User talk:Graeme Bartlett/archive 9

Older talk is in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8archives.

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:

---

from [1]

		The Special Barnstar
		THIS Barnstar is in appreciation for cleaning up my first EVER new article on Wikipedia, Tammen!

Chris Hawk (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'll figure out Wikipedias in's and out's yet!Chris Hawk (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the heads up on the place I can go for collaboration, I will definitely go there and scope it out. Making new articles is hard. Heck, editing old articles can be tricky to, especially when your idea of an article is different from someone elses. You live and learn, I guess!

Was wondering...Could you do me a favor? When you get a chance, run over to the Kevin Underwood article, read it, then look at the talk page, very bottom. Then look at the history and see what was taken out, if it should be re-included or not. It's about a direct quote, and whether someones intentions should be included. In a nutshell, Kevin is a murderer in Oklahoma who killed a little girl because he wanted to try cannibalization. However he did not get that far before he was caught, but the whole court case was based on it, as that was one of his primary motivations. I would really appreciate it because I want to fix the article to reflect that, but I do not want to step on anybodies toes. Thanks!Chris Hawk (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Blanked User pages

There is no speedy deletion criterion that I'm aware of for the deletion of userpages that have been blanked. I'd be interested to know your theory.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The page(s) were deleted with"Speedy deleted per CSD G7, the only editor who provided substantial content blanked the page. using TW" by Spartaz. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That edit summary incorrectly states policy. You will note that Speedy G7 does not apply to userspace. I think U1 may have said something about it once, but it doesn't now either. There is no basis for --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Under what theory does a G7 not apply to userspace? The G series applies to all namespaces, including user pages.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSD#G7. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 00:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have. Here it is: "if requested in good faith and provided that the page's only substantial content was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the page prior to the move.) If the sole author blanks a page outside user space, this can be taken as a deletion request.". Are you reading "If the sole author blanks a page outside user space, this can be taken as a deletion request" as an exclusion of userspace as opposed to an emphasis that it applies outside of userspace? I've never taken that second sentence to mean that. The G series description explicitly states "These apply to all namespaces (and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc)". If it is desired to exclude userspace from G7, G7 should simply say "This doesn't apply to userspace".—Kww(talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

G7 does apply to userspace, in that the sole author of a page can request its deletion. The difference is that blanking should not be interpreted as a deletion request in userspace. It seems quite clear to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In the case here under discussion, the user did not provide any talk or argument, meerly blanking the pages. This appears very strongly that they did not want the pages any more. However if they really meant to keep a blank page, they can easily recreate it from the link on the MfD. But if they meant to keep the old original article then the MfD should have continued till a delete or keep decision came out. And they can also request a restore of the content, though this should then have the MfD reopened in that case. I supposed I would be a bit shocked if some one deleted a blank sandbox of mine, but in this context the point was about deleting stuff. A bit of an ignore all rules, or ignore 20% of the rule delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's no requirement for MfD to continue until delete or keep results (there are several possible results other than that). Blank is actually a fairly frequent result. I'm not saying it's not proper to ever delete a page in userspace that has been blanked. I just want to be clear that there isn't a speedy criterion for it. WP:USER does acknowledge that some users will interpret blanking of userpages as a request . But it is by far from mandated and I don't take the language in WP:USER to even be authority as it appears to be more of a warning about how some interpret rather than a policy about how it will be interpreted. Any deletion of a blanked user page is an exercise of IAR and subject to a pretty strict level of review. It's also pretty weird to hold an MFD and decide it's moot because it was blanked but that because it was blanked decide afterward that it has to be deleted; especially where if we'd ordered it blanked at MFD, nobody would say it had to be deleted (btw, another was just blanked within the last 24 hours)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blueskyboris and misc political excitement

Good news! Per statements [2][3] you're apparently going to arbitration!

