This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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_23.
Hi, I usurped from Shriram to Muon. I was granted permission to use AWB. Now I can't login with my new name. Shall I place a new request or is that just a bug and can you correct it? Here is the link that usurpedMuon 10:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this article because it was made by a promotional account that was linked to promotional and paid editing. The sockpuppet investigation started on the 26th of October and the article was created on the 3rd of October - but given the numerous issues and source of the article, I thought it was the best judgement call.
Seeing as you restored it earlier, I thought I'd let you know. If you think I made the wrong decision, please let me know and we can talk. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for deletion. I wanted an independent person to review it, rather than me just doing it. So thanks, you have done that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of DNA base flipping at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Philroc 15:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Look below my second review which was on the alt hook.[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Paraptosis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme, I just reverted your edit to this DYK nomination template.
First, because the template had been closed. As it says at the top, "Please do not modify this page."
Second, because you added new text below the bottom of the template. This means that your comment just shows up, ghost-like, on the T:TDYK page, though the template itself no longer appears because it is still closed.
Finally, there are clearly still issues in the reference listings, including 8, 9, 14, and 15, and they have not been addressed by the nominator/creator despite time having been given. I'm sure Muboshgu noted this fact when he reviewed the nomination over three weeks after Bundaberger's most recent edits.
You're certainly welcome to discuss this on the template talk page, article talk page, or WT:DYK, if you wish. However, the nomination template should remain closed unless a consensus emerges to reopen it. I would want Bundaberger to make a case for reopening, given the lack of response so far to the talk-page requests for action. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a BLP prod that I restored, and we can undelete if the requestor suggests they can reference it. That's why its a prod. But for a real BLP prod I would reset the timer to delete in a week if no improvement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested this to the administrator who deleted the page, with no luck – he told me to ask somebody else. --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 11:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paraptosis, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that cancer cells can die from paraptosis after treatment with certain anti-cancer substances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paraptosis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, 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.
how are you? I am having a difficult time trying to figure out the copyright for the image i have uploaded. I have created my own but used tips from a scientific article.
Also, when i try to tag the copyright, how do i do this? Mishasubz (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC) thanks Misha[reply]
Hi, Mishasubz. It's nice to include links when asking for help like this. I was able to find your file, it is File:Process_of_preparing_amino_allyl-labelled_cDNA.jpg. The source you got it from his here. It's a little bit close to the original, but I think it's different enough not to worry too much. You are right that you should tag it with a license. I see that you tried to do that, and put {{CC-BY-MS-3.0}} on the page. I'm not sure where you got that from, but you can see that it is red -- which means it's a broken link. There's a list at Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/Free_licenses#Creative_Commons. I took the liberty of changing it to {{cc-by-3.0}}. If that's not the license you want, make sure you change it to something that doesn't show up as a red link. Klortho (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Klortho, thank you so much for your input and help, greatly appreciated!Mishasubz (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Graeme, I saw you active at AWB so coming to you directly. Actually I want to use WP:AWB but I cannot access it, since my name is not added here. It's given that any sysop can add a user to that list. So, I thought if you can add my name. Thank you for your help. JimCarter(talk) 03:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Chihiro number[edit]
See WP:ANI - the sources used to establish the name Chihiro numbers don't exist, this was an elaborate hoax certainly by an experienced editor. A quick search for " Mueller, Joseph (2001). "Implications of the Chihiro Numbers on Computational Timespeed". New York Journal of Mathematics 7: 278–289." and/or "Ghentsky, Christian (2003). "Comparative Growth Rates of Chihiro Numbers and Derived Sequences". Journal of Integer Sequences 6 (3): 53–59." would have established these were fake references. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mountains of Io, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that many mountains on Io(example pictured) have straight margins? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, 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.
Since you were the only to comment on my call for assistance, I was wondering if you could explain more about adding the rest of the logo. If possible, could you possibly do the changes yourself? I really want to do it myself so I could learn but I don't want to screw up the entire logo.
You might want to comment at Talk:Halite where there is a proposal to merge halide and NaCl. Well intentioned but naive, in my view. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit from Plasmic physics.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, it looked dubious. But I also find that the references there do not support the statement either way, they support the dehydration products fact. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Graeme, Thank you for your temporary block on the above unregistered IP user. Frankly, I find that the edits are so offensive - a longer block might have been more appropriate? Kind regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My block reflects my guess as the time scale of the damage from this IP. I don't know how long the vandal will have this IP. However if they come back then a longer block is warranted. I won't protest anyone else extending the block anyway. Perhaps you want a revision deletion? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How much of the article do you think is copyvio? If a lot, some sort of tag should be placed on it. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I've increased your protection on this article to full, rather than template. This matches what you said you'd applied at WP:RFPP, I'm assuming this was a misclick. Hope that's OK with you! GedUK 12:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have used the correct notice at WP:RFPP. I don't know if template editors will do this sort of work to update pages on request though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editors User:Ged UK and User:Graeme Bartlett - you (understandably) put a lock on the Sid Dinsdale page. However, I believe the lock should have been placed on the version prior to the changes made by anonymous user with IP address "68.13.65.33" as they included the assertion that "To date, Sid and Dawn Dinsdale have contributed over 93% of their federal political contributions to Republicans," without providing a source to that claim. I would request that this line be deleted during the lock on this page.
Please note that I did request a valid source for this claim in my original revisions of it:
03:11, 6 May 2014 SunlightWriter (talk | contribs) . . (8,548 bytes) (-115) . . (Undid revision 607265738 by 67.3.210.45 (talk)This assertion requires a source to be included. The general landing page for "Open Secrets" does not support this claim.)
03:17, 6 May 2014 SunlightWriter (talk | contribs) . . (8,767 bytes) (-192) . . (→Political Activity: This assertion requires a source to be included. The general landing page for "Open Secrets" does not support this claim.)
Thank you for your consideration. SunlightWriter (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)SunlightWriter[reply]
Hey Graeme. The Neymar article has high traffic and is frequently vandalised by ip users, and it's only going to get even more so with the World Cup coming up. Requesting page protection (possibly long term protection) as there won't be any let up. Thanks,Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC
Orphaned non-free image File:Jones College garland logo.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Jones College garland logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Intercrater plains on Mercury[edit]
Graeme, this has been sitting for over two weeks since the review, so in case you didn't see it, I'm posting this now. Please get to it soon: none of the issues have been addressed, though the article has since been expanded a bit by its creator. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Graeme Bartlett. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Thanks very much for your help on the JHU Molecular Biology course project this past semester. You gave really great feedback to us and to the students, and your reviews and comments were a huge help.
