Jump to content

User talk:Graeme Bartlett/archive 8

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 Amazonien (talk | contribs) at 08:32, 11 October 2009 (→Talkback). 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 archives.

If I deleted your article, it is possible for me to restore it. Please post a message for reconsideration of the deletion. and you can read Why was my page deleted?

If you want to know why I declined your article at WP:AFC please see User:Graeme Bartlett/decline

please add your talk at the bottom of the page:

User:Graeme Bartlett/AfC reviews

I have created this page for you, in preparation for the categories being deleted. It won't be updated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might at least have said thank you, as it took me quite a while to do it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of answer. I appreciate it Martin, thankyou! I would have hoped there would be a quick way to generate the list, but I was surprised at the alphabetic headings, whihc did not seem to be so easy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined G12 on Gmsh

Hello,

Could you please clarify the reasoning you used to determine that "GPL" (which I believe applies to software) is compatible with CC-BY-SA, when GFDL is not? I'm confused here. MLauba (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions of free software are not copyrighted. All this article does is give a short description (2 sentences). How else would you describe it? Hope that helps. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 11:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what reasoning are short descriptions of free software not subject to copyright? MLauba (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MLauba - typically short descriptions of a product are not copyrighted. In that the thought process for copyrighting is to protect intellectual property. In that the description is not giving away a unique view or perception of the product just describing the basic use, that an average individual would also describe in the same manner, there is nothing to copyright. If you would feel more comfortable, I would be more than happy to reword. But as I mentioned above, in such a short description, the differences would be slight. Better explanation :-)? ShoesssS Talk 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My logic here is that the software, including its description on this page is coveerd by a free licence that permits copying and modification. It is fairly compatible with the Wikipedia license. In some fine print theer may be a slight problem, eg the link back to the license, but if a link goes back to the reference it should be covered without any problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:G6

Most of the templates I tagged with G6 are not working templates, or unnecessary redirects. If one of them is controversial please tell me. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always check if a template is used somewhere before tagging it with a speedy delete template. If one of them is in use is because I forgot to check or something ;). I'll check them all again. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started deleting, all the histories I checked so far indicate created by move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some of them I have transfered the contents of some infoboxes (with a single use) directly in the article. Anyway thanks Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Template:Infobox American Dad! Season Two needs a history merge., this means more work! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ups, I didn't notice that. Some of them do have history, so turn on the merging machine! Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge takes 4 times as long as delete! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, why was this declined?, it's a documentation of a redirect page (something useless). Or is there a more suitable template for these cases. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry missed that it was I redirect, I thought it was a semiactive template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Miriam

Hi there, I wonder if you might consider restoring this article, as I had declined the speedy and was working on cleaning it up. Looks like some unfortunate timing that we both happened upon it at roughly the same time. Although, I now see that it's also been zapped at AfD in the past, which does give me pause.

Don't think the irony of me getting up you for deleting an article is lost on me, given the semi-heated discussion we had on inclusionism/deletionism down in Canberra =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

OK it is restored. You see I do delete stuff too. We must have been working on this at the same time! There had better be some content before it gets the chop again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadel InfoCenter

This article advertises the download link("The stable version of InfoCenter can be found for download and use. [[1]]") for the software A google search gives nothing to establish it's notability .Can I nominate it for deletion?It's a COI too as the author of the article is User:Ravenperch --Notedgrant (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can nominate it. My attitude for speed delete is if it is 100% promotion delete it, If only 10% then remove the offending material. If somewhere in between it may need a debate. Yo were beaten to the nom! Software does not fall into the A7 otherwise I could have deleted for non notability. COI makes it more chancey for a problem, but is not in it self a reason to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padmasingh Isaac

wondering why the page was deleted? --L I C 13:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wha

"119,000 deleted contribs?" No, that's how many contribs total I have. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at The Earwig's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 00:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nimasample (talk · contribs)

Just an FYI... I reset the block on this account to indef and revoked their talk page privileges because it is sockpuppet of the Njsample (talk · contribs) account that I blocked a couple of days ago. Same deal: Copy/pastes from websites into new articles and then dumping the same content into their talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user User talk:83.67.123.216