I'm sorry you happened to be the person who deal with... that, since I reported it. I didn't think he'd be THAT defensive about it. From all the research I did on the one and only source he gave, nothing he said was mentioned there, or I'd have left his original edit war alone. I also wish I could have done more to avoid reporting user, but revert didn't want to behave for farther back, and even then it probably have been just a stop-gap or distraction. Since he changed to different text to edit I would have run into a 3RR not necessarily related to vandalism or BLP issues, if I'd have manually done allllll of them. Irony being the user's edits at Troll (Internet) last month. Thanks for handling it, though... I'm thinking you're not terribly concerned about this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

At least he is talking constructively now rather than disruptively. I like to give people some kind of chance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Antenna element length/impedance/full wave antenna

Tell me more about this. User talk:Jc3s5h he made an illustration of what a full wave antenna element should look like. Diamond shaped. How would I arrange the elements if (and I would) want multiple? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) No much info is too much info.

How about a beam antenna (Yagi/log/corner reflector) made up of several rabbit ears adjusted to length? Wouldn't that work great since rabbit ears are designed to work period with just one dipole. Think about it; for their size they do infinitely better than aerials. This is gonna sound noob; but just take how shiny rabbit ears are; probably very well anodized. To be able to do anything with as little as they are. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a Winegard 68 element aerial that I elevated 6 extra feet: User:Daniel Christensen#Radio mast. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a request for an image upload. I am the owner of the copyright for that image. What is the problem? I have added to the request the link to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. Will that do? User: eurodos Eurodos (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The rhombic antenna is big but would it get farther stations? Would it have higher gain and directivity? Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Yes and yes. But the full wave loop is not a rhombic. The rhombic has a wavelength or more on each side, and may ahve a 300 Ohm resister at the end opposite the feed point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How good is the full wave loop versus the rhombic? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mike Toledo

Hello. There is an additional copy of the article you just deleted, which may interest you. I'm not clear how G3 applies to userspace, so I didn't tag it, but you may want to look into it. Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can nominate at WP:MFD if you wish, but the user should get a lot more lee way to prove that it is not harmful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

re:

misspelled name, I'll tag this one with prod as failing WP:BIO once you delete the other one. BanRay 14:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

VOSS

Hi Graeme - any news re my request below?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickety04 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Graeme

Please can you reinstate the ability to create the page "VOSS"? I am trying to educate an audience about a new type of management for unified communications. This is an educational piece, not a sales piece. I can provide you with the content to approve in advance, if you woudl like, however it is imperative that, for this to work, it is located on a page called VOSS. Thanks Chickety04 (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Rachel

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

Thanks, Graeme Bartlett, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sun Clocks

The article Sun Clocks is a copyright violation. I checked the site that the content originates from, and there is no CC-by-SA or GFDL notice on that page. Can you please explain why you have removed this, twice? JBsupreme (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yusuf Ali Bohra

If the article creator intends to expand this article , they may indicate that they are not done but editors are not mindreaders so we have no idea whether or not this article will ever be updated. As it stands it's only a link which is a clear case of speedy deletion criteria A3. --RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I like to give the user more than a couple of minutes for this sort of case. If you know that it will get an A7 please tag with this too as it trumps too short. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You've got to look at the article, not just the timeline. Its a single link to a blog. Its currently an A3 case and will likely stay that way based on my experience. If the reviewing admin disagrees, we can go the A7 route if necessary. I dont think it will be a problem. This is a pretty clear cut of someone trying to promote their blog and doing it poorly.--RadioFan (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That delay was a better, proves the user wAs adding nothing more. Now it is gone! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Anil K Gupta

Quick question, what led you to delete despite a claim of permission made on the article's talk page (which normally leaves the article with the copyvio template, and 7 days to send permission to OTRS)? Just curious since we obviously took opposite stances on this. MLauba (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I could probably restore it. A bit of asynhronicity with CSD. But may still be deletable under other criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC

Got it. Yup, the article fails every other content policy as well. Still, giving them back those 7 days may at least stop a multiple recreation as copyvio, and, one hopes, let them time to address the rest. MLauba (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

YOUR ARTICLE SHOULD BE DELETED!

im trying to figure out why everytime I DELETE YOUR ARTICLE IT NEVER GETS DELETED AND THE SAME REASONS YOUR GOING AROUND DELETING EVERYONE ELSESARTICLE ,, IS THE SAME REASON WHY YOU AND YOUR ARTICLE SHOULD BE DELETED!

