Wikipedia

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2010/January

< User talk:Ged UK
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ged UK in topic Please allow me the opportunity to reinstate the beatlupus wiki page

Talkback

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by zro (talk • contribs) 11:17, 3 January 2010

2010 indefinite semi-protection

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, could you please adjust settings for indefinite (unlimited expiry) semi-protection of 2010 article starting onwards? Unregistered users are may attempting add some non-notable/domestic events, unless registered users remove it/them and it/they do(es)n't meet the guidelines. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I've had a look back over the last 4/5 year's articles, and only 2009 is indef protected, and that's mainly because of the Jackson ho-ha in the middle of the year that ramped up the vandalism. There just isn't a level of vandalism on it so far to protect, and we don't protect pre-emptively, and we only protect against vandalism. I will add 2010 to my watchlist and keep an eye on it. GedUK  17:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being a concern in your protecting on 2010 article. If the protection expires, some IP editors may add NN/local events in month sub-section events. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 05:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
That's the key of it: May add. Not have added. GedUK  10:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pat Burrell

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why did you delete Pat Burrell????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I was planning on rewriting it!! Phils Phan 2009 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, I haven't deleted it, nobody's deleted it, nobody's ever deleted it, it's still there. The link is in the section heading. GedUK  21:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to RFPP report

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've seen your response to my request to have the Digimon articles protected. But while the two IP addresses I've listed have been blocked, the person who used them had notoriously used several addresses and successfully evading all of those blocks every time by using a different IP. I'm sure he will come back using another IP because right after 61.8.254.2 was blocked, the guy used 61.8.223.226 to continue his vandalism. Below are the addresses used for the past few months, but his brand of vandalism on several articles has been going on for more than two years now:

I'm just telling you the brand of vandalism he does, so I hope you reconsider on my request to protect the Digimon articles. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your message. I'll have another look, it'll take me a while I expect. GedUK  14:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

db-redir (Snih)

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Ged. OK, what is the correct procedure, then? I've explained my rationale in the edit summary: misleading redirect nominated for deletion - Czech word for 'snow' shouldn't refer to a classical composer's article (we already have a redirect Sníh (song)). Could it be controversial or damaging for this project? --Vejvančický (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If Snih (song) redirects, the 'Snih' seems a more likely search term, and so should redirect too. The place to take it now it to redirects for discussion. Cheers. GedUK  11:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. I understand - WP:RFD is more transparent and correct process. Sorry for bothering you with this marginal problem. Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all. Wikipedia is a complicated place. GedUK  14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

List of heads of state and government by net worth / ethiopian review

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Re this article, I have just declined your protection request, I'm reposting my comments there here just in case the bot clears them away before you get to see them.

At this point, semi-protection wouldn't address the issue. If one editor embarks on an edit war, then they can be dealt with individually. If there is a pick-up in similar content from IPs, then relist as necessary. Additionally, have you used the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to address the issue of whether the Ethiopian Review is reliable? GedUK  22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally haven't, but I go by what the other editors are saying on the talk page and they don't believe that it's a reliable source The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it might help to provide some further rebuttals to the editor who wants to put it in (and assorted IPs). Just a thought. GedUK  08:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

hi Ged

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to re-edit my page - Rou Cui Xiang. Do you allow me to do so? I'm going to write on what is Rou Cui Xiang and there's no link on it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.4.114 (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The page does currently exist Rou Cui Xiang, but it is likely to be deleted again. You need to show why the company is notable. Please read WP:CORP for the minimum requirements. Thanks. GedUK  11:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Gareth Thomas (rugby player)

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ged. I've raised my views about mentioning Gareth's sexuality in the lead section. Please see Talk:Gareth Thomas (rugby player) –– ljhenshall (talk page) 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. It's reminded me that I need to have a look at some Featured Articles to see what the convention is. My argument is basically that the lead summarises the article; without that in, it's not an accurate summary of the subject. I do see where you're coming from as well. GedUK  17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, cheers. In terms of articles which describe people coming out in the media: Justin Fashanu's article has a dedicated section Coming out in the press; John Amaechi's article has a dedicated section Coming out (with reference in the lead to him being the first openly gay NBA player); Stephen Gately's coming out in the press is described in Personal life (his sexuality is referenced in the lead and throughout the article due to him being the first boyband member to come out, his death and its response); Mark Feehily's is in Private life (Mark's sexuality is not mentioned in the lead section). –– ljhenshall (talk page) 17:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm just pulling together something now, and will add Mark and John (I'd not really heard of him). GedUK  17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Avercast page

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Ged I am looking to make changes to the Avercast page so that it won't be biased in any way. If there is a current problem with it or additions I should make to it please let me know. I would appreciate all the help I can get.

