User talk:Graeme Bartlett/archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Graeme Bartlett

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peripitus (talk | contribs) at 06:05, 16 March 2017 (→‎Closure of FFD: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Oswaldo González

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

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

Reference errors on 11 February

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

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

'no redirects to categories'

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

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

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

Start Class Blitz

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

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

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

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

Reference errors on 15 February

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

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

DYK for Pre-collisional Himalaya

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

Reference errors on 16 February

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

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

Userfication

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

Applications of 3D printing

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination for Life sciences in the United States

Hi Graeme

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

Many thanks

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

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

Single revdel

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

Fair Use in Australia discussion

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

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

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited V1309 Scorpii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stellar envelope (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) 10:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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

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

Rating Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kripparrian

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

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

FYI

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

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

Speedy deletion of Nils Bildt

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

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

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

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

Closure of FFD

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett/archive_28&oldid=770566942"