sentence.
• Third, the NPOVN[[3]] and RSN[[4]] discussions from last fall were generally against inclusion of the opinion aspects of the article and only supported inclusion of the facts contained in the article. The quoted sentence was seen by those noticeboard discussions as including both fact and editorial opinion.

Would you mind offering a bit more information in your closing. Do you think the article should include the exact sentence (this is how HughD will expect the result to be used) or just inclusion in general and allow editors to again decide on the talk page? Thanks Springee (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I will see if I can expand my rationale. The second and third point should have been referred to in the RFC, but since they were not, their results are superseded/irrelevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to add the third point to the original RfC but the links were initially moved [5] and then deleted [6]. Given the highly contentious nature of the original RfC I didn't feel I could easily add the RSN and NPOVN material into the original RfC without being accused of creating bias. #2 didn't really occur to me until later since I was fully aware of the issues and what HughD was attempting to do by asking if we should include an exact sentence. This one really should be taken into consideration when deciding if the "support" was really for the exact sentence or just inclusion in general. All previous results were for inclusion in general, never for an exact sentence. I think exact sentence would require a very high level of consensus vs general inclusion. Anyway, those are my thoughts and concerns. Thank you for listening. Springee (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Graeme Bartlett. You recently closed the RfC on ExxonMobil with a result: support for inclusion of the statement "In December 2009 Mother Jones magazine said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers." However, as you can see the issue was quite controversial and therefore it would be useful if there would be also argumentations which arguments were taken into account to reach to that result. Different policies were referred to support inclusion as also to oppose inclusion, and therefore it would important to know how these different policies were considered. Also, please clarify how was taken or was not taken into account the fact that almost all comments were made before the relevant section was split into a separate article ExxonMobil climate change controversy and right now the relevant subsection is only a summary of the split off section. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I discovered only after creating a new section that the similar thread is already opened. Sorry for this. Beagel (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Yet another quibble I'm afraid. I've no objection to the "sense" of your closure (like the two editors above I'd rather it was the other way round, but don't really care). However, did you notice the "Please be aware that almost all comments in this RfC were made before the section under discussion was split to ExxonMobil climate change controversy and right now the section here includes only a summary of that article."? I think there is an ambiguity in where you've closed the addition-should-be. I think the natural sense of the closure is that it should be added to ExxonMobil climate change controversy; but I also suspect that those very keen to see the statement in the main article might be unhappy with that. If you could clarify whether your closure definitively refers to one article or another, or if it is up to us to sort that out, it might be helpful. Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I will second the above that it's not clear if this goes in the parent or split article. I also am unclear if the revised closure means the current statement (now in the split off article) is OK given that it does include the article and most of the outside editors wouldn't be aware of the current statement given HughD didn't include it. Thanks Springee (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I've made the edit to the other page here so you can see the context it would have, if that helps. On the main EM page it looks like this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for stepping up to this contentious formal admin close. Sadly the edit warring continues. Sigh. Sadly the close has left us with back where we started five weeks ago, with the tenacious emboldened and prevailing, but now with the many of our colleagues who contributed to the RfC discussion supporting the addition in good faith greatly disheartened. The article talk page participants were not notified of this discussion here. If your best assessment of the consensus is further discussion is necessary, respectfully might a recommendation to extend the RfC be more appropriate? Would you please consider further adjusting the close, to endorse the content and refs supported by our community, without prejudice to further refinement via additional talk page discussion or failing that via RfC? In other words, clarify that the community supported content is the "new normal", and clarify that edit warring in the wake of an RfC on a DS topic is disruptive? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you again for your time on this formal RfC close. Sadly your close without prejudice to further discussion is being read as a license to edit war. I believe the views expressed here in this thread on your talk page are not representative of the views of the participants in the RfC. The article talk page was not notified of this off-article discussion of the close. Respectfully may I ask, do you mind if I notify our community directly below the closed RfC? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nitrogen difluoride

Hi Graeme. Did you mean the list of extra reading to be just a list of ref numbers only? Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Aoziwe: the list of extra reading here are references that I planned to add later once the text was written based on what that reference said. This article was really a draft that was not quite ready, but someone was interested in this topic, so I made it live. So if you know a way where the reference can still be listed, but the numbers disappear, so as to make a list, that would be good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Does this look better?

Hi @Graeme: I have taken the liberty and been bold and made the suggested change below. Feel free to revert if you do not like it. Aoziwe (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Aoziwe (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Graeme: Looks like someone did not like the reading list !? Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

>>Sample extract follows (obviously the {{PAGENAME}}|section_name works (I have checked) correctly when in situ). A little bit more typing but does the trick I think? What do you think?>>

The free fluoride ion goes on to react with xenon cations.

Nitrogen difluoride can be consumed further to yield nitrogen monofluoride.