In spite of the block you issued in July, User talk:83.67.123.216 has almost immediately recommenced vandalism of various pages.--Kudpung (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reblocked for three months. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent J. Gallo

Why did you delete my Vincent J. Gallo article and how can I get it back?--NewYorkStand (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)NewYorkStand[reply]

A7 but userfied Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question, why did you delete it, and how do I get it back???--24.189.236.118 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)NewYorkStand[reply]

I answered on your talk page, You have it back at User:NewYorkStand/Vincent J. Gallo and it was deleted as not claiming to meet WP:BIO, see WP:CSD A7. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for my misunderstanding, I want to prove to you Gallo's contributions to the world that meet up to WP:BIO.--24.189.236.118 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)NewYorkStand[reply]

Edit in that user sub page, and improve it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the great advice!--NewYorkStand (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)NewYorkStand[reply]

finally

I think I found a reasonable person on here! alright, we should talk. besides the fact that you deleted an article I feel should stay and I will support that position, I am wondering how to talk to you. no, I don't use IRC and won't. not all operating systems even have the capability to use it. anyway, let's talk. I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while. I would like to ask you for some help and we may even discuss other projects. Completelyoverit (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can talk to me here, or you can use the E-mail this user on the toolbox: Special:EmailUser/Graeme_Bartlett. I may or may not respond to the email depending on what you write. You are welcome to ask why I delete articles, and ask for an article to be put into your userspace. Don't try to use IRC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, tell you what, if I give you an email address maybe email me? also I use IM, but if you are trying to keep your IM info somewhat private send it to my email. no, I don't have special email. yes, I am special, ah hah. do you understand my point about the whole "deletion craze"? if these users were better occupied that would be fantastic. they are not even aware of the 30 thousand plus articles that they would want to delete! this creates holes, better to err on the other side than delete too much. it might be as high as 75 thousand articles that would be considered somewhat minor. you could use such reasoning to delete hordes more of geographic type articles. it never ends. Completelyoverit (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you are mentioning here is WP:Other stuff exists. This is not really an argument to use, because as you say there would be tens of thousands of things to delete, but the debate is on one particular article. In your case you should look at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dallas Lovato. If you fix the issues that people mentioned in this, then the article could come back, and you could have an article at User:Completelyoverit/Dallas Lovato. Sorry I don't have IM, I am anonymous on that front. But you can email me via that Wikipedia address. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mhmm, thank you for putting up the Lovato item. I will check into making it something that no one would want to delete. I did look for you online, things like facebook. can't find you. let me give you my email addy and email me. from there we might talk on IM or just continue on email. there are other matters to discuss. somehow we seem to be doing the same stuff as well, basing that on your user page. Completelyoverit (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My online presence is mainly Wikipedia - by about 1000 to 1, and no facebook! Can't you find the Special:EmailUser/Graeme_Bartlett option? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this perfectly illustrates, kind sir! (assuming you are a guy), the problem. we have this RANDOM "Oliver" person trying to create more havoc. I think Wikipedia has done more harm than good by making it so hard to reach certain people AND tracking things. it is super silly. ironically, I am trying to rescue Wiki-land while Oliver does "his" damage. no, I don't want a special email. let me give you my email address? I don't care if Oliver emails me, I will ignore him completely. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IRONICALLY, and not laughably, the people not wishing to be "tracked or followed" are making the situation much worse. I think one of the absolute worst failures in Wikipedia is that people try to attack those who don't want to be meddled with. call it the silliest thing, but it is true. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried clicking on [[Special:EmailUser/Graeme_Bartlett]], this gives you the option to email me. Are you feeling attacked? Anyway OliverTwisted is on the right track, I am not going to give out my email address on Wikipedia, and I don't recommend that you reveal yours here either. If you do I will delete the revision so that spammers will not take advantage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oh dear, obviously this is something I can't talk about in public. I will give you my email. email me, alright? go ahead and delete my email if you want, but email me. you can see that Oliver and people like them are the reason I can't discuss this publicly. it is much larger of an issue than you may think. I do not care about spam; I have filters. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly is the point in special emailing you if you don't reply? cheers. Completelyoverit (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied, although the spamfilter has stopped two of three messages. One should have made it through. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Hi, it is clear that none of the the references and claims are substantiated with actual verifications. Can you produce one single link that establishes notability? Just show me one that can support WP:N notability for Fordyce thank you. Jrod2 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I declined it as a blatant hoax, that does not mean that it is not a hoax, just that it needs a debate to sort out, eg [2] confirms he worked on "I See Stars" as Arranger, Producer. It does not mean that he is notable, just not a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a hoax, but there is nothing to support notability. It's also not the kind of article we would accept based on those references. If you read the first paragraph you'll find: "He has spent over fifteen years in the music production business and had more than 150 releases for writing and production to his credit (including 38 Billboard Hits) with credits on records selling over 12 million copies worldwide". What I found was that his name appears on an an underground Michael Jackson remix, not the official one listed with Epic. Rob Thomas remix credit doesn't amount to a charting record according to Billboard.com, in fact there isn't anything at Billboard with his name on it that will support such outrageous claims. The large majority of credits are lined to mp3 downloads which bear not proof of notability whatsoever. And, you still don't think of it as hoax? Whatever it is, just please put the right speedy deletion tag for it, it's the least you can do as a diligent administrator. Thanks.
I think you should nominate it for AfD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I did that and no one participated. I mean no one. The reason I think is that no one wants to check this carefully. Some of the references are linked to actual recordings (mp3 downloads), only they don't support notability. List that 50 times as credits and nobody wants to spend time on a producer's article. Maybe you do? Thanks. Jrod2 (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a no consensus close then! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graeme, ironically someone has already nominated this article for the second time here and it will be helpful to get a perspective from you. If you read the subject's talk page you probably will find all you need to make your opinion. Thanks again. Jrod2 (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moles