I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bloop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mermaids (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) 08:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
…see interspersed italic comments, and final proposal at [1]. Written at the time, and just discovered as not posted. Cheers, and respect your involvement. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick affirming reply. We will see where it goes. The non-primary sources emphasis was to avoid things like cryospectroscopic (advanced pchem) results making their way in support too detailed interpretations of what goes on in basic chemical transformations (like the acid chloride prep, where I cite the Liverpool/Clayden stream of pedagogy). In any case, cheers, and we will see. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for that purpose I support secondary sources. The problem with primary sources can be drawing conclusions they don't make, using the speculation contained therein, the findings are unimportant, or they later prove to be wrong. Many of my writings use primary sources because the secondary sources are not available to me, or do not exist on the topic. The secondary or tertiary sources are often reviews in paywalled articles or in textbooks also not available. (GB?)
Primary sources have a place, but the trend has to be away from them over time. These days, Google books is an exceptional place for book chapters, and for reviews. And you are right, chemistry as a field has been, and will continue to be very slow to open up its publications (for some good reasons I think). So, if you find a good review source, still add what you can from the abstract and title, and add the citation (even if if opaque, at least to further reading.) These are improvements, and others of us can come along and pull further material, once the source has been ID'd. Meanwhile, as a way point, primary articles have to do. Just realize, that the most easily accessible article are that way for a reason. JACS is JACS, and Angewandte is Angewandte. No getting around their quality, though closed they are. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to appreciate you for handling the AWB requests.
I was thinking if the conditions of AWB' access can be made harder. There are number of semi-automated programs, such as WPCleaner, AutoEd, etc. There are scripts of number of users. If AWB' access has been made harder, I think we will probably see more constructive editing to wikipedia as well as any edit from AWB. OccultZone (Talk) 03:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear what you are saying here, are you saying that getting AWB has become harder, or are you asking me to make it harder? Those semiautomated scripts I count as automated editing so I expect to see enough non-automated editing to prove the person can edit Wikipedia correctly. So people that make grammatical errors or spelling mistakes all the time should not be using AWB. Anyway a conversation about this should really get a consensus on a project talk page rather than just you and me deciding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked if it can be made harder. Not that it is so hard to get. It will be a good idea to bring it to the talk page. I will first discuss it with another admin. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk) 13:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are far better qualified than me to add sense to the categorisation of this topic. So in your copious free time... Fluvial cirques- I am thinking of Cirque de Navacelles and the two Cirque du Bout du Monde. Each time anyone does work on cats- we end up with links to glacial landforms and the fluvial ones are ommitted. Playing Monty Python music -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are loads of terms floating around commons:Category:Cirques in France give a few more. Steephead valley, Récullée and more, from what I can see on commons- a lot of the material is mislabelled. I am not sure if it was the Côte d'Or Bout de Monde that I camped in two decades ago that was fluvial in formation- we drank directly from the stream and breakfasted on figs from the tree collected by a compliant German ten year old.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that we should go through the list demanding attention, the reasons are on the talk page. I think I have marked three for attention, one needs checking for NPOV. Cryovolcano wanted an expert on the topic to check content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the point of the discussion I started is that there is always a better way, usually involving a more specific tag on the article page, for example, {{NPOV}} and {{Expert-subject}}. If you think otherwise, let's discuss it at WT:GEOL first. Otherwise, it might end up being wasted effort. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Spontaneous fires" really a good name for a category? There are conflicting arguments about what is regarded as a "spontaneous fire" - it certainly could be added that most fires are spontaneous - and some of the articles added to Category:Spontaneous fires don't seem appropriate members of the category. Ateshgah of Baku is about a temple and is rather vague about how the fires in the temple were started. There's no evidence in Burning Mountain that says the fire was spontaneous. It wasn't until 1829 that the fire was determined to be a coal seam fire and nobody seems to know how it started. Even the source of the Centralia mine fire is not exactly known. Coal seam fire only says coal seam fires "often started". It doesn't say that all coal seem fires are spontaneous. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is supposed to be for fires that are permanent and in the natural environment. I suspect most were started by humans though. The temple ones appear to be based on a previous natural gas fire. Can you think of a better name? I took the name from the section in eternal flame. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spontaneous is generally taken to mean "sudden, without warning". The use of spontaneous in eternal flame is questionable because some of the examples used can't be regarded as spontaneous. Coal doesn't suddenly combust, it takes some source to heat the coal before a fire occurs. Unician's proposal seems more than reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice, and less verbose than my original suggestion. Unician∇ 15:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer your suggestion. If I walk up to a natural gas vent with a match and light the gas stream, the resultant flame is a persistent man-made fire, not a persistent natural fire. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The modification that you had proposed for the DYK rules, the whole discussion seemed to have went nowhere. I would like to know that what can be done about that. Thanks for proposing though. OccultZone (Talk) 17:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had commented on the "Talk:DYK", which is very relevant for this issue. The user talk page you've referred, well that's is where you would've got to know about the proposed modification. I shall wait for some hours or days, and I will propose the final voting. We are probably close enough to the resolution on the talk page of DYK. OccultZone (Talk) 00:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been transferred to an archive by a bot. I guess, most of the people supported the proposed rewording. Furthermore, the 'oppose' votes really had no solid argument. Those who joined for leaving comment(like Carter), they could still recognize the side effects. What you think? Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the atropisomer article, to see if you like where it went with my edit. All your concerns not yet addressed. Going for basic content, citation, and appearance improvements first. If the subject is one of real interest, see the added presentation from the Stoltz group at Caltech under Further reading. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, That was a substantial improvement, making the text much clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graeme, because we were involved in this recent discussion involving a template in mass use with a number of citation references, I'd like your input at an RfC I've started regarding Template:Geographic reference which is another template in much more use that also contains citation references (as ref tags) but in a similar mindset as the Lunar Crater references one. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing my the article, "Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing." I was wondering if you could give me some additional guidance on how to revise the article in order for it to meet the notability criteria for academic journals. My first question has to do with The WAC Clearinghouse at Colorado State University. It is the primary scholarly exchange for WAC research. While it publishes some material (not Double Helix), it is also a database for scholarly and pedagogical research. Double Helix is one of only seven academic journals that has been selected by The WAC Clearinghouse/Colorado State University for inclusion on the exchange. This would seem to satisfy the criteria #1 for notability: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. Without knowing what The WAC Clearinghouse is, readers might not realize this. I posted an external link to The WAC Clearinghouse, but are there additional steps I might take in the article to convey more about The WAC Clearinghouse? My second question has to do with criteria 3# for notability: The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history. That the journal emerges out of the formation of the nation's first regional WAC association would seem to make it part of the unfolding history of the WAC/WID movement in the U.S. This is chronicled in the referenced article (as a first-hand account by the author) and in the external link to NEWACC. Is there a way that I might further clarify the history to a reader unfamiliar with the WAC movement in the U.S.? Last question: Could you point to something in, for example, the Wikipedia entry for Comparative Literature Studies, which makes it appropriate for Wikipedia, but which my article lacks for Double Helix? Comp Lit Studies seems to be a typical example of an academic journal in Wikipedia, which I used as a model for writing my entry. Thanks for your help, Graeme--much appreciated! Best, Blitzenrupff
22:22:58, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Blitzenrupff[edit]
I understand that the reference--the article published in Double Helix by Smart--might not be construed as independent, and therefore isn't enough to meet criteria #3. I'm still a bit lost on criteria #1, though, which isn't a matter of referencing. (The WAC Clearinghouse is completely independent of Double Helix, if you were including that as a reference.) According to Wikipedia, meeting one of the criteria satisfies the standard for notability. What might I do differently to meet criteria #1? I can't figure out what specifically I'm missing for that one. (Quite a few entries for academic journals, e.g. Comparative Literature Studies, don't include any references at all.)