NF₂ + e⁻ → NF + F⁻

Extra reading

• Ab initio calculations on some small radicals by the unrestricted hartree-fock method
• A theoretical study of the bond-bond interaction force constant in XF2 molecules
• Decomposition of the Electronically Excited Difluoramino Free Radical

References

>>End of sample extract<<

RFPP

Hello Graeme, I noticed this change and was thinking maybe you could look this one over, since they are both musically related. cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 06:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, but music related is not my specialty though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry for my assumption :P Mlpearc (open channel) 15:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for fixing my stupidity in signing my changes on a policy page. Brain apparently not working in the morning. Hobit (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

ani

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Where Sinners Meet/The Dover Road

Hi. I have no issue with discussing this if you wish, other than I'm simply attempting to avoid making work for other editors. Before I open a discussion, I was wondering why you felt that this wasn't cut and dry? All 3 sources in the current article refer to the film by the name Where Sinners Meet (imdb, bfi, and the Perth Daily News). In addition, AFI (and TMC, of course, since they get most of their basic info from AFI), and contemporaneous sources like The Film Daily, Motion Picture Herald, etc. all refer to film by the Sinners title (with the exception of a single reference to it as Where Lovers Meet in Variety). In fact, nowhere is the final film referred to by the Road title (although contemporaneous sources do refer to it by that title during the production phase). So, before I open a general discussion, I was wondering why you felt this wasn't cut and dry? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969: It was the first few words in the article, where it says the title is "The Dover Road". If you edit this lede to make it look like the real name is "Where Sinners Meet" and how it came to be called the other name later on it would be more convincing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Made the changes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Alien (1979) Space Jockey.png.jpg

This CSD was originally declined by me. The user who first tagged the image then went and unlinked it[7] and retagged it. I don't think this deletion was a smart one, nor in keeping with the spirit of G5. Would you reconsider? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reduced and renamed this. file:Alien (1979) Space Jockey.jpg. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Canberra meetup invitation

Hi, you're invited to the Canberra meetup which will take place at King O'Malley's Irish Pub in Civic on 17 February 2016. Bidgee (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

List of entertainers who died during a performance

I see you reverted my change and called it irresponsible and provided no proof of said discussion, then proceeded to change the list criteria without discussion. I'm not sure if this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black or what, but a discussion had begun on the talk page of the article which you have taken no part in. I would appreciate you revert yourself and take part in the discussion as you are currently not helping in any way.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of discussion, I was using a small screen when I did that. It makes it hard to edit a lot of pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Buffalo Bills logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Buffalo Bills logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Antoine Saout

Can you main space this for me? I added the necessary sources, article should be ready. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• You could have submitted it first! Then the tool can do the whole job. However I have moved it for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! I couldn't do that because a redirect blocked the move. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Sol Forman

Can you restore to my userspace instead of draft space I am going to finish working on it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done see User:Valoem/Sol Forman. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you also restore this talk page Talk:Tony Luke's? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft Nigel Konstam

Graeme, I believe I have addressed the points you made last on my Konstam draft page, particularly adding a copyright notice linked to that page at reference 2, and sorting the images for CC licence. Please can the submission be reviewed so that it can be promulgated soonest? Tony Thornburn (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have submitted it for you. I am not much online at the moment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

First observation of gravitational waves

Why did you feel the need to protect that page? No one was violating 3RR or anything.

It is a content dispute. These other editors are trying to hide the fact that gravitational waves have been measured to propagate at the same speed as EM waves. 98.118.36.105 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There was too much reverting going on. At least there is talk now. I only protected for 24 hours as this should be easily resolvable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding a Spanish version of my article Meso-zeaxanthin:

Hello, I have a spanish translation of my article that I want to upload to Wikipedia and then link to the english version. Can you advise how I go about this?

Thanks--Macularcarotenoids (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Macularcarotenoids: first you will need to know the name in Spanish. if it is the same as English you can click here to create: es:Meso-zeaxanthin. (Otherwise change the name after the :es: to the correct name). Then paste your text into the page. Under the language there whould appear an "add links" like. Click on that and you will be taken to a page that you can add the language entries for the titles. This is on wikiddata which is somewhat different and more restricted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for giving AWB. Regards, Prof TPMS (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft: Mahmoud Sabri

Dear Graeme, Thank you for undeleting my article 6 months ago. Unfortunately, I have been critically ill over the last 5 months and now I am getting better. I would like to add new references to the article and resubmit it. Thanks,Y.Sabri Ymsabri (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Einstein syndrome

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Einstein syndrome. 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. Ylevental (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

H Dice Game

please userfy+ talk page. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

userfied, but there is no talk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

also can you restore the full history plus talk page for Oscar's grind? This is definately notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

there are no deleted revisions for Oscar's Grind. Are you sure they exist? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I thought they did because the talk page was delete. I think I was wrong. I'm gonna restore H Dice as a contested prod. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

H Dice Game was not deleted via prod, so I don't think moving it back can count as a contest. It was deleted as promotional, so you should attempt to fix that issue. It is not fixed yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Surtees TS16

Hello,
I wonder if you could clarify your recent decision to decline speedy deletion of the draft article Surtees TS16 which has now been 'accepted'. You said that little seemed to have been copied but the copy-vio report said 'violation 93.4% confidence' (report here). Looking at the pink highlighted text in the source and article columns, it is getting close to identical and even the strange prose/tense/capitalisation of the 'original' has been carried over into the article page. In case the link to the copy-vio doesn't work here is a one to the page with the speedy notice in place.

