User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2009/July

The WPVG Newsletter (Q2 2009)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 4 — 2nd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2009, the project has:

• 125 Featured Articles
• 28 Featured Lists
• 15 Featured Topics

• 28 A-Class Articles
• 321 Good Articles
• 2 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Data suggest an increasing lack of interest
• Featured editor: Masem

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Trioculus AfD

Can you explain your defense of tis? I am not sure that Creative Commons doesn't defend against wholesale importation from a fan database. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, I think that it does, if it's attributed, which it is (now). I don't claim to be an expert on CC licences though, so perhaps ask at the copyright desk. If they think it's in breach of the licence, then i'll have no problem deleting it under db-copyvio. Otherwise it's a question of notability which is for AfD. GedUK  06:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Waunarlwydd F.C.‎

Google results only show that Waunarlwydd R.F.C.‎ exists, not Waunarlwydd F.C.‎ – and even if it does exist the article is obviously false as it isn't a Football League Championship team. I've changed the tag to CSD#A7. snigbrook (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the link I had Anyway, i've deleted it. I would normally have A7ed it anyway, but I was just hurrying through that Users contributions just to check on him and block likelihood. GedUK  21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An assist please?

An unregisterred user you have blocked previously, User:69.142.137.155, is continuing to make nuisance edits, mostly popping into motor racing articles and alterring the lap counts, nothing further, just pointless nuisance edits. Can you possibly assist in getting some action done here? He/She has been blocked twice before, it seems further warnings are pointless. --Falcadore (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked again. GedUK  09:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

angels with dirty faces

what's OR? what would i need to have solid eveidence for that listing regarding the pillows to be back again? the other listings in popular culture column are lacking reference too, shouldn't they also be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.218.20 (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OR is Original Research, so what that statement would need is a source that confirms it's true, rather than being your interpretation, which is what it seemed. I did delete some of the listings there as unsourced, though i left the ones that appeared to be more self-evident. GedUK  10:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

would it help out some if i post you the Japanese wiki link of angels with dirty faces and the link to the Japanese lyrics of the song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtrcso (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia isn't reliable, as anyone can edit it, and the lyrics will just be the lyrics, they don't show that that is where the inspiration/reference came from. What it needs really is an interview or somethign with the band. GedUK  17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

May deletion of "Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation" page

Because a few months have passed since our last exchange in May, I am leaving you this new message. I apologize for the delay in my response. As you offered in your last message, please restore to my user area the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism page that was deleted. I will edit it and add more reliable third-party references so that the page will meet Wikipedia notability standards. Thank you! Lisaloeb101 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for the delay, been on a wikibreak. I've restored it to User:Lisaloeb101/Ethics and Excellence. GedUK  07:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be working on this very soon. After I improve it, how do I restore it to the Wiki space? Use the "Move" option? Lisaloeb101 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd recommend that you get someone to look over it first. GedUK  14:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

I am confused. I am trying to post information regarding my company as does this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schaeffler_Group

But my pages has been deleted. I have given Wimax a press release (of which I am responsible for) and am not infringing on their copyright as this is information I GAVE them, which they chose to post. http://www.wimax-industry.com/pr/10k.htm

I am also responsible for the content of our website, which is not under copyright, and I am able to distribute as I see fit.

If this is incorrect, I have read all the rules and procedures, what is the best way to get information on here as the Schaeffler group does above? Is a stub a better way to go? Thier first reference references thier own website!

Thank you for your help! Wileemarie (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I'd be amazed if your site isn't under copyright (unless it states on the page that it isn't copyrighted, it probably is anyway), but if you want to copy what's on there onto Wikipedia, then the original webpage on your site needs to include a statement that the content is released under the the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL, which then means that Wikipedia can use it. Alternatively, you can email the Wikimedia Foundation from an email address associated with the page in question .

But the best and easiest way is to simply rewrite the content. Explain, using third party reliable sources why the company is notable. Hope that helps! GedUK  20:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Ritam.jpg

Although I agree with your deletion of File:Ritam.jpg, your edit summary said there were no claims of PD. But the uploader was claiming PD, in that he claimed he owned copyright. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I almost never do anything with images for lack of personal understanding of image copyright, but that one seemed blatant to me. I think the claim has to be credible, and that one didn't seem to be to me. I hate images! GedUK  12:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. They're far too contentious, and too hard to verify.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)