Thanks again, Blitzenrupff
23:26:15, 29 June 2014 review of submission by Blitzenrupff[edit]
Thanks for your quick response, Graeme. As I mentioned in my first follow-up, The WAC Clearinghouse is not a publisher of the journal. The WAC Clearinghouse at Colorado State University is the authoritative exchange for national and international WAC scholarship. Archived journals (which were never published by The WAC Clearinghouse) are part of the database it maintains; current journals, such as Double Helix, are linked at the exchange because they have been selected by The Clearinghouse/CSU as the major journals in the field. While this is all common knowledge in the field, I do understand that a readership outside the field may not know this. Should I embed in the text of the entry a statement about WAC that conveys what it is to the reader? Or is the external link enough for an inquistive reader to follow-up on his/her own? Thanks (yet again!)--Blitzenrupff
00:25:09, 30 June 2014 review of submission by Blitzenrupff[edit]
Thanks, Graeme. To be clear: According to Wikipedia, the journal must "meet any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources":
1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
As you acknowledged earlier, The WAC Clearinghouse is reliable. Your concern was that it publishes the journal and that it is, therefore, not independent. As I clarified, it does not publish the journal. And given that The WAC Clearinghouse is the authority in the field, it is influential in the subject area.
Therefore, per your last response, that you are "looking for some other independent reference," I will add a second reference.
I have contacted Tom Morris (talk) and I did receive an initial response, but no follow up (over several weeks). You mentioned taking some other action, but I am a little lost as to whether to proceed with a request for un-deletion outside of the administrator. I would appreciate any insight on the path to proceed on. Leggattst (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two possible steps:
create a draft called Draft:Enterprise Architect (Software) with new content. Find reliable references to base this on. I know there are videos out there on the subject.
request a deletion review over the deletion. I think that based on what was said that the consensus was delete, but really the topic deserves an article.
Follow-up to latest treview
Blitzenrupff (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey Graeme,[reply]
References 1 and 2 both document that INWAC "endorsed" the "Statement of WAC Principles and Practices." Double Helix is one of only three journals selected by INWAC for Part Five of the "Statement of WAC Principles and Practices." Therefore, Double Helix, like each of the other elements that comprise the "Statement," is endorsed by INWAC. In addition, on pages 3-4, the Statement delineates "steps important for program directors when launching a successful and sustainable WAC program . . . 5. Learn from existing scholarship on WAC program administration. WAC scholarship exists on approaches to launching and sustaining WAC programs, on specific types of WAC initiatives,
on student writing development in specific disciplines, on faculty development, and other issues
pertinent to WAC. See the bibliography in Part 5 for specific resources." Therefore, Double Helix is a specific resource for program directors to learn from existing scholarship on WAC program administration. (Finally, the fact that a multitude of journals were not selected for the "Statement" issued by INWAC makes the inclusion of Double Helix a significant gesture to those familiar with the field.)
I am not disputing any facts here, but INWAC did not write much at all about the journal. If they had written a page or two about it, then that would count for notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the sheer number of pages matter, rather than what is actually expressed? If the same facts had been expressed in three pages, would the facts then matter more toward notability?! Given that the number of pages has nothing to do with the notability guidelines, and that this is an entirely arbitrary criteria you're introducing to the review process, is there a different administrator I can request to review the article? And/or another administrator who can review the history of this exchange?Blitzenrupff (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzenrupff (talk • contribs) 02:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take a read of WP:GNG. The basic requirement for notability is written about in multiple, reliable, independent and substantial sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On Checkpage I have added a request for registration for my other acc, named "Occults". Checkpage has backlog right now, so thought of letting you know about it. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the alert, but there has been a back log for weeks there! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I need permission on that one, it is kinda urgent, :-| Because of the listas parameter backlog, I can make many edits on this one but I am doing something else, I can use other acc for those purposes(adding parameter, underlinking, etc). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SAR11 clade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP. 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) 08:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Inspectres cover.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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
help
Thank you for your constant and efficient work on the flow of the DYK section, filling preps, moving sets, bringing the good news, also for your help at the reference desk and your detailed article plans, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 May 2010)!
See if disruptive editing occurs. As the user page was blanked, that may be enough to contain the situation. It was mainly a copyright infringement of the Jack of all trades page. Perhaps the user is called that as a name, or may be not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! If that user is called that as a name then he is insulting himself, which seems rather unlikely; but I think he has stopped now and the user page is deleted. If he comes back I will let you know.