The reason is that this is a user page but you were trying to create an article about yourself. If you want to edit your user page you should go to User:Milanchristopher. Attempting to the article again will likely get you blocked from editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent request; wikipedia editor very frustrated; answers requested

I am very, very frustrated. I am upset but will present this objectively and reasonably. There are 36 Dog Food Brands that have Wikipedia articles/pages on Wikipedia. They can found in the "Category: Dog Food Brands" category in a search. When that title ("Category: dog food brands") is searched for, it is found. (They are not part of the Food and Drink Project.) There are 30 Cat Food Brands that have Wikipedia articles/pages on Wikipedia. These articles represent a full variety of pet food brands, from small to large companies, from new to older companies, from regular commercial pet food to niche, holistic pet food, from family-owned companies to public companies. Please explain to me why Pet-Tao has been deleted. If anything, Pet-Tao is just as notable or even more notable and significant than many of the pet food brands that are on Wikipedia and have never even been considered for deletion. Why has Pet-Tao been deleted? I respectfully request that Pet-Tao's deletion be reversed and let the public decide whether or not Pet-Tao should stay on Wikipedia along with the other 66 pet food brands. This is only fair. It does not seem fair or according to Wikipedia policy to have one person nominate it for deletion and have it gone within less than 10 hours of being written; or to have three belligerent, random people apparently have a vendetta against Pet-Tao; while 66 other pet food companies have no opposition whatsoever. I have been editing on wikipedia for over two years. Dougmac7 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talk page. My experience on wikipedia has completely soured. It seems that there is no accountability in place. Administrators, who are volunteers, (and I am not referring to you but to another admin, Tan..) can simply do what they want with no one overseeing what they do. In a recent situation, that administrator and two other volunteers did not follow policy (7 days for deletion and consensus). They were not objective but rather accusatory and did not deal with the facts, issues and objective reasons for what they did (deleting an article). If there is no accountability, how can this website function without chaos and disorder? I now know why Wikipedia is not an official source for information. Please let the public know your response to these issues. Dougmac7 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was the third administrator to delete one of your pages. The page was deleted via a deletion discussion here and endorsed by the DRV today. "No one overseeing"? I appreciate you trying to help this editor, Graeme, but don't feed the trolls. Tan | 39 03:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tan, please don't confuse my point of view with Dougmac7's. I am sure several sets of eyes are on our efforts to delete unsuitable material. I was slightly peeved by the earlier close of the DRV because it edit conflicted my endorse !vote. I am trying to change DM's ways to the constructive path. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Nimmons speedy declined

Hi, Graeme

Declined the speedy deletion as a Kentucky colonel asserts significance. If notability remains in doubt, you might want to send to AFD to sift claims and references. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

File:EE Berkeley 1968.JPG

Re this image, it is a copyrighted image that isn't now used in any article. There is also no claim of fair use, the uploader has asserted permission with no evidence, yet insists that a (c) notice be placed on the image. If my criteria selection was incorrect, please tell me where to find out more and which criteria you think would be appropriate. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also with regard to EE_Berkeley_1968 image file