Steve 20:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSteve301 (talk • contribs)

It's currently at User:SupperE12/Avercast. You need to have a look at WP:CORP for the guidelines, but basically, you need to find some reliable sources that discuss the company. That will show why it's notable and should have an article on WP. The reliable sources shouldn't be written by the company, or be a press release. Hope this helps. Regards, GedUK  20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
After editing the Avercast wikipedia page what do I do to make it the "Avercast" page instead of User:SupperE12/Avercast? Steve 22:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSteve301 (talk • contribs)
You use the 'move' tab at the top of the article, and just remove the User:SupperE12 part. GedUK  08:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why???

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I just wanted to ask why you deleted my page? I was creating an article about a cute band called the "BFF Ice", but I was later surprised to find that someone had inserted a tag of speedy deletion. This happened to me already. Twice. And I'm really confused right now, as I don't know what I'm going to do! :( What really happened? Please reply to me right away...thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poochyena4ever (talk • contribs) 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I did put an explanation on your talk page as soon as I deleted it; I'll repeat it here.
Hi there. I'm afraid I've just deleted your article. This is because there was nothing in it that explained why the band is notable. Wikipedia has strict guidelines on what subjects can be included. Have a read of our notability guidelines. Basically, you need evidence that the band is important. At the moment, from what you wrote, the band is up-and-coming, but hasn't broken through yet. It's probably too early for their article. Hope this helps, let me know if you need any more guidance. Thanks. GedUK  13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You deleted the page I created, why?

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Trekkieman is my user name, I put up a page of a notable actor Douglas Tait I don't understand why you deleted it. Why ? everything I put up was legit and true info. about him. Please explain what I am doing wrong, it is very complicated on this site. Here is his imdb page for referance: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1408752/ Please help me. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekkieman (talk • contribs) 01:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. It's not a question of whether he's real or legit, I don't doubt that. There was nothing in the article that indicated why he's notable. Have a read of the notability guidelines, and WP:ENTERTAINER to see the level needed for actor articles. Cheers! GedUK  10:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


I am sorry sir, but you did not take the time to read the information that I was writing. Douglas Tait is a notable performer or I wouldn't have known who he was or wasted my time putting his credits up on here. He has several huge movie and television credits. I had written his bio and started on the films he was in, which you deleted, and it had taken me several hours to do. I also added several fan links and his internet movie database page which you could have viewed. I ask again why did you delete this page? I don't understand. You say "There was nothing in the article that indicated why he's notable." How could you say that when I put up that he was in Star Trek XI, Land Of The Lost, Freddy Vs. Jason, and many more big films. I don't know where your from but this is notable to me. There are actors on Wiki who don't have half the credits Tait has. Please tell me how I can get Douglas back up, and what I need to do to stop people from writing vanadalism. Here are links so you can see he is notable for yourself. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Please take the time to read before you delete.. It is very frustrating.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.108.45 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can restore the article to your (well Trekkieman's) user space where you can work on it. GedUK  20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, I did look at his IMDB page, and it indicated that all of his roles were supporting, non-notable parts, which is borne out by the links you've provided here. I don't doubt he exists, but this is not IMDB, we don't exist to store information on every actor and every movie. GedUK  20:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You, I would appreciate you restoring the article. Douglas does have several starring roles in films that are located on his IMDB page, which I can list for you. The ones I listed above are supporting. I can post several other actor pages on Wiki who don't have half the credits as Tait and are on Wiki. I don't know how they were able to pass this intense process. If there are any tips or links you can give me once you restore the page, on how to not get cited for deletion I would appereciate the advice. Thanks for taking the time to write back. (Trekkieman (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