Thanks for your help with the Moles!Chrisrus (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Assimakopoulos

Graeme, I noticed that you declined to speedily delete this despite the copyvio, pending proof of permission to use. Isn't the proper course in cases like this to delete until evidence of permission is proved, rather than let the copyvio persist? Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trev Fee

Graeme, I'm a newby at this and cannot really understand what A7 means. Could you please explain it for me in reference to the page I created for Morden Park Holiday Club? Thanks. --Trevfee (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilomathon

Do we really need to waste time at AfD with Kilomathon? The previous version says

Kilomathon is a new race distance created by the Chief Executive of the Edinburgh Marathon Ltd (Geoff Sims). It is 26.2 kilometers 16miles 493yars. The word ‘Kilomathon’ was coined by Geoff Sims in 2007.

And the current version was created by Geoff26.2K. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 06:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See how the prod goes. db-A7 my be possible too if it is an "organization" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceylinco Celestial Residencies

Hello,
The is with regard to the deletion of the Ceylinco Celestial Residencies article. I have tagged this because this project is currently halted due to some admin problems. I live just a few kilometers from there. But, halted or not, there are a lot of tall building that are coming up there, of which all are similar in characteristics. I created this article long ago thinking that it will be of some encyclopedic use, but i assure you it wont... :) Feel free to comment. Best regards. Rehman (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think that they will never be completed? Even with a delay they look like they are in the top 10 tallest buildings in Sri Lanka, that should be a notability claim. It would be even more exciting if it was just a shell and not finished. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i do understand what you mean. But the thing is that - unlike before - there are now numerous towers of similar characteristics in the area (u/c and completed). And i believe that it is sort of "Spam" and strongly contradicts WP:Notability to create such articles for such structures. All these towers does not have any significance even at the local level, and i dont see why it will in Wikipedia. I created these articles long-ago when they first popped-up in the papers/news; i probably over-reacted and spammed here. :) Looking forward for your response. Btw, this applies to this and this articles. Best regards. Rehman (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, you have convinced me, but they still may be worth naming in another article as some kind of list if there is a lo of them now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, there is an article containing the lists of these buildings... :) Best regards. Rehman (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support. I will read up on deletion policies as you suggest. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logo deletion

Hi Graeme, You recently deleted the image FMCU_logo_color.jpg. I am currently reworking the article on Firstmark Credit Union in my sandbox and will want to reinstate the image along with it. Is it possible to retrieve it for the info box when the article goes live or will I need to download it again? I appreciate any assistance that you can give me. Thanks! DonnaKP 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you can have it back if there is an article in main space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mackenzie

Hello Graeme: This is a follow up to your accepted upload request of the image of Dr. Walter Mackenzie.