Dear Graeme Bartlett, I noticed you removed the delete tag from the EE_Berkeley_1968 photo file, and then I noticed that user Verbal placed an explanation (above) for his tagging. I actually found his explanation quite enlightening, since he hasn't given explanations of his concerns on the talk page for the image file itself. Therefore I added a section of text to the image file's talk page, visible HERE (as a diff). I apologize for the length, but please take note of it if you have any more dealings with the image file page. I am trying to move the process in a constructive direction -- and for that, explanations are very useful!!! (Also on that same talk page, I copied some pertinent text, HERE, from WP:CIV about the importance of explanations). Thanks, and please have a wonderful day and week. --Health Researcher (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, the speedy delete was not quite with in policy, but there may be a delayed delete if the image is not used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Graeme, I've now restored the photo usage in the Passage Meditation article. In that article, I made sure to include sourced info that Johnnyuniq suggested be included (see talk page). In the photo caption, I also used text from the media kit of the organization founded by this (now deceased) individual, available here. If you scroll down, the picture in question (File:EE_Berkeley...) is on right side. It could be that the media kit listing is redundant to the original uploader's configuration of the file, which involved a permission letter -- permission now seems generally provided by the press kit webpage. If all this looks OK, do you see anything else that needs to be done to make the caption and the image file all within Wikipedia guidelines? (hopefully nothing correct will have been vandalized by the time you read this!) Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Graeme, As you can see, User:Verbal again deleted the photo usage by the Passage Meditation article, claiming it is was "unreliably sourced", though without explaining what he meant by that. There has been a little bit of talk about whether all items in the caption were reliably sourced, but User:Verbal deleted not only the disputable parts of the caption, but the entire photo (so wasn't he in violation of WP:preserve information?). I will therefore restore the photo, temporarily (at least) omitting the disputable portions of the caption. QUESTIONS: 1. At what point can the "Orphan" tag be removed??(one might get the impression that User:Verbal is trying convey a wrong impression that the photo is orphaned, when that is clearly not the intent of those who've worked hard on the article that hosts it); 2. When you get a chance, I'll be interested in your thought about what else, if anything, needs to be done to make the photo fully in compliance. Please let me know -- I don't want the clock to run out. Thanks! -- Health Researcher (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sat 28 Nov(AU) updates + Q: Dear Graeme, Thank you for your message; I have an update and a naive question. First, the Update: Verbal again deleted the article cite to the file in the photo, asking for "reliable sourcing" though he was characteristically vague and did not say what was unreliably sourced about the photo (the caption was footnoted, the photo file is as you've seen it, etc.). I confess I'm increasingly of the opinion that his vagueness reflects artful (or not so artful) obstructionism and disruption; but as a consciensciously civil, perhaps even supererogatory conscienscious Wikipedian, I am responding on the talk page and inviting discussion/concerns from him. As long as the photo file isn't deleted in the meanwhile, we will see how that process works out (I have both hunches and hopes). On that note - the issue of making sure the file doesn't disappear - let me ask a QUESTION: What did you mean, in your remarks below on my talk page, that I should "really talk to the deleting admin". Sorry to ask such a naive question, but who is the deleting admin? How do I find that person? Thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(text copied from User_Talk:Health_Researcher#Orphan_picture) as soon as the picture is used, or there is an encyclopedic link, you can remove the orphan tag yourself. It is possible Verbal thought that it was an orphan, although at the bottom of each picture it says where it is used. You should really talk to the deleting admin. I just declined the speedy delete because it should not have been speedy, but given the one week to fix the problem. A fair number of pictures are tagged wrongly like this. A real source would say exactly where you got the picture from, who took the photo, who owns the copyright, when it was taken, in which country. This will enable others that want to use it to tell who to ask for permission, and when it becomes public domain and can be freely used. You may even be able to persuade the copyright holder to release it under CC-BY-SA-3.0 if you are connected with them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NB: Thanks for the list - FYI, the copyholder and all that other info you mention (except original photographer 40 years ago) is already contained in the photo file, so it sounds OK.

Can you point me to...

... a good primer an antenna theory? Preferably an online version without the cruft? I want to learn the physics, not the math. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a former physicist (student, not professional). Math is fine, into the PDEs, but my concern is that most texts replace explanations with formulas and call that physics. I'm interested in understanding gain in various designs, not a 19th century calculus guess prior to the invention of quantum. "Antennas for Jocks" would be perfect! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Silver Valley Unified School District logo.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Silver Valley Unified School District logo.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood Price

Hi,I just wanted to say thanks for checking and editing my first Wikipedia article, the one about Blood Price. I`m a newcomer, so please keep helping me with my work - checking and editing it. I would realy appreciate it. Vicki Nelson (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

File:CessOnLondonUnderground.png

We agreed on CC-BY-SA 3.0 as the licensing, so it I guess it's now off the deletion list, if it isn't it can be removed now.--The Navigators-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 10:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Navigators (talk • contribs)

Who do I send the email to?--The Navigators-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 21:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Navigators (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the help on the email, I sent the email and put up the alert, and I fixed the signature, I wasn't aware it was doing that.--The Navigators-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 21:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, typo, thanks for fixing :) --Closedmouth (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This led me to check your recent speedy delete nominations, but mostly they got deleted! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I tend to just delete things rather than nominate them, heh. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,

