Jump to content

User talk:Guy WF Loftus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Guy WF Loftus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 11:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Image without license

[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:OS logo.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:OS logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 11:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Orwell Society (March 19)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This draft is written from the viewpoint of the organization, focusing on what the organization says about itself. Corporate notability or organization notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject.

Not every organization, and not every organization with 501(c)(3) status (or its equivalent in other countries) is notable, and this draft does not establish organizational notability. You may ask for advice about organizational notability at the Teahouse.

See the policy against article ownership and the protection policy. Wikipedia is not likely to give an organization any sort of control over an article about the organization.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Guy WF Loftus! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Orwell Society (April 1)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second submission response

[edit]

The tone was "self-serving" and has now been neutralised by taking out personalisations (use of first names), "peacocks" and removing whole sections that focus on process like Membership, which is not of interest to anyone wanting to understand what the society stands for from a encyclopedic persepctive. --Guy WF Loftus (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
1292simon (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell Society talk page

[edit]

Guy, you have recently created a talk page for the orwell society. As your page is still in Draft space, i have moved your request to Draft talk:Orwell Society so that it will be easily found by anyone looking at Draft:Orwell Society. I have flagged the original page for deletion as it serves no purpose isolated from the article under discussion. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard H Blair

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Richard H Blair requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. AviationFreak💬 05:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H Blair moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Richard H Blair, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Captain Calm (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Captain Calm - I haven't quite sorted out "talking" yet but thank you for going to the trouble to remount this - actually, I am doing this on behalf of the eponymous subject, who is too private a person to do this himself but his notability (being George Orwell's son) is sought to give weight to his appointments (trustee of the Orwell Foundation, Patron of the Orwell Society etc...). He has decided to devote more time to preserving the memory of his father during a time when the value of truth is reaching new heights. He has told me this morning that rather than "Richard H Blair", he should be "Richard Horatio Blair" (we both preferred plain "Richard Blair" but that slot is already taken by a cricketer). Can you advise how to revise or delete this incipient stub?

Guy WF Loftus (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think you got this - so in the spirit of apparent collaboration with some audit trail at least, I will create a new instance using "Richard Horatio Blair" with content, knowing that we can clean up this blind stub in time.

Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy, just to let you know that you can notify editors that you've responded to them by writing {{ping|Captain Calm}} and signing your post. Talk page comments on Wikipedia have a tendency to go unnoticed, since nobody notices anything here unless they have the page on their watchlist. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your contributions (and your help nudging me closer to something like effectiveness. {{ping|Captain Calm}}{{ping|Thjarkur}} Guy WF Loftus (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(You do however need to write that ping template like you see it when not in editing mode, like so: {{ping|Captain Calm}}) – Thjarkur (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts?

[edit]

Hello, could you please explain why you replaced another editor's signature with your own, in this edit at my talk page? Captain Calm (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - a problem with sharing a family computer. I hadn't noticed that my wife had already signed on. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC) @Captain Calm:[reply]

Understood, thanks . Captain Calm (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Orwell Society has been accepted

[edit]
Orwell Society, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

- hako9 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Richard H. Blair

[edit]

Hello, Guy WF Loftus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Richard H. Blair".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I hadn't picked up that this entry is still considered a draft due for deletion - I have probably misinterpreted the article's status. I can appreciate that being the son of a great man (George Orwell, born Eric Blair) doesn't necessarily confer notability. Despite owning the vast Orwell Estate, Richard Blair himself only entered public life in the last ten years, promoting his father's memory, which can be illustrated with a number of public events not mentioned in my entry, which was deliberately low-key out of respect for someone living. If his entry has been identified for deletion, I guess there is not a lot I can do, unless you have any suggestions.@UnitedStatesian: Guy WF Loftus (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply (and for your contributions); I removed the deletion tag, which gives another six months for you (and/or other editors) to bulk up the article with additional sourced material; if you need any instructions on how to go about this, please let me know. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the breathing space - from your response, I take it the problem is not so much notability as citations? I'll work on both for balance... @UnitedStatesian:Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two go together: If the citations are to significant coverage (like the New Yorker article), notability will be demonstrated. I also moved the draft to Draft:Richard H. Blair to punctuate the initial. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm not sure if you follow legacy challenges but I thought I would mention (out of courtesy to you) that I have submitted the draft, which you kindly set up for me. @UnitedStatesian:Guy WF Loftus (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard H. Blair has been accepted

[edit]
Richard H. Blair, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your unexpectedly rapid response @Bkissin:. So there are now two instances: Richard Horatio Blair and Richard H. Blair - How do I delete one and disambiguate the other to create his more familiar name, which is just "Richard Blair"? Guy WF Loftus (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oil and gas reserves

[edit]

That is about this edit about that draft - if you want more input than mine, open a new thread on WP:HD or elsewhere (possibly linking to the archive page), but do not modify the archives.