BTW, when I start AutoWikiBrowser and try to log in it says "Poveglia is not enabled to use this". Does that mean I have to wait, or am I doing something wrong? Poveglia (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC) p.s. I love the bio-duck and the planetary hum articles.[reply]
Well your user name is listed in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, and it should be usable immediately. So likely something has gone wrong. Make sure that you are really logging on with that id and not an alternate. Do you have any strange unicode characters in your user name, or all letters? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have installed AWB 5.5.3.0 on Windows 7 64bit SP1. My username does not contain any special characters. I tried capitalizing the first letter, but that did not work. I am sure the password is correct, because if I enter a different (incorrect) password it tells me that the password is wrong. Under Options I unchecked "Apply changes automatically", but that also did not work. Poveglia (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suggest you contact an AWB help desk, rather than me. My last idea is to ask if you are trying to use English Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Graeme,
Out of curiosity, I wanted to know how you find all of the spambots that you block. As an edit filter log patroller, I come across a fair number of spambots, but the ones that appear in the filter log all seem to be accounts rather than IPs, and they all seem to be of the "English gibberish with spam links" type. I have yet to run across the other types of spambots listed on your spambot subpage. I find spambots interesting and would like to see the species listed on your subpage in action (before reverting their edits and flagging their pages for speedy deletion). Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Few edits actually make it through the edit filter on English Wikipedia, though they are more likely to on other language Wikipedias. To find them you could look at my block log at Special:Log/block/Graeme_Bartlett and then look at the edit filter log for the IP involved. Nawlinwiki also blocks. Search filter 271 at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&offset=&limit=20&wpSearchFilter=271 alerts me to most of them. Some I have seen many times before and I can recognise them, so they get a code with the spambot block. Others I might tell that it is an advertisement, and some I may have to do a google search for the added text to see that it is indeed going all over the accessible forums, and so is a spambot. Sometimes I do see users adding spam links, but then I usually just revert without a block. I usually look at the filter 271 twice a day to do blocking. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do see now that details of the filter are hidden from public view, so perhaps you can't see the details. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is filter 271 the one that flags edits with the tag "possible spambot"? Passengerpigeon (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's it. They are not always spambots though, sometimes it is someone trying to use Cyrillic script, or a normal vandal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for reviving an old post, but I found out through the edit filter log that most of the IP address spambots try to edit pages with the string "board" in the title (such as Computer keyboard, Bulletin board system, Breadboard and Snowboarding). Do you know why this is? Perhaps they are designed to look for links with "board" in them because a "board" on the internet usually implies a place where people (or spambots) can post things. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your guess is correct. They may also look for pages with forum, registration, or discussion in the name too. XRumer is one such spamming system. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
XRumer for example tries to post to high traffic pages that people don't care much about, eg pages for spam reports could be one such place. They are trying to get their text indexed by search engines, and then found by those using the search engines. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zain Awan 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. Sitush (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on a widley used peice of equipment used by almost all civil engineering laboratories across the world. Needs re-writing incase the current text is violating copyrights and thus should not be enitirely deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.41.130 (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 18[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marelyn Wintour-Coghlan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Coghlan. 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) 09:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Available to support Alex Webb's Plate Tectonics course at LSU again this term?[edit]
Hi, Graeme! User:B.J.Carmichael and I were speaking about the upcoming courses at Louisiana State University this fall, and she mentioned how helpful you have been in supporting the Plate Tectonics course in the past. Would you be available again this term to work with those student editors during their assignment? I hope you're doing well! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for helping out with this course. The students really appreciate your feedback! B.J.Carmichael (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graeme,
Your userpage has a very nice collection of chemistry subjects; many of which are redlinks. As a Chemist, I may borrow of few of them for article creation. Let me know if you need help in any particular area for collaboration. -Kyle(talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You created ClO dimer and then redirected Dichlorine dioxide to it. That latter was a pre-existing article on the same topic. I agree with one redirecting to the other (and I don't have an opinion for now on which should be the actual article). However, given the chronology, should they be hist-merged? DMacks (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I used nothing from Dichlorine dioxide so no attribution is needed there, but it can stay as history before the redirect. If it comes back to the same title then sure enough do a merge. ClO dimer seemed to be the more common name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graeme Bartlett. I just wanted to let you know that I answered your question on the request page. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. I'll be happy to discuss them with you. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate me regarding the consideration to grant me access to the tool. ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs) 14:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al Farooq Omar Ibn Al Khattab Mosque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman. 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) 09:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Rawlins publishes the number one US journal of astronomical history, DIO. ISSN1041-5440. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
For over six years Rawlins's Wikipedia biography has been attacked by such tactics as threat, vandalism, posting lies about his highly eminent board members, eliminating evidence of colleagues' lofty academic status, and more. The main offender has been an academic non-entity assisting the publisher of a competing journal which DIO has repeatedly shown to have published shoddy scholarship through refereeing procedures ranging from sloppy to nonexistent. Since the facts cannot be overturned the journal's only defense appears to have become dependence on a thug to inhibit as much as possible the public's access to those facts.
In addition to posting on March 10, 2008, threats against anyone even getting "near" Rawlins he appealed to a Wikipedia administrator Vsmith who cooperatively the same day eliminated virtually all of the biography's references to Rawlins's own journal DIO which he classified as not Reliable. Appeals pointing out the stratospheric status of many of the journal's board members, article contributors, and subscribing libraries were ignored, though they are easy to verify from the DIO website or the back cover of any issue of the journal. Vsmith even accused Rawlins of being a supporter of the kook Velikovsky though Rawlins not only has always been a disbeliever in Velikovsky but was the 1972 author of an early paper debunking him on astronomical grounds.
When DIO's Editor attempted to restore some unwarranted deletions Vsmith practiced extortion by attacking a quite different article by the Editor.
Vsmith's deletions of DIO references caused later editors to eliminate some of Rawlins's discoveries since they assumed these had not been published in a refereed journal.
The perversity is that DIO is the most reliable of all history of astronomy journals. Despite a competing journal that loathes it and would fain find any fault it could, DIO in its quarter century of existence has not been shown to have published any original research that is fallacious.
In an attempt to make the biography as fair as possible Rawlins some years ago caused the insertion into it of all major articles attacking himself. The spirit exemplified has not been infectious. The vandalism and one sided censorship continues.
One feature of the biography that has drawn no interest from editors is citation of Rawlins's replies to the attacking articles. Or citation of the New York Times science department's September 8, 2009 backing of one of his most famous contentions even though it overturned a once favorite myth of that newspaper. Or Rawlins's establishment of perhaps the world's largest monument to the composer Rachmaninoff and authorship of the monument's text.
A re-editing of the Rawlins biography is imminent. This will trigger more of the same harassment through unblockable wifi.