Thanks for letting me know that useful tag, I'll make sure I utilize it the next time if I fall into the same trap. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted chou12 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Primepossum.jpg

The uploader isn't the author, VISACT is and the uploader has even stated it somewhat on the image page. Bidgee (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I will see if I get them to prove this. But the uploader is pretty inactive. Visact probably owns no copyright on the material. But the pictures etc will be owned by the members of this organisation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether it was taken by or for VICACT or by one of its members however this is clearly not the uploader's own work. Image sizes (File and resolution) and meta/EXIF data are the same as the photograph on VISCAT. File:Robospaienv2.jpg maybe the uploader's own work but the Prime Possum image is not. Bidgee (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have sent an email. I have no doubt the image is the same. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a reply from the org, but not from the uploader. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Queen's International Leadership Conference

Hello, you remarked that there is no evidence of importance for "Queen's International Leadership Conference (first student-run international leadership conference in Canada)." Did you read up on the initiative? Though something may not have ocurred doesn't make it trivial or unimportant. The conference may not have taken place, but the work and collaboration of this initiative has been going on for over a year. In this day and age, organizations that are entirely not-for-profit (those that are entirely) volunteering their services for the betterment of humanity should not be taken lightly. In no way shape or form did I type anything that contained biases. What leads you to believe that it is promotion otherwise? If you are solely using my username to represent this article as promotions, in all fairness you aren't you displaying a bias yourself? There is also a fine line in promotion, when what your promoting is for the betterment of Global society. Challenging your idea of importance, what makes something important to you? Commercialism; wide eyes in public media? This conference has over 400 active members that are constantly contributing their time, energy and even money for a cause which they feel is important; a cause dedicated to the betterment of leaders tomorrow. Is that of importance? I may not be experienced enough in the creation of Wikipedia articles, but please think twice about classifying a cause as unimportant, without reflecting on what has been leading up to the vision and formation of the cause in hand.--Qilc (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qilc" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qilc (talk • contribs) 11:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Anne Gaddegaard article

Thanks very much for helping me do this article and getting rid of that speedy deletion rubbish. I had only just created it. You really are very helpful. --Cexycy (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have translated some of this information and put it on the article. I have been able to create another article regarding the début album and I hope to do the same for the rest. You can do some traslating too by using Google Translate and polishing up the results a bit. This can be found at http://translate.google.com/# . Let me know if there is anything else I can do and what you think of the page so far. --Cexycy (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Should have been Anne Gadegaard! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oggi Tomic

Hi - thanks for reviewing this CSD tag. I understand that you are saying importance is asserted, I assume because of the mention of awards - however what he appears to be saying is that he has worked on (been somehow involved) the films which have won the awards, but I cannot find him credited on any of the awards himself. Further, while searching for more sources to confirm or refute the award claims I noticed that this page (as well as the user page) are close copy of http://www.vimeo.com/user1273158. I just wanted to confirm if you still feel that this asserts importance or significance. Thanks again.  7  12:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that is probably evidence to support a delete, but perhaps not speedy, I will check if there is a CVio, but a prod would do if there are claims hat are not supported. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.  7  22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day Graeme

and hope you're good :-) - I thought I'd swing by to see if you might be interested in coming to a bit of a meetup in Sydney on 9th December - and I also was wondering if you might have any contact details for Manning Bartlett - dunno if you're related, but if so, then User:Witty lama and I were chatting about Manning yesterday at the Wikimedia Australia AGM - apparently Manning had some ideas about regular events in Sydney, and I'm particularly up for trying to make this happen! (Liam likes the idea too :-) - If you're not a chapter member, then let me also wave the flag for signing up and getting involved - I'm not involved on the committee or anything like that, but I think it's a great bunch of folk who can do some pretty exciting things down here - let me know if you've any questions or anything.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the invite, but I only spend a few days a year in Sydney. Although it is time for another meetup in Canberra. I have though slightly about joining the Wikimedia Australia, but have so far done nothing. I am not any kind of contact for Manning Bartlett, he is not a relative of mine despite the shared surname. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of Future Ads

Hello Graeme Bartlett,

You were kind enough to review an entry that I would like to post called Future Ads. I apologize if I am not replying to you in the correct area. I just wanted to make sure you received this message. You had stated that the article has notability claims, which I assume is a good thing, and that it is not too spammy. You had asked what "dynamic bidding interface" means. It is simply a bid-based onlne advertising platform. Should I just write that instead? Upon making that change, do you think the article can be posted? Thanks so much for your help. I have included our exchange below for your reference.