By way of background, the creator of this article is a long-term, IP hopping, possibly well-intentioned, but thoroughly disruptive editor of articles related to the Wiki F1 project. Other editors have spent many hours (understatement) cleaning up his strangely written submissions, but we have only just caught on that they have been C&P from poorly translated foreign websites. In the last week, six other drafts, by the same editor, have been deleted for copy-vio problems. Thanks for any help or comments you can give. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: When I look at the purported page copied, http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr239.html it looks nothing like what the copyvio report says is there, and nothing like the page written on Wikipedia. So something has gone wrong with the copyvio report somehow. The corenbot report https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DSurtees_TS16%26oldid%3D708075944&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grandprix.com%2Fgpe%2Frr239.html&minwords=3&minchars=13&removequotations=&removenumbers= shows only things like names are duplicate. Any way SwisterTwister likes to have stuff nominated for deletion, so I can be sure that he also checked out the page for infringement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

OK I see, I think he must have copied directly from the Polish wiki site which I presume is OK if not ideal? I must have missed the 'wiki' part on the highlighted summary results line. Easy mistake to make when you come upon the last in a series of drafts which were, and have been deleted as, copy-vios. I won't comment on the review process generally! Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If he did copy from another compatibly licensed web page or Wiki, then credit needs to be given via a link in an edit summary or talk page. (unless the writer owns the copyright) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

We've been pretty sure that he copies most of what he does, for months, but hadn't got 'proof' as it were. He rarely leaves edit summaries (unless they're abusive), immediately removes any messages on talk pages, if he actually sees them, as the IP changes daily, and hardly ever engages in any sort of discussion. We think he may be very young and that English is not his first language. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Up Country Studios, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deja Voodoo, Nobody Lives Forever and Among The Missing (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) 10:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline of Speedy Deletion of Samson and Sons

Hello Admin, I just found that you declined the article which I requested for Speedy Deletion. IE; Samson and Sons. Also I found that you commented by "seems like a big developer, so speedy delete declined". The article is paid article See Talk:Samson and Sons. The article didn't have any reference for stating the importance of that to be encyclopedic, nothing even from Google News, also their website is not working/out of order. If its a big developer their should be some references from any online newspapers reporting about their latest projects and all, as on this case I cannot even find any. Hope you'll revise your decision. Thanks! JackTracker (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

So this should probably be deleted via AFD or prod, but if it is paid prod will likely fail. Lack of stuff in Google search is not a reason to speedy delete, as it might be in Hindi or some other unreadable language. Being paid for is not a speedy delete reason either. How about you start off an AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 March

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 Migrant students educational difficulties page, your edit caused a redundant 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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of CSD for "Pseudo-educational television"

You really think it is likely that anybody will ever type "Pseudo-educational television" into the search box?

...I guess you do, since you removed the CSD tag. I just don't think that anything anybody can think up that can arguably point to an existing article (or section, in this case) should count as a "plausible redirect". It certainly isn't a typo... Jeh (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a typo, but a related concept. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a grand total of 7 occurrences of the term in the entire Google index. One of them is the redirect here, all the rest are blogs (two of them are at the same blog). It's a made-up name that a completely negligible number of people have made up and with no RSs for its use. What happened to "Wikipedia is not for things someone made up one day"? I suggest that WP:R#DELETE reason 8 applies. (and that's my last thought on the matter; I won't pester you further.) Jeh (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeh. In your edit summary while nominating this article for speedy deletion, you noted "redirect created by (so far) vandalism-only account". I created the redirect. Am sure you might not have intended to refer to me as a vandalism only account. I am mentioning it for the record only. And hi Graeme. Thanks for chipping in. See you around (you're doing some absolutely amazing work here - I am your fan). Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I'd seen it in BLUKCA‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edit history and assumed they created the redirect. In fact they had created a stub article of that name which you then changed to a redirect. BLUKCA was of course the vandalism-only account I was referring to (it has been blocked twice, the second time indef). My apologies for that confusion. Jeh (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-educational television listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pseudo-educational television. Since you had some involvement with the Pseudo-educational television redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jeh (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Declined Speedy Deletion of Ajitabha Bose

Hi I had tagged the page under speedy deletion WP:G4 which you declined. However, it seems the deletion discussion exists but under a different name over here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ajitabh_Bose. Ajitabha Bose and Ajitabh Bose seem to be the same person if you compare the article on simple english wikipedia and the current article. Essentially, the person seems to be notable for only one event. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes that looks to be an AFD for the same person. I won't object if you nominate it, this time pointing to that AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I found the previous Draft:Ajitabha_Bose with AfC rejections as well. Yup, I will nominate it again. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Declined Speedy Deletion of List of protected areas of British Columbia

Hi there. Can you explain what you are looking for here? Are you saying that this should be a PROD? I thought my rationale was legitimate, and don't see how the tag should be removed while a discussion is going on. --Natural R_X 14:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Csd decline

I'd say this was too bureaucratic. 103.6.159.91 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)