Well Wikipedia is certainly not intended to be the only way that the public can access facts. Though it can be a much more convenient form. For verifying facts, self published material is allowed, and perhaps primary material can be used. But there is no reason to summarise all of the DIO journal here. People can read that journal if they can figure out a link to a contents page for it. If the author published something in his own journal and no one else cared to mention it, then Wikipedia does not need to repeat it either. We also need some totally independent sources too, to show notability. Presumably there is enough of these otherwise "competitors" may have tried to nominate it for deletion. If you have handy access to information I suggest that you improve the reference citations so that the article can be found. References like "Nature, 1982" are totally inadequate as there are thousands of pages in that range. We need to know the author, article title, issue number (and volume) and page number. Then the reference is confirmable. That would be why there are so many citations needed sprinkled through. THere is some things like ibid, idem and isis which are almost completely meaningless to me, used the named reference if you want to repeat a reference.
Also the article on Rawlins does appear unbalanced focussed almost completely on what he has published, rather than on what others have written about him. You should look for more writings from other people about Dennis Rawlins.
You should assume good faith with Vsmith as he has done many good things on Wikipedia before. Vsmith does not appear to have used any administrative tools on the page. There does seem to be a combative attitude here. Cooperation will yield a better long term outcome. On the topic of removed stuff about discovery of Neptune, this should go into discovery of Neptune article. Note that secondary sources such as reviews are counted more favourably than a primary original source. If no one else ever cited the source used in Wikipedia, then you should wonder about its impact. Lastly the removals happened back in 2008 which is a long time back in Wikipedia history.
Up to yesterday nearly half of it had been nibbled away since March 10 2008 if you don't count the subsequently added and expanded "Articles Opposing" section. And almost 90% of the remainder was removed yesterday (suspiciously soon after the foregoing) by administrator Drmies who reeks of CSI (formerly CSICOP, cofounded by Rawlins) which has never forgiven Rawlins for sTARBABY's account of its unrefutable scientific mess-ups (and embarrassed coverups which yet continue in the smearings - even while CSICOP continues to deny there was ever a coverup). Half of the new stub's four footnotes relate to sTARBABY (not exactly Rawlins's life's work). The other half cite two minor personality articles (from a day when the Byrd hoax was controversial, which it no longer is) in lesser newspapers than the New York Times and its science department which support Rawlins. The reference to Rawlins as a publisher has been suppressed as if the journal DIO does not exist, which is the tactic of all the journal's enemies since they cannot refute its exposures' facts and especially its science - and so flee what they rightly fear.
Your advice regarding poor referencing is valid and appreciated.
But you seem to think nothing has really gone wrong. Vsmith and Hipocrite haven't done anything amiss; you regret only someone else's twin-planet excision without noting that it was due to Vsmith's March 10 2008 suppression of citations to DIO. So the six-year repulsive history remains current.
Yes the Good Vsmith has done yeoman service in fighting kooks. But does this give the Bad Vsmith a privilege to in July 2008 carelessly, falsely, paranoically (read his laughable reasoning for yourself on Sagan Talk), and unretractedly smear anti-Velikovsky pioneer Rawlins as a Velikovskian?! To boast July 23 2008 on Sagan Talk of "Gee what fun" it was to suppress an accurate quote of something showing dishonesty in CSICOP-saint Sagan? To call Rawlins's forty years of scholarship "junk" (Rawlins Talk July 26 2008) while threatening to turn his bio into a stub - as has now actually been done.
Vsmith and you apparently share the delusion that Rawlins's status is minor so any import to his work must be demonstrated by Reliable sources. Since Rawlins is shunned by various of the heavyweight forces he has exposed, that is not always easy. But his journal is lauded by world academics, taken at the top appropriate academic libraries, has board members that are not just leaders but in some cases are THE very top in their profession (e.g, Standish, Stephenson, Walker - not to mention the late Charlie Kowal), has published the standard critical edition of Tycho's star catalog, has copublished with the University of Cambridge the definitive account of the Byrd hoax, has been repeatedly cited in the New York Times's science department as well as repeatedly on its page one, and publishes expert scholars - contra the FLAGRANTLY DISHONEST Hipocrite January 9 2009 sentence-rewrite you linked-to but could not possibly have read carefully; look specifically at the before/after of the sentence referring to "lampoon".
Your comment on the same edit seems to think it's O.K. to remove the "opinion" that Rawlins has made proposals once outré yet now accepted. But why not provide an opposite opinion instead of deleting the contributor, who was incidentally not a DIO person? Secondly, it's not mere opinion that Rawlins has proposed theories that have been later vindicated. It is a many-times verified fact. His proposals on Pluto's mass, Brady's planet, Astronomer Royal Airy's long-hidden "baby" letter, Neptune's discoverer, Peary's Crocker Land and pole hoaxes, Byrd's hoax, Amundsen's 1911 steering and his priority at each geographical pole, Aristilus's date, Ptolemy's star catalog appropriation, are now orthodoxy which they were not prior to his publications. Note en passant that Hipocrite's edit was in answer to a Rawlins Talk September 10 2008 comment that the Rawlins bio had been called "garbage", "junk", "unencyclopedic", but not inaccurate. Frustrated at the truth of the point, the thug could only deny an "opinion" which was all too factual. But then it seems that becoming a Wikipedia cult-lawyer requires the acquisition of skills in counting mere factual truth as something to be overcome by playing games about Reliable Sources and so on.
"Hipocrite" was just the latest cover for the same vandal (called Stall Wall by DIO's people) who posted slanderous lies (not apprehended for years by WP editors) about world-class scholars Kowal (Kowal bio July 9 2008) and Standish to make good his March 10 2008 Rawlins Talk threat that anyone who gets near Rawlins will regret it. Charming way to run an encyclopedia.
An article on John Wall's work may interest you in several respects. It certainly interested Wall to learn a few days ago from the above that this could eventually be linked to the Rawlins WP bio.
Your reference to a "combative" attitude is true but it is all on Vsmith's side not Phaedra7's, during the 2008 exchanges on Sagan Talk.
The WP page on Dispute Resolution urges that if you disagree with something in an article don't subtract it but simply add your alternate opinion. DIO's people have always done that. (They have also so far not invaded the bios of any of their harassers' inspirers.) The opposition to DIO has - whether in WP or elsewhere - almost always done the opposite. Instead of civil dissent it's censor, avoid, expunge, smear, threaten, hide - or extort; when DIO Editor Pickering restored a bit of accurate Rawlins bio material earlier improperly deleted by Vsmith, this was not only redeleted on July 25 2008 but Vsmith then three quarters of an hour later went into the Plana Keys WP article and deleted reference to Pickering's balanced paper on that separate subject.