You wrote: "Can you persuade the photo owner to release the image under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license? I expect that the photo owner owns the copyright now. Then we do not have to worry about fair or unfair use.". I talked to the son of Dr. Mackenzie, whom owns the photograph, and he told me that he does not have any problem releasing the digitized version of the image. Due to the age of the photograph and our search for the photographer Hines, there is a strong indication that the negative of the photograph is lost and that the original photo is is the only version available.

I am new to adding information to Wikipedia and I would appreciate your help to the second part of your message: "If you are successful then there are more procedures to follow to prove it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"

Could you guide me through "...more proceddres to follow to prove it" I will be glad to provide any necessary information.

Would I receive information from you in this page? If you need to contact me through email please feel free to write to me to my address: --redacted--

Regards. Mario A. Rodriguez.

--EdmontonWCM (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the procedures in WP:PERMIT or tag the web site where the image was located with a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Questions

Hi, I have answered your questions as submitted per RfA for myself. Sincere regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian Hall

Hi Graeme,

Was Cambrian Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) restored at any specific request? The only reference link is dead; there are a few sites that refer to it online, but none I would term reliable...

Regards,

--Whoosit (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification on removal of image

Hi Graeme, I guess you might have figured that I'm a little new at this game, and am hoping you can help clarify what is missing, or was incorrectly input when I tried to upload an image that you have cited as not meeting the correct requirements. I thought I had filled in the file with all the information needed, but apparently not. The image is an event logo for which I am trying to establish an article for. The organizers (Energy Market Authority Singapore) have given me permission to use this file for this purpose, and I made sure to clarify that in the image registration. Have I missed something here? Appreciate your guidance :)

Tanyavansoest (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Use Clarification

Thanks so much for clarifying Graeme. Much appreciated. BTW, I think it's interesting that Friesland is a special project of yours. My mom is from there originally. I should ask her to have a read and see if she wants to add anything!

Tanyavansoest (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support. I'll keep you posted with regard to the status of the article and as soon as it gets published will let you know if I run into any difficulties or have any outstanding questions re: copyright etc.
BTW, my grandfather's family name on my mother's side was Gotzen. He was a very well known modern architect in The Netherlands (circa 1950's) and when he was at the height of his career designed many buildings in Vlisingen where he lived with my grandmother Tanyavansoest (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a chat with my mother. It could be that it was her mother's family that originated there(her mother's maiden name was Treur I think that's the right spelling). With regard to references for my Grandfather, they do exist offline, that I know for sure because I've seen them. There was a book written on him and all his work, which again, my mom would be able to reference. I'll ask her for clarification on all the above next time we speak! Thanks for your interest :)Tanyavansoest (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice save!

Nice save on North Mugirango Constituency which I'd put up for CSD since it originally appeared to be a one sentence test. Bravo! Rob Banzai (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS LSM(R)-188

Hi. This article is a direct copy from USS LSM(R)-190, USS LSM(R)-195 etc. It even includes the edit buttons from the other articles. Its talk page was deleted on 12 September so I suspect the article is a recreation of a deleted article. It was even tagged at creation as: "(Tag: possible cut and paste move or recreation)". I could not tag it as copyright infringement because it is a copy and paste job from other Wikipedia articles. I doubt it has enough material to stand on its own but at best it should be a stub. Dr.K. logos 03:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cut and paste move is a copyright violation if the author is different and not credited. But it was clearly not a test. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried copyvio but I didn't think it could fit under GFDL. The only available option was the test given the edit buttons that were copied and pasted as well. But it definitely is a copy and paste job: example. Should I tag it as a copyvio if the author is not the same guy? Dr.K. logos 03:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you can do a null edit and credit the original article for the copy. Delete because of copyvio would not happen because the GFDL attributution can be easily done. A ship probably does not easily fall into speedy delete categories, so a prod is the way to go if it is non notable. I have removed the copy paste job already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine now. No copied and pasted edit buttons or sections. As far as notability I leave this to the experts. Thanks for the advice and for a great job. Take care. Dr.K. logos 04:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jelckama