Hello, I had posted an entry for Future Ads, but it was moved to my userspace to be reworked. I have edited the page. May I make a request to have someone review it? Thanks so much. It can be found at User:Mwebbcom/Future Ads.

Thanks again! Mwebbcom (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Page at User:Mwebbcom/Future Ads. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC) There are a few notability claims now. And it is not too spammy. Can you explain what is a "dynamic bidding interface"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drawing_board/Archives/2009/November"

Thanks again so much Mwebbcom (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of nontheists (surnames H to K)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of nontheists (surnames H to K). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Giant Beaver

Hello. I requested that Giant Beaver be moved to Castoroides ohioensis. The reason Giant Beaver does not currently redirect there is because it contains the content that should be moved there. I cannot perform the move because there already is a page at Castoroides ohioensis, but the content should be moved. The content on Giant Beaver is specific only to the Castoroides ohioensis species, when the term "Giant Beaver" refers to Castoroides leiseyorum as well. Previously I had moved the content (without doing a move) and got reverted because people wanted the Talk page to move as well. See the recent history of Giant Beaver. So that is why I put the db-move tag there. If you could perform the move (or at least speedy-delete Castoroides ohioensis so Giant Beaver can be moved there) that would be great. Then Giant Beaver should redirect to Castoroides. Again, I would gladly do all this myself, but it needs an admin to get the content moved from Giant Beaver to Castoroides ohioensis. Thanks! — Epastore (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

now moved and redirect altered on your request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Much better now. — Epastore (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan Pena Deletion

How can I go about having the Dan Pena page deleted? Attack page - some editors are just finding as much dirt as they can on the subject. This is breaching Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. This article has a long history of NPOV issues since it began. It started as a puff piece then became a character assasination. Countless attempts have been made to make the article neutral with little success. It has been deleted before. This article is not a reliable source of material for an encyclopedia and does not reflect well on the good faith of the wikipedia community. This has already undergone AFD before. I've posted my input in the page discussion page. Cablespy (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for point out something

I didn't realize that IP addresses can not create articles, I'll not react so harshly in the future. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your "speedy declined" for Vinnoth Krishnan

I'm sorry but the linked page says the supposed #1 hit was written by Daler Mehndi... the kid was probably just dancing in the background or something. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be hoax, or misleading, but it is a claim, better use prod. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues at RfA

Hi Graeme thanks for your support. About the other issues I'm not sure because it was quite a while ago but I think that the foreign language one was such a strange language to me that I mistook it for nonsense, obviously I would hope to do better now. The Willie Soon file was deleted over 6 months ago. I could have got a fair use rationale straightened out but I didn't have the time then and decided to leave it to be deleted, I would definitely do things differently now (more than half of my edits have been since this) I was on a steep learning curve. Thanks I had completely forgotten about the Bamber velocity file. It was one of the first things I uploaded nearly 11 months ago. I am now trying to get the proper permission sorted out for this. I know Jonathan Bamber and I have emailled him to try to obtain his permission. I assume he is currently in San Francisco at the AGU meeting so he may take a while to respond. Polargeo (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see you improved, that why my vote was in the support section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

J Bamber has just confirmed to me (by copying me in to his email) that he has emailled permissions-en@wikimedia.org to give his permission to release that image under the creative commons SA licence. This is of huge benefit to wikipedia to have this great image available. I'm very pleased. Polargeo (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Cat tagging/christmas/pool

Thanks for the wishes - a delightful surprise - unfortunately I am rostered on the local volunteer fire brigade for the coming week [4] - however i tend to keep all reading and electronic materials well away from the pool - the gully winds here are not in the slightest sympathetic to items of any weight or material :( SatuSuro 23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vr-zone (2nd nomination)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vr-zone (2nd nomination). You declined a speedy on the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

got the australian noticeboard late - might need to wait till the NZ is finished to see which way to go SatuSuro 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 21:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Ducktastic.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Ducktastic.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. emerson7 12:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Tempaccount5