A few questions follow.
Does the foregoing behavior of WP administrators and their clones establish a model of academic discourse?
Do you know of any other scholar besides Rawlins who has effected the citation in his WP bio of all the major articles attacking him?
Is it a disadvantage on Wikipedia to play the game fairly?
Do you enjoy rhetorical questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRNVR (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12:37:35, 5 September 2014 review of submission by Sambarton87[edit]
Sambarton87 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Hi, could you please provide guidance on which references you felt were insufficient to prove notability. This draft wikipedia page is a direct copy of the existing Japanese Wikipedia article. I am very new to this process so any help will be appreciated. Of late this artist has received additional press coverage in the UK. Should I reference additional Western World articles to prove notability? Thanks Sam.[reply]
Undeletion / content of delete page request for Australian University alumni group[edit]
Hi Graeme,
We're trying to chase up some information related to our Hall of Residence at the Australian National University, Bruce Hall. The page has been deleted (it was at en/Bruce_Hall_(Australian_National_University) ). We're not necessarily asking for it to be undeleted (I understand it may not meet the guidelines), but there was some content on that page related to the Bruce Hall Players (our theatre company) that may not be recorded anywhere else.
Is there any way you could send me the text for that page so that we can extract that information for our alumni network please?
I'm still just learning the basics of all this. Do we generally leave the 'talk' pages of articles alone, to be edited by the page creator? But the 'talk' pages of a user is a different story, I presume? Also, I am wondering: what I can do to increase the chance of my article being chosen for the "Did you know" section?
Thanks so much!
Mmorr42 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I saw that you declined the wp:speedy of the above, would you be able to provide some info on this. My understanding is that the station is not due to launch util 2018 that it should not yet be included in Wikipedia as if it doesnt exist it cant be noteable? Could you advise please. Many thanks. Amortias (T)(C) 21:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that radio and tv stations will have plenty written about them. Future is more dubious, but it would be better to have an AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough will go down the afd route. Amortias (T)(C) 21:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for closing a long-overdue discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_14. If you don't have time to remove the CFD tags from all the nominated categories, please paste a list of them at WP:CFDWR, and Cydebot will do it (when it gets going on that page again).
Please also provide a link to the discussion at the main nominated category's talk page using {{old cfd}}. See WP:CFDAI for more notes on the steps to implement CFD closures.
I hope this does not seem an imposition. Only a few admins are currently active at CFD and plainly not keeping up with the workload, so we are very grateful for any help. – FayenaticLondon 21:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus on that one, there was an alternative proposal, one support and some unclear opposition, so we would need a CFD focusing on that one change to concentrate opinions! I have updated the closing statement Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After I rolled back some more of the blocked sockpuppet's edits, Rodolphe Archibald Reiss is no longer used from anywhere in mainspace, and its target doesn't even mention that name anymore. Can it be re-deleted? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:MultiCharts Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As reported to you on August 29, WP administrator Vsmith had on July 25, 2008 answered a partial restoration by DIO Editor K.Pickering of the WP biography of DIO founder and publisher Dennis Rawlins by not only redeleting but then quickly delinking a completely separate article by Pickering on Plana Cays, to extort obedience to matters he never indicated the faintest interest in discussing on merits, while admitting none of his series of errors and failures to recognize DIO's obvious high scholarly rank, plain data detailed by Phaedrus7 on Sagan Talk in July, 2008. (Vsmith's response was to admit nothing and instead just re-attack the Rawlins biography July 25.)
Vsmith's response to the recent report to you is to work through other anonymous censors to continue to try suppressing information by threat, deleting circa 90% of the Rawlins biography (thus destroying the original article's worthwhile portrayal of Rawlins's versatility) — that is, more extortion. The clumsy timing makes the punitive motive obvious.
(By the way, where is the non-reliable-source posting which Drmies says triggered his September 12 massacre?)
And the odd fixation on CSICOP trivia just as clumsily reveals the association connecting censors Vsmith, Drmies (both administrators!), as well as Stuartyeates (see 2thedef's information on Yeates's Talk page) and NQ, all four of whom have assertively demonstrated their "cooperative" determination to pretend DIO doesn't exist as a journal — and, by striking the word "publisher" from the article's first line, to try pretending that Rawlins hasn't been a publisher for the last quarter century.
Vsmith's non-neutral heading of his July 26, 2008 censorship "The self-apotheosis of Rawlins" was not just astonishingly, brazenly out of place but shows inexcusable non-familiarity with his target. Rawlins not only admits — more accurately proclaims — his infrequent errors, he has actually done so while laughing at himself, on the cover of DIO volume 11 number 2. And Vsmith's reading of
DIO as an enterprise he can silence by threat is an even more fateful misjudgment.
Do you really want to continue recommending (as on August 30 above) that genuine scholars try "cooperation" with such a power-intoxicatedly infallible bully as Vsmith? — VsMuff (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, as you probably know I made a request for rights to use AWB. You've denied it explaining my English is not enough good. I want to tell you, that every mistakes I will correct semi-automated I will check with dicitonary. I'm responsible and never want to destroy any part of Wikipedia. I know that AWB has got many different ways of using. I wrote about only one in my request. I also want to fix other things in articles. Please give me permission to use that tool, give me a chance do some edits. When something will go wrong (and I doubt in it), you'll remove me from the list. Regards Tymon.r (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article ARQ-M, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the reliable ARQ-M communications protocol on shortwave radio allowed Telex messages to be sent internationally? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ARQ-M. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, 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.
The Rawlins biography (what a varied life!) has been redone, incorporating some of your best suggestions. The reaction will measure the validity of your theory that all sides are well intentioned. CALMeQuit (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There now seems to be a serious battle over the content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC
The content in my "Smart Energy System" article did not breech copyright as I, along with others, wrote the article which you outlined that it was similar to. In this article we didn't hand over any copyright for the text to anyone else. Could you please restore my Smart Energy Systems page? (dave1898)
22:23, 16 September 2014 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted page Smart Energy System (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.aidic.it/pres2014/001.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave1898 (talk • contribs)
Just to confirm permission has been received for this (Ticket:2014100610005117). If you feel it is appropriate, please undelete the page. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why Are Administrators All on the Censoring Side of the "Battle"?[edit]
Your August 30 comments were useful and appreciated but contained an echo of Stall Wall and Vsmith's 2007-8 (and 2014 to you) mantra that "site-pushing" was going on. No, site-suppression was going on. It was as comically ironic as if Cardinal Bellarmine was accusing Galileo of book-pushing.