Graeme Bartlett, I added some info on Jelckama's decendents as you seem to have noticed, and I gave a source for it aswell. That is basically all I included today. I also found two sources for his height. I included one earlier (from a Dutch site) and another one today. I am a semi-active user of the Dutch wikipedia and only edit the English wiki once in a while. Trotse Roma (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I joined your Friesland project. Why did your edit summary say: "Welcome Back?" I am not very active, but I try to edit every month. Trotse Roma (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Jelckama, a professor I know has told me he may have had more children with other women via his right of "droit de seigneur", something he was known for practicing. I will not be adding that, though, because it would be seen as "original research", am I correct? Trotse Roma (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are right. The information I got was unpublished and cannot be traced as reliable. So, I won't include it. It is interesting, though. It puts Jelckama, for me, in an entirely different perspective. Not that of a poor farmer fighting for survival, but rather a rich, cruel land owner known for his infidelity. Trotse Roma (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Selina Yeung

Yeah, I was a little quick on the draw, and I'll keep that in mind in the future. In my defense, though, looking at that user's contribs, it does just look like it's a page about themself or one of their friends. :P Audiosmurf ♪/♫ 11:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we know it is themself we can suggest that it moves to their user page. And a friend can go A7! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! I'll just keep an eye on it. Thanks for the tip about tagging too fast, too.  :) Audiosmurf ♪/♫ 11:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For people that want to become administrators, excessively fast tagging is a negative as it upsets the editors. But you are welcome to get rid of vandalism and libel very speedily. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'd like to run for adminship someday, I really appreciate the advice. Thanks again.  :) Audiosmurf ♪/♫ 11:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see some good features already - talking, a user page, a to do list, a sandbox, barnstars, reverting nasty comments. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm tryin' to be the best I can be for the most part. I'm not terribly active, and I only make probably like 10-15 edits a day when I am around, but that's partially because I find a lot of the policy stuff, WP:CSD, WP:AFD, really daunting and I barely know where to get started. Is there any way to get help with figuring stuff out, or does somebody just have to read all the documentation until they understand? Audiosmurf ♪/♫ 12:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a while to understand all that stuff. The CSD is not too hard, but don't forget to alert the talk page of the author, they should learn what went wrong. The template usually suggests what to do next. Another area to work in is to vote on WP:AFD or WP:IFD, those sort of things. Once you see enough of those you should get an idea of the consensus as to what things should be deleted and then nominate some yourself. Usually I cannot be bothered much with AFD, but sometimes I get in on the WP:MFD. The WP:AIV is useful if a vandal gets beyond a level 4 warning. You could help out there by checking reports to see if they are just content disputes and whether the vandal was warned sufficiently. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again! Just wondering, was it okay to put the speedy tag back on that article? I mean, is it okay to add it back after a certain time if it's been removed and the article still meets the criteria for speedy deletion? Also, do you mind if I keep bugging you if I have questions? You seem really knowledgable. :3 Audiosmurf ♪/♫ 03:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For this sort of thing it would be OK to retag after waiting for several hours. Didn't I delete it already though? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! You did delete it, I was just checking to make sure that it was an acceptable practice to re-add those. I wasn't sure, because I know you're not supposed to re-add a {{prod}}. Audiosmurf ♪/♫ 03:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Riggenbach

Hi.

Would appreciate very much knowing your views expressed on the talk page (since you edited the page recently). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sacha cosmetics

I'm a little worried about the decision you made not to delete the Sacha cosmetics article. I see that you made some changes, but the article still does nothing but promote Sacha cosmetics and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Let me list a few sentances for you

  • "The Sacha foundation has full coverage and staying power and matches the natural skin color."
  • "One's foundation should not leave the face looking pink, orange, dirty, ashy or two-toned."
  • "For women with serious skin blemishes, Sacha’s makes maximum coverage camouflage concealers."