Hi, thanks for blocking them as an obvious sock. Could I ask you to take a look at their talk page and take care of their unblock request? I'm ashamed to say that they successfully trolled and baited me, so I'm leaving the issue and I'd appreciate it if someone could end it. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael J. Rudolph

I noticed that you declined a request for a speedy deletion on Michael J. Rudolph on the grounds that importance had been proven by virtue of his having been a nine-time world champion. A Google search for Michael Rudolph (or Michael J. Rudolph) returns no results relevant to professional wrestling. No world title history shows him as a former champion. In addition, the article claims he has retired wrestlers John Cena and Batista, which is not true. In fact, there does not appear to be any professional wrestler of any notability with either the birth name or ring name of Michael J. Rudolph (certainly not one working for World Wrestling Entertainment, on their Raw brand or any other, and definitely not one who is currently the number one contender for the World Heavyweight Championship). I've re-attached a speedy deletion template to the article. Jeff Silvers (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case a hoax! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Transwiki process

I am looking into the transwiki process for a previous afc article, but I don't understand it at all, I was directed to you when I asked on IRC. Article is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sector sparing. Thanks --MWOAP (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed page moves

Hi Graeme, I noticed that you have been moving pages such as Sir Edward Seymour, 1st Baronet to Edward Seymour, 1st Baronet per a request at WP:RM. However, I did dispute the move on the talk page of the original request. I have since moved that one back where it belongs. Would you like to move the rest of the Seymours back, or shall I? Wine Guy Talk 06:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right the policy does suggest keeping the Sir, although to me it looks pretty unnecessary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What Wine Guy said. We have an "all-or-none" policy on baronets; either they get both parts of the title (Sir XXX, nth Baronet when disambiguation is necessary) or none (XXX). Thanks for your attention. Choess (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All moved back, I will close discussion next - though it may be premature! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving those back. And, yes, the baronetcy is unique in various ways; suffice it to say that while this style issue may seem odd, it is correct. Thanks again. Wine Guy Talk 07:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

North German Plain

Thanks for the move. For some reason, the contents of the talk page were not carried over—it appears two comments were made on the redirect's talk page in 2006. Do you know how to merge the content and edit history? Hayden120 (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback for Draft Article

Hello, I had posted this request in 'Wikipedia: Drawing Board' (copied below). Please let me know if you have had a chance to review it. Thankyou.

I have created a draft article in my account as a 'work in progress'. Please review my most recent draft edited. I would like to know whether my article meets the criteria of notability and neutrality, before I submit it for creation. Thankyou. 24.150.166.112 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot tell where you put it, as you have no other recent contributions, you must have edited from another IP number. Where is the draft? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response. Here is the link to the draft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Stephen_Gaetz 24.150.166.112 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fhyork (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The X Factor (Greece series 2)

Hey, I see you declined to delete the page The X Factor (Greece series 2) because it has "Unique information" in the infobox. The only unique information is the date of the season, which can very well be on the original page The X Factor (Greece). The user that made the page seems to agree that there really was no reason to split the original page, since he blanked it himself after a talk comment. And there is nothing else to really build upon on this page, so it will essentially remain a stub, while the original article, also becomes a stub if the season information is taken out as you can see in this edit version: [5]. It is also worth noting that the "season 1" page was already delete, while all the other international versions of X-Factor are all on one page too.Greekboy (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If original author puts the unique information on the parent page then it can be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All the information is already on the parent page at The_X_Factor_(Greece)#Series_2_.282009-2010.29. Greekboy (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Graeme Bartlett! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Mickey Duff - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Selma James - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Franz Josef Radermacher - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Beemababy

Hello Graeme Bartlett. User talk:Beemababy is requesting unblock, and the request could use a little more information. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica (roller coaster) image

Hi, your Commons page says here is better, so please see the img-del note I just left there. I believe the Flickr user who uploaded the image gave an incorrect license. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Localities in New South Wales

Hello, thought this was just a bit of routine category maintenance- I changed categories of 3 places only to empty the category & bring structure into line with the other states which only have cities, suburbs or towns (even though often a misnomer). I checked Geographical Names Board- one I removed is described as a locality, one as a rural place and one as a suburb (of Lithgow). May be a case for treating NSW differently by splitting smaller places into another cat. but on what criteria I'm not sure. I have no strong opinions on this, except that I don't see much point in a category with a population of 3. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)).