Stuartyeates's 2nd revert today to the Drmies September 12 version of the Rawlins biography might rightly be called a lot of things but "serious" isn't one of them. Given Rawlins's many accomplishments, the version is both a transparently overdone joke and a disgrace to Wikipedia.
Stuartyeates knows nothing of the type of mathematics Rawlins is a well known expert at and has obviously just been appointed watchman by Vsmith and co. Today's revert was without attempt at justification and purely destructive of information of the sort Wikipedia is supposed to exist for making available, while CALMeQuit's prior edit was undeniably factual, lengthily listed all the main articles attacking Rawlins, was chockablock with secondary sources as per your good suggestion, and preserved the silly Vsmith-revenge Drmies version for comparative purposes. Drmies specifically deletes the word "publisher" and fakes the journal's nonexistence. CALMeQuit showed restraint in not pointing this out. CALMeQuit did not even mention that DIO is the nation's #1 astronomy history journal, since though true it could be called opinion, bias, or promotion.
One side is trying to be accurate and balanced. The other is — while being max-unconstructive — trying to demonstrate that if (above, August 29) you question Vsmith you'll pay. Ninety percent. Echoes of the March 10, 2008 threats by his co-libeller Stall Wall, the vandal who triggered Vsmith's original same-day March 10, 2008 fantastic and unprecedented deletion of the biography's citations to the journal founded by the subject! — classing the journal as unreliable, without any visible reason but that his CSICOP friends still resent Rawlins for 1981's sTARBABY and have for the years since cultishly ached on each of the many occasions when he is credited with an achievement. (The CSICOP connection to Vsmith's censorship is undeniable after Drmies's quick-response 90% deletion and CSICOP-soaked stub.) Vsmith can't begin to understand the mathematics Rawlins does in his sleep, so why is he permitted to judge its reliability? Serious journals' referees have for nearly half a century disagreed with Vsmith, but Wikipedia thinks he knows best?
You know and admire Vsmith, but WP administrators should not be signing onto service on one side in thirty years wars. And to call DIO unreliable is baseless SLANDER.2thedef (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gekidō/Just Break the Limit! 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. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since shy Graeme B. is being reporter instead of administrator in the above "battle" over Dennis Rawlins's biog the discussion will soon shift to Talk:Dennis Rawlins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2thedef (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the best place for this argument is at talk:Dennis Rawlins. Then everyone interested has a chance to notice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the comment on my talk page. I realize I jumped the gun on making my page live, I misunderstood what my professor meant when he made our "draft" due on Friday, Oct. 10. As for the title of the page, I agree that my title is a little to difficult to search and reference, but it is important to describe that my page only covers one single geothermometry technique. I would like to recreate the page with a more accessible title, possibly "Zircon Titanium Crystallization". Since I'm supposed to have a Sandbox page for Friday, I'd like to ask my Ti-in-Zircon Geothermometry be deleted, and I'll continue working in the Sandbox until it is ready to go live. I have copied the page to my Sandbox, so the live page is ready to be deleted. Andrew Webb (talk)16:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The figure I used is from the Watson and Harrison (2005) paper, but I got permission from the publisher (American Association for the Advancement of Science) to use the figure. I wasn't sure how to put the copyright on the page, since I had to pay for the usage rights. I used a non-free copyright template and the non-free use rationale, but I wasn't sure I did it right.Awebb6 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe only I was granted permission to use the figure. If I modify the image, how much would I have to alter it to avoid infringement and for it to be considered my own? Awebb6 (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. Thanks for the help. Awebb6 (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded a new figure, that I created, to my sandbox. I changed the scale and removed much of the clutter. Is it good to go now, or should I add a reference to the source in the description? Awebb6 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graeme, sorry to bother you with this but I see your name there and wanted to ask if you could take a look at my request as I'm trying to move forward with a project and I'm not sure if AWB is the right place or not, and there's a backlog. Basically I need a unix command line tool to upload a new copy of an article's wiki markup. I download the current markup via Special:Export, process it with my custom tools, then upload the new copy. Thanks. -- GreenC 21:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it is only one article, just copy and paste it. AWB will be good if you have many articles to edit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thousands. Can I get access? I really do need it. -- GreenC 00:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Graeme,
I am wondering how to add my sandbox onto a course page. Tomorrow, our sandboxes are "due", but it looks like the course page "add article" section is for an article that has gone live already. Is that false? Thanks for your guidance.
Mmorr42 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Graeme,
I have had an issue with uploading a figure which states that the file is duplicated. There initially was an error between the file names between what was on my computer and what was in Wikipedia. To adjust for this confusion I renamed the file and started over deleting the commands for the old image in my sandbox. Upon trying again, I receive a notice which states a duplicate file as an error and cannot upload the image. May you please provide some guidance? Thank you. Ajamesm28 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The file you uploaded seems to be empty. This might be due to a typo in the filename. Please check whether you really want to upload this file.Ajamesm28 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will read these things at first place. Owais khursheed (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This will help with some of the edits I saw in your contributions, including some that others reverted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am done with it. I have read all the three links you provided. It was helpful especially about Red link and capitalisation.
Thanks Owais khursheed (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just dropped my phone -bad page design! PamD 05:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That explains one of the random thanks I got, yours is not the first! I can rev del it if you really really want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have always supposed that unexpected thanks have been because people have been trying to undo my edits. So, the thought that it may be just phones being dropped is mildly encouraging! Thincat (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christie Golden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do a block for me until 19th January please because I have been blocked on Wikimedia Commons until 19th January because I have been sending some disruptive emails and which are not needed. If you can block me until 19th January that would be great - Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to expand on the meaning of "plate circuit closure". Does it even require a Wikipedia article (or on plate circuit?
In the Boundary types section, mention the other plates the boundary is against. Mostly the types are not mentioned, but if nothing is known that is fair enough. Perhaps the whole thing is a phantom plate.
Also describe the location of the plate relative to Africa and Madagascar.
Avoid using "we". see WP:We for more on this.
On your diagram can you label the Southwest Indian Ridge, and the African rift system?