Again, the usual process on Wikipedia is gradual edits directly on the mainspace articles when those already exist. Yes, that is a rather unusual process (most professional reports go through several drafts and internal rounds of revisions etc. before before posted to a wider audience), but that is the process we have. You did not follow it from the start; that’s not ideal, but that’s how things are, and now we have to deal with it.

You should definitely stop making rounds of revisions in draft space now. You will have to actually integrate the revisions in mainspace at some point, and the sooner the better, so just bite the bullet now. Somehow put your revisions into the main article, wait a week or so to see if some people object, and deal with the objections; once that is stabilized, you can make further revisions, this time directly in the mainspace. That is the only part of the advice that I am 100% sure of.

How to make the revisions is more complicated. Here’s what I would do, because I cannot see a better way.

  1. Move your draft to Draft:Oil and gas reserves, or Draft:(some other appropriate title). See Help:How_to_move_a_page or ask me if you do not manage to do it.
  2. Move the current pseudo-header of your draft (The article below is a revision of the existing Wikipedia article on Oil reserves...) to the talk page of the draft (Draft talk:(your draft name)).
  3. Post a new section at Talk:Oil reserves, giving the link to your draft, and describing your suggestion (basically, proposing to replace the current article with your draft).
  4. Edit Oil reserves and add the {{Merge to|Draft:(your draft name)}} template. This adds a "proposed merger" banner to the page. Technically, this is not really a merge, and we don’t merge articles from mainspace into draft, but I feel that’s the process that matches the situation the best, and it will get eyes on the page.
  5. If your proposal attracts discussion, positive or negative, great, engage with other editors and try to find a workable compromise. If there is no reply within one or two weeks, propose to publish your draft. To do so, add {{subst:submit}} to its top (that puts it the articles for creation queue) and explain on the talk page that the old article should be deleted.