This article should certainly have been deleted before you made some changes. At the moment it should almost certainly be deleted. Can you please explain to me how this article does not meet G11, i.e. the article does something other than promote Sacha cosmetics and would not require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right more work is needed, however the company is quite notable, and the article has been around for a long time. Therefore any delete is not speedy. Some statements were not promotion in the origianl. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your points:
  1. "Work is needed": yes, clearly it is.
  2. "The company is quite notable": So is Coca-Cola, but does that mean I can write an advert for Coca-Cola?
  3. "The article has been around for a long time": Is there a time limit after which any kind of rubbish is left alone?
  4. "Some statements were not promotion in the origianal": So if I wrote "My book is the best. The sky is blue. Buy my book." then that would be okay?
~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa

I closed my Rfa about an hour ago and left a strongly worded closing statement. I wanted to make sure that you know that I did not mean it in reference to you. Your remarks were kind and supportive and I am very appreciative. I, for the most part, left the message that I did because I felt that I offered a legitimate suggestion to be taken into consideration for future Rfa's that was dismissed because I was power-hungry, an accusation that I am deeply resent. In any case, I hope to see you around the encyclopedia.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 19:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message here. My attitude is to encourage a candidate to move in the right direction, even if I cannot support them as an admin at the current time. Because at some time in the future they may well be proven suitable. The RfA is very stressful, but as an admin dealing with people, you will get more stress and much more difficult people than you see at RfA. So how you can handle the negative stuff is part of your suitability assessment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Photos

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Tshiels1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Tshiels1's talk page.
Message added 07:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

tshiels1 (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


article review & logo reinstatement

Hi Graeme, You recently removed a logo from my sandbox page and you said that when I moved my article out into the live Wiki world you could return it. Before I go live though, I wanted to see if you wouldn't mind reviewing what I have for wikipedia worthiness. Thanks! DonnaKP 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaKP (talk • contribs) Thank you very much! It will be uploaded tomorrow! DonnaKP 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaKP (talk • contribs) [reply]

Did you by chance make the Firstmark Credit Union page live? I was just about to do it, but noticed that it already is. If you didn't, how did it go live? Can you tell how long it has been live? Very strange. :O) Thanks again! DonnaKP 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the Best! Thank you so much for your assistance. I am going to begin another, unrelated article in the near future. Can I continue to call on you for advice? Thanks again! DonnaKP (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from The dimension of the universe

Hello Graeme Bartlett, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The dimension of the universe has been removed. It was removed by Sambheetkrishna with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Sambheetkrishna before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstmark Credit Union and COI

Hello. I just noticed that Firstmark Credit Union, which had been previously deleted WP:CSD#G11, has been recreated via your move from User:DonnaKP/my sandbox. The user DonnaKP(talk/contrib) is the new account of SAT1932CU(talk/contrib) which was blocked due to its relation to "San Antonio Teachers 1932 Credit Union" and is presumable Firstmark's senior graphic designer. User:SAT1932CU was warned four times about WP:COI, including when the block was removed allowing creation of the new account, and while this user has never appeared to attempt to hide their connection with Firstmark, they don't appear to have made any COI disclaimer when dealing with you or other editors regarding the article. The article is certainly much less blatant than before (and was only borderline CSD#G11 originally), but given its history, I am concerned about notability and tone. I first became aware of issue from a related cross namespace RfD, and I am the one who placed the {{db-g11}} on the original Firstmark Credit Union, but I don't have any grudges here. The article still comes across to me as being promotional (with the extensive Community Involvement section), and I am unsure if this business is sufficiently notable for an article, but having been involved with its previous incarnation, I don't know that I can judge it objectively. -- ToET 23:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a coi tag will take care of it and alert others to the risks. A large proportion of articles about companies or orgs are written by those close to them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

Are you related to Manning or is that just a coincidence? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean User:Manning Bartlett, I don't think we are related, the name could descend from the same common ancestor long way back though. Your mention is the first time I was aware of the user's existence! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP Friesland

I've tagged quite a few articles with this WP. I've changed them all from WP:Netherlands except North Friesland Railway which had been assessed by WP:Netherlands. I did this on the basis that WP Friesland is a child WP of WP Netherlans (much like cats and sub-cats). I intend to finish off the Friesland mills after I've completed the Drenthe ones. Of course, I won't mind if other editors create a few of the articles. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tagging, I expect there are still many untagged. We have not formally made it a child project, although it makes sense to do so. There could be some template assistance done say to add fy=yes to the Netherlands project tags perhaps. In the fy wikipedia there are a whol lot of articles starting with "Wynmotor" eg fy:Wynmotor Nijetrine 1. Are these notable enough to make a mention in the en wikipedia? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about the windmotors. Friesland ones are mentioned in List of windmills in Friesland. Any that are listed as Rijksmonuments would probably meet the notability criteria. Windmotors are generally of low importance for WP:MILLS. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are heaps of these in Australia, and you probably would not find a list of them published anywhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean those with small windroses up to 12 feet (3.66 m) diameter. The Herkules windmotor at Zaandam has an 11 metres (36 ft 1 in) diameter windrose. The Crux Easton wind engine has a 20 feet (6.10 m) diameter windrose. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block Template