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Brindabella, New South Wales

I can see a case for merging these articles. I think that the category for localities is needed for places without any sort of urban centre and there are many articles which already exist on such places. I monitor Wikipedia:New articles (Australia)#Possible Australia-related articles found by bot.--Grahame (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: unreferenced metal BLPs

Thanks for your help in making the list. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Drafts

Please go ahead - if there's anything there that you find useful, you're welcome to it! I've now got my admin bit back, so I can undelete the draft if that would help.

I'd also definitely be interested in a local meetup again - I'm no longer living in Canberra, but will probably be back for a while in April/May if anyone's keen. Rebecca (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for referencing some of my old articles - i.e. Nicola Lewis, Bill Forwood, Peter Toyne. It's very much appreciated! Rebecca (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I wish it was that easy. All of these articles - apart from where their parliamentary biography was used as a source - are based on newspaper articles from Factiva. Some of them are really thoroughly researched, so coming back five or six years later and looking at something like Peter Wong (Australian politician) makes me go "oh #%&%". This is all the more reason why I appreciate others grabbing the low-hanging fruit! Rebecca (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wild_Pockets_logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Wild_Pockets_logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

www.therealmountpanorama.com

Graeme,

I would be VERY cautious about using this site as a reference, as the author has been creating his own results, based on his own opinions - reference - [6]. I love how he justifies in stating that it was a ruling by Holden. Don't you bet that manufacturers the world over could make rulings on the motorsport events they enter. --Falcadore (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ETCC histroy website

Also - Tuckey, Bill, ed. (1987/88). The Great Race. 7. Hornsby: The Berghouse Floyd Tuckey Publishing Group. ISSN 1031-6124. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |year= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) --Falcadore (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I will put them in as well! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ogi Ogas

Hi there. As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogi Ogas, you may be interested to know I have re-nominated the page for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogi Ogas (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanook

I see you've declined my speedy on this, but it seems that this appears to be the 5th creation of a 4-time deleted article (title now salted). Should I take it to AfD, or should I re-place a speedy on it?? Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For not speedying Sanook as a substantial recreation of previously deleted material. The article has been speedied 4 times previously, and finally salted, under Sanook.com. UnitAnode 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal

Hi, Graeme Bartlett. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion and later rewriting my invitation

An alternate account deleted my invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions.[7] I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. The template was inviting you here: here. Ikip 03:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Realestate.com.au Limited

Hello Graeme Bartlett, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Realestate.com.au Limited, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Anicholls81. This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Anicholls81. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Anicholls81 (talk · contribs) 06:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a bot

Cripes youve been visited by a few bots - this am noticed that Geol in Tas hardly links a local feature anywhere (actually links) was that deliberate? I have considered trying to link in the features with exisitng articles but thought would ask first - unfortunately limited time to go through the whole thing at the moment SatuSuro 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand the thing about linking more than once - nah have been considering getting all the named ranges and mountains of the south west either into a list - - a bit like the highest mountains article - or for the notables an article - and if only we had a good geo to help/check - it would be good to have all the 'features' like the mount read complex with their own arts - but not at the moment... - thanks for your reply - cheers - yeah I couldnt believe after an article like that - once checks 'what links here' and it has almost nothing - which is what inspired the question - cheers SatuSuro 05:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I will have to look at the article a bit longer before I give you a good answer to you question - it can get quite complicated - the regions of tas are only categories so far - there are some articles (like western tasmania) - there is a need for articles and also a general regions of tas article - then it would be possible to attach and link stuff that way - real lifes gonna knock me outta here for a bit - so I will be unable to do much for a while SatuSuro 06:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the image reply

Thanks for the reply about the Logic Factory logo! --Culix (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification

As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)