There is a really really high chance that at some point someone will revert you or object to your actions in that process. If so, stop and listen to what they say. If they say you did not follow the process, tell them it was my suggestion (and that I know it’s not ideal but I have no better idea). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tigraan - for your understanding - I learn as I write (can't ask for better) but only within the tolerance of those with more responsibility for platform stability. I'll give this a go. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: This article was always going to be tricky because it touches on so many interest groups. I chose it because of its importance and because the existing article was broken but it also needed a broader college of opinion than mine (hence the panel of experts). There has never been any expectation of success, so we are free to abandon the attempt to make a material difference to the existing article now and there will be no regrets - no harm. But I think Wikipedia deserves better - it is not my place to say if that is right or not (it will shakedown naturally). Should I create a draft to invite others to join (looking at the Draft Article options)?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does placing "{{subst::AfC draft|Guy WF Loftus}}" (with one colon) in the first line keep the DRAFT:article out of main space?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I used too much jargon, so an explanation about terminology first. Mainspace is the "live" articles - things that will pop up in online searches, for example Oil reserves. Someone’s userspace includes their userpage and its subpages (in your case, User:Guy WF Loftus/(somewhere), which includes the current location of your draft). Finally, draftspace are the pages located at Draft:(somewhere). Unlike all those spaces, a draft is, well, what it says colloquially - something that aims to be an article but is under construction or waiting for approval, no matter where it resides.
The space (draftspace, mainspace, userspace) is only affected by the location/URL, not by any templates that you can place on it. I suggested to use an AfC template because when the draft is ready to push to mainspace you can run it by an AfC reviewer who will have experience dealing with the technical issues (in that case, we may need to merge histories between the articles, or use a redirect or something). In the present case, "when it is ready" means "when other editors have had a chance to look at it and think about replacing the current mainspace article" (AfC usually catches insufficient sourcing and such issues, but that is not really a problem here).
It does not make a lot of difference whether a draft is in userspace or in draftspace. In theory, you have tighter control of your own userspace, so others will feel more free to edit a draft that is located in draftspace; but in practice, drafts are rarely edited by anyone else than their creator.
That is why the more important part is to invite other editors to join the editing in draft space. I expect this will be hard; if I have to bet on outcomes, I would say it is likely that nobody will come to edit your draft, and when you try to push your draft to mainspace I give it an 80% chance that someone will pop up and object. But it is still worth a shot.
"Platform stability" is not really a big concern. There’s plenty of well-experienced editors who do gigantic edits to some articles and change them wholesale without meeting strong opposition; but they do it by bits (so that others can object early), they do it on articles that are really broken (I am not saying Oil reserves is perfect of course, but if you click the "random article" links you will see that it is way above the quality of the average article), and they know the ins and outs or editing (so there are few objections to be made altogether).
Again, at that point, it is more important to do it than to do it right. Presumably, if you and your panel spent time writing this, you are not entirely indifferent to whether it replaces the current article or is thrown in the trash. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as ever @Tigraan: - curiously, we are indifferent to publication because we have all learned something along the way (we have gained from the experience). My concern was that as a professional in the field and an editor, the Wikipedia article was so poor, it reflected badly on Wikipedia - none of the panel are Wikipedia editors, so they didn't really care before they started. Now they are becoming more wiki-aware, perhaps it starts to matter. The dysfunction of the current article meant that it could not be edited normally as I have scores of articles in the past - it had to be re-invented, which required a different approach but preserving what was good. I would have to do it this way if I were to make the attempt again (which I won't - I promise!). Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I have followed your method above, to good effect and am winding up the significant (offline) academic interest and discussion the revision has prompted. One recommendation is to change the title I used from "Hydrocarbon Reserves and Resource quantification" to "Petroleum Reserves and Resource quantification". Given that we are still in Draft space with this, which is the most efficient approach to changing titles?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there’s some discussion on the draft talk page, that’s good!
First of all, when you get around to submitting the draft (by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top, see above), the reviewer will be able to change the title, so the title of the draft is not all that important. Just leave instructions on the talk page if there’s something special to do.
In any case, a change of title is called a "move". You should be able to move the draft yourself (see Help:Move). When choosing where to move the draft, please bear in mind that
  1. You should not capitalize common names in the title - so, for sure it should not be Draft:Petroleum Reserves and Resource quantification, but rather Draft:Petroleum reserves and resource quantification. (The same is true for in-text headers, by the way.)
  2. You should use the common name for the subject, even if somewhat imprecise from a technical point of view. "Resource quantification" are probably not words that come to mind to a non-technical reader, so I would think Oil reserves is a better final title. It would make sense to move the draft to Draft:Oil reserves or possibly Draft:Oil and gas reserves.
Now, the second point is not always true - in particular, editors of biology/medicine articles seem to insist of scientific precision more than elsewhere, for instance Grass redirects to the scientific name of the family of plants that compose it, painkiller redirects to analgesic, etc. I am firmly in the "recognition over precision" camp, but other editors might feel differently. If "oil and gas reserves" is imprecise, I suggest to explain why in the lead - in a similar manner as our article shark says Modern sharks are classified within the clade Selachimorpha (or Selachii) (...) However, the term "shark" has also been (incorrectly) used to refer to extinct members of the subclass Elasmobranchii, which are technically outside the Selachimorpha clade. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Tigraan: for your steer as ever. You raise an important point about the tension between vernacular English and technical precision. That is the point about the difference between "petroleum" and "hydrocarbon" - somewhat counter-intuitively, the former is more correct and is more familiar to a wider public as a word but that word is ambiguous and tends (even in Wikipedia) to exclude gas (although that is not correct either). The safest option would be to use, as you suggest, "oil & gas", which is what the sector tends to do but it is a little clumsy (in a way, terminology for technical articles is moot if you redirect enough). I think we have a week left of discussion and resolution. I agree, it would be better to just submit but I need to re-draft it after a period of multiple contributions. The article as it currently stands is factual but amorphous. As editor, what I have to do next is go back to what people are looking for and identify a simple theme to make the article less opaque and more coherent, held together by the lead paragraph.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly ready to submit @Tigraan: - there are so many perspectives to embrace on this article, which need careful attention, which is one reason it needed revision. Two very quick questions:

  1. The history on the draft is all about my sandbox - will the merge once submitted preserved the Oil reserves article history only?
  2. The oil & gas sector trades globally in dollars and has a US perspective - to honor that, I ought to remove Anglo-centric spelling (‘ise, analogue, etc). I trust that doesn’t break with any regional regulations in Wikipedia...?