Hey Mate,

The verbage on the "block" templates needs a little work, eh? [3] "You have been forever blocked... but once that's done, you're free to come back." Funny, in a "when hell freezes over" kind of way. ;o) --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

That was a bit silly, I have reworded it! You can't blame the template for this. I take the responsibility. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

I've seen you pose the COI question at RfA before, and I'm always wondering whether it is a trick question. Is it? Regards, decltype (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no trick, it is just an easy question for a candidate to read the policy and make an answer. I usually ask it of some one that I would not expect to make an admin! The idea is for them to find a policy and read it. Otherwise I go through their logs or deleted contribs, see if there is a problem and ask a policy question related to it to see if they have improved from the early mistake. COI is something that will have to be explained to those that write about their own company in a spammy way and get it deleted, but are willing to discuss the matter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think it's a nice idea to pose a question that gives a candidate a chance to give a good answer when their RfA is not going well. The trick part is because someone like myself would probably point out that WP:COI is a guideline and not a policy. So full credit from me only if the candidate demonstrates that she is aware of the distinction, and explains the guideline :) decltype (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is trick and I did not even know it! Usually though the RfA is going down hill so fast it gets closed before there is an answer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Shark Images

Recently you refused to speedy delete three shark images, namely File:CarcharhinusAcronotus.jpg‎, File:CarcharhinusBrevipinna.jpg‎, and File:CarcharhinusSignatus.jpg. For two of the files you claimed that there wasn't a corresponding commons file for them in the edit summary. You are wrong. The two duplicate files in commons you missed were File:Blacknose shark nmfs.jpg and File:Carcharhinus signatus nmfs.jpg. For the third image File:CarcharhinusBrevipinna.jpg‎ you didn't even give an explanation for why you were not deleting it. In fact you didn't even mention anything about its duplicate commons image File:Spinner shark nmfs.jpg. I could only imagine this was so since I talked about it in the discussion page. Also, you didn't even leave an explanation on the talk page which I requested anyone who refused to delete do. I think your actions abused your administrative privileges and I wanted you to explain yourself.Chhe (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images were not tagged with the correct commons name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting block

According to Special:Contributions it hadn't even made an edit. @harej 22:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter went crazy though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That explains why the edits weren't going through. I don't know much about this filter jive, so can I see what my bot was doing? @harej 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see [4] [5], it is completely blanking the articles, or attempting to! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

csd files on commons

hi. i could not understand how csd a file would double it? anywat, i will keep an eye on the twinkle bug. best --Ciphers (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 4 (2010 film)

This is not a "merged" article, it was someone's attempt at a copy/paste move of Resident Evil: Afterlife's pre-merged version, as such it can be deleted. It is not a useful redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Miles McCarter

This article was deleted by you. How do I get it to be usify or emailed to me so I can rewrite it -- plus, you noted that it was deleted because it didn't establish significance. I can't find anything in the tutorials or help sections about establishing significance. How do I improve on this in my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lissahoop (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diane marie amann

Hi, Graeme Bartlett. You declined the copyvio CSD I placed for this article. However, if you go to the website [6], and click Full Biography... (right next to the education list), it is a direct copy, word for word, of that section. Thanks, AeonicOmega(Watcha say?) 19:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I could not see what was in the expand link until you pointed it out! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radoncic.jpg deletion

Hi Graeme Bartlett,

Ok, I'm kind of confused now. This is the second time I had to upload an authorized portrait and it was deleted. I specified that I obtainted the photo from the subject in the photo and was given authorization to use it here. What am I doing wrong? Please let me know. Thank you --Stlunatic071 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. You have new messages at Leonard^Bloom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hi,

Could you help me delete these images:

Thanks. --Amazonien (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett/archive_8&oldid=319193610"