How does GPS data work for plates that are under the ocean surface?
The see also section is likely redundant as all those links are in the article anyway. Read WP:see also.
Hey Graeme,
Plate circuit closure is relatively complicated, and definitely would benefit from having an article all to itself. What do you recommend I do for that? Just add a short section on my page? Or maybe a bit more info?
I've expanded, in the Boundary section.
I've added the relative locations.
I've deleted the word "we" from the article.
I can fix up the diagram this coming week when I'm on campus.
I hope to figure out the oceanic GPS question and include that.
I have altered the see also section.
I am hoping that:
You can provide me any more feedback, or at least an update to your previous feedback.
You can teach me the best way to respond to the feedback you've left me on my talk page -- I do not think this is the most efficient way.
Thank you SO MUCH, Graeme. I truly appreciate all your help.
Mmorr42 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graeme. From your edit to functional square root, I see that you see a connection between functional iteration, f(f(f(x))), etc... and iterated operators T^n acting on an arbitrary f(x), essentially linear functionals. Beyond the semigroup property that allows fractional steps, in both cases, trivially, what, exactly do you see these different cases have in common? I fear you are littering the Also sees with irrelevant, "how can this hurt?" cases. The mathematical structure, computation techniques, and audiences of the two are different. Or, do you have a compelling argument they are not? Of course, there is no real harm for the unthinking reader of WP to walk away imagining there is a deep connection there, somewhere, somehow, but, still, WP is purporting to be an instrument of enlightenment. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a connection, and thanks to its removal from the text, I added it in as a see also. See also does not have to be the same concept, but a related one. I(I(f)) looks to me quite similar to f(f(x)) even if calculation methods and properties totally differ. I suspect anyone interested in one topic is also interested in the other. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you imagined so... Any functor can be iterated, but they don't all into the same box. The problem is linearity, I(I(I(a f +g)))=a I(I(I( f ))) + I(I(I(g))), which of course does not hold for functional iteration, and I hate to see the daffy "methods" the hapless student can come up with reading such... OK, let them stay there, but minds will suffer... Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Went to the source of the confusion, Fractional calculus, amply deserving its C rating (and unsurprising, as it tries to present itself as Analysis). Tried to contrast its relative benign powers of linear operators acting on functions (a well-defined eigenvalue problem) to the radically different nonlinear functional compositions acting on x-variables, where the spectral structure is hardly there. Schroeder's equation provides an analogy, but that's all it does. One keeps one's fingers crossed the reader does not read fractional calculus before he reads fractional square root, as he will have to expend substantial effort on precisely forgetting what he has just learned. The case for the problematic Differintegral is even more of a stretch. I can see how the reader of fractional calculusmight wish to go to the Differintegral, but the reader of this article, functional square root, if he went on there, must have been lost in the first place. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Graeme Bartlett. We have not met before, but I found you by looking in the "Wikipedians in Australia" category where I was looking for an admin. Some weeks ago I started helping a new user, Aurumdog, who asked questions at the Teahouse where I sometimes help out. I have tried to help him as much as I can, but I sometimes find it rather difficult to understand him since English is not my native language and he speaks a dialect that I have not encountered before, but I think he is Australian. Do you know of any Australian editor who help newbies, who might be able to take over as this new users guide so that things may run a bit more smoothly? All the best, w.carter-Talk 14:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this essentially an advertisement; I would have considered speedy except that you accepted it & presumably would disagree. I'm trying to decide how to fix it. It may be enough to remove the adjectives and the bold face & excessive capitalization and the links to its own sites, and replace the repeated use of its name by "It". But I may also remove the entire section 2. An advertisement with sources is still an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 5[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updating Username on Approved Users list for AutoWikiBrowser[edit]
Hi Graeme, i am approved user for using AutoWikiBrowser, My old username was Abutorsam007 which is listed here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users
But since i have updated my username it's not been updated on said page as its protected. Rerquesting you to please update my name there.( !dea4u 05:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Vanadyl nitrate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see new note on DYK nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Titanium nitrate, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the volatile anhydrous compounds titanium nitrate and vanadyl nitrate can add nitro groups to organic compounds? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, 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.
This is A.bre.clare.
My class is suppose to make our wiki pages live by Friday morning and I was just wondering what I have to do in order to make my sandbox live. Thank you! I think everyone in the class is also wondering this, so I was planning on passing the information along.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Graeme,
I'm in the same class as A.bre.clare above. I'm wondering if there's a way to verify that our pages are "live". While our professor has told us to "make the pages live by Friday", I'm under the impression that we have to submit the page for review, and then wait quite some time before anything else can happen, really. Is this true? Do you think he just wants us to submit the articles for review by Friday?
Additionally, some articles appear to be in User space, while other classmates appear to have their articles in Draft space. I am wondering what in the world that means. Is it related to if we've submitted it for review?
Thanks so much,
Mmorr42 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK Graeme, I think I've figured out how to move the article into the new space. Now I'm wondering what I need to do in order to attempt to get on the "did you know" section -- you told me to give you a
heads-up before making my page live. Can we try to do that? What must I do? Thanks again.
I have returned. I have nominated my article for the did you know? section and am wondering what my next step should be with it.
You mentioned to me to inform you, when I make my article live, so that's what I'm now doing.
Thanks so much! You rock. Mmorr42 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry for lack of response as I have not been on Wikipedia for a while. To go live you use the move button, pick article as the space, and change the name to what you want to call it. THose that are expanding articles should edit the article already there and paste their new content in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possible approve my request to use AWB? I've used it before however my name has changed and I can no longer use it. Cheers — BranStark (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 16[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bisi Ezerioha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Full Throttle. 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) 10:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, I am leaving you this notice because you participated in the discussion about non-free SVGs at WT:NFC. I have received a response from WMF on the matter, and they told me that this is a decision that has historically been left to the community. In order to get some clarification, I would like to run a widely-advertised RfC, but since I obviously have an opinion on the matter, I would prefer it if other editors could give me some feedback on the neutrality of my wording before I actually make the RfC. You can comment on the proposed statement here. Thanks! 0x0077BE(talk · contrib) 17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]
Hello Graeme Bartlett. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Hello! Your submission of DNA base flipping at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Philroc 15:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Look below my second review which was on the alt hook.
Unician ∇ 15:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fructose-asparagine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
1
2 Poveglia (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC) p.s. I found an imposter of Graeme_Campbell_(politician) who should probably be blocked.
Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