Article removal

[edit]

Hi @Tagishsimon: - any idea why the article on "Andrekos Varnava" was removed from Wiki?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Andrekos+Varnava It has returned 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oil & gas reserves and resource quantification has been accepted

[edit]
Oil & gas reserves and resource quantification, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the fence about this draft. While it is well researched it might be criticised as WP:OR by less charitable editors. The reasoning behind that thinking is that it is a fully formed, large, well referenced article. That often raises a red flag with new articles "just because" - a paradox. I predict that it will survive. Hence my acceptance
I understand that this field is part of your specialism, so I can see why it is so fully fleshed out. It caught my interest because I was once a trivial clerical temp for a small UK based oil and gas consultancy. Because I could work the computer I ended up doing the geologists work on estimating a gas field for QGPC. The estimate was wildly inaccurate because the geologist wanted prettier contours than the aggregation of various data sources suggested. We moved the contours to prettify them! That gas volume increased substantially. What did I know about gas deposits? Not one thing. I was employed to digitise various borehole electronic traces at a very tiny wage! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Timtrent: for approving this - your "reserves" experience made me smile because that is such a common experience - I wonder what would have happened to your cleaned up contour map if it had lowered the volumes (we both know the answer)? I am, however, intrigued to explore the paradox because I was quite transparent about the effort and contributions in the talk pages on both Oil reserves and the incipient replacement articles. At what point does actual content knowledge (without bias) count against you I wonder? I am amazed (and impressed) that a reviewer with actual content knowledge was brought in to review (how did that work?). My question goes a little deeper though - the reason I waited 3 months for approval (I don’t need approval for publishing a new article) is because it represents a replacement of the existing substantive page on Oil Reserves - this is a merger, which needed approval because of the content of the existing page. I realise this is a clumsy way of doing things but the approach was recommended by Tigraan (see User talk:Guy WF Loftus#Oil and gas reserves) who was also a little uncomfortable with content knowledge. So what happens next? Has the merge failed?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the next thing is for someone (you?) to propose a merge, which I suggest be done at WP:Requested merges. It won't be me, I have insufficient real knowledge to make a serious proposal im the topic area. I might do an "It seems to me..." but that is not wholly helpful
Content expertise is a difficult thing, addressed at WP:ACADEME in a way, though that is tangential to the way yoiu create articles. Some editors fear experts!
I arrived here by happenstance. I am trying to process as many of the oldest AFC submissions as I can, and picked this one at random. My content knowledge is limited to "Well, I know we cheated, but who is ever going to go down there to find out?"
The geologist lost his job eventually. I had long gone. It was only an infill for me during a long period of unemployment from my "real" work - bullshit and hype for IT companies!
Oh, the original computer generated contours had a large rock pillar near the middle of the field. I often wondered if they drilled into it instead of into the gas chamber! The pillar was absent on the prettified picture. Not that I care. I despise Qatar. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - WP:Requested merges - that's new for me - I wish I had known that 3 months ago... we fumble as we learn ;)... Thanks for your help (and not for the first time)Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's more difficult to make a successful request to merge form a draft than from a mainspace article. Editor seem to have an allergy to that! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, make the request as simple as you are able. Try to remember that generlaist editors get involved! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sage advice - oh and I can confirm: I wasn't that geologist...Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was a decent chap and well over his head (no pun intended). I suspect his geology would have been better suited to a less commercial field. Gawd, there's a pun there, too 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

@Timtrent: I have updated the merge of the old article Oil reserves to the new mainspace article Oil & gas reserves and resource quantification. I had the new (replacement) article in Drafts for merger since June but that hasn't happened (as you said - easier in mainspace). Have I done what is required? In effect, the new article should replace the old as it is more complete, verified and up-to-date; but perhaps I have done it backwards? Can you advise how long might I expect this to take - another 3 months?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would have done it differently, but it will do the job, I think. Time will tell! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hello, Guy WF Loftus. Thank you for your work on Unconventional (oil & gas) reservoir. User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Great article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) 

scope_creepTalk 13:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Simon Brown, Baron Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

[edit]

Information icon Hi Guy WF Loftus! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Archibald Winterbottom that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Useful reminder - thanks... Guy WF Loftus (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy_WF_Loftus&oldid=1258292169"