  Done Hi there. I've restored the page to User:Trekkieman/Douglas Tait where you will be able to work on it without fear of deletion. Have a read of WP:ENTERTAINER which sets out the level of info we need for a WP article about an actor. All WP biographical articles need to meet WP:BIO, which basically means finding sources where he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject (eg not an autobio). Please note that IMDB is NOT considered a reliable source for biographical info (like birthdate, place etc) as it can be edited by anyone.
I hope this helps, and don't hesitate to come back to me with any queries. I'm not an expert on actors biographies (though I did write most of James Cagney!), but WP:ACTOR is the project where interested editors gather. GedUK  08:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This helps a lot. I really appreciate you taking the time to do that. Cheers, (Trekkieman (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

No problem! Shout if you need any help. GedUK  19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alumni

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, you just closed the afd for ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians as a merge, I've moved all the content across to the main page, could you delete the list page, probably as an unlikely redirect, redirecting is standard from a merge but the title is just too messy. I'd do it myself but I figured I ought not to. Cheers--Jac16888Talk 14:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was rushing home to avoid getting snowed in; I think your actions were a far more elegant solution. GedUK  19:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 6 — 4th Quarter, 2009
  Previous issue | Next issue  

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Littlewoods Index and Index (retailer)

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Deletion was indeed what I wanted, so that Index (retailer) could be properly moved to Littlewoods Index. Unfortunately I forgot which page I wanted deleted and lost track of it when it was deleted on January 1. The page was restored on January 4, but not before a bot deleted the broken redirect at Index (retailer). That's the page with the revision history needed for the move. Sorry about that. I'll make sure to add the page to my watchlist next time to make sure everything goes according to plan. Reach Out to the Truth 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, no harm done! So everything's where it should be? GedUK  08:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Littlewoods Index is where it should be, but it still needs the original history from the deleted Index (retailer) merged into it. I probably should listed it as needing a merge instead of just a move, because the improperly moved page has received a few additional edits that may be worth keeping around. Reach Out to the Truth 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, of course. I'm afraid that's beyond my skill really, yuo'd be best asking for a merge and an admin who can do these things will pick it up. GedUK  15:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

P2P consortium

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As an example:

Article:The organization consists of the board of directors, the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC) and the working groups(WGs). WG's main activity is technical development and each WG starts their own theme with the approval of the board of directors. WGs are chartered for a period of 2 years and their outputs and significance are checked by TAC and are subject to approval by TAC. The members of TAC are appointed by the board of Directors.

Site: The organization consists of the board of directors, the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC) and the working groups(WGs). Their main activity is technical development and each WG starts their own theme with the approval of the board of directors. Basically WGs are chartered for a period of 2 years and their outputs and significance are checked by TAC and are subject to approval bay TAC. The members of TAC are appointed by the board of Directors. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out that paragraph. I can't see anything else blatant. I don't mind you retagging as speedy if you feel it necessary, I'll let fresh eyes look at it, mine seem to be struggling this afternoon. GedUK  14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Should be fine on its own, I'm sure. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

blood magic

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Oops! Sorry, I didn't think I had tagged that one- I was going to tag it for hoax and decided not to. I must have clicked it anyway- gah! sorry! ALI nom nom 21:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I'm not saying it belongs on here, necessarily. A PROD would probably be appropriate. GedUK  21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There's probably an existing article I can redirect it too... I'll look for that, then drop a note on the creator's talk page. ALI nom nom 21:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

C3Life.com

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You deleted this as an A7. As it stood it qualified, but the creator had been in dialog about how to improve it, and had asked for help in gettign it into the article incubator. Therefore, i am going to restore it and move it in the the incubator. This note is provided as a courtesy, so you wouldn't thing that by undeleting I was arguing with your deletion as the article stood. DES (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know. GedUK  08:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

CBB 2010 - prot

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

thanks! Leaky Caldron 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Can't stand the show myself, but that's no reason not to protect it! GedUK  12:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Woody Johnson - thanks for the protect!

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yer the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProperlyRaised (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. GedUK  21:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights in Venezuela - Something not fair

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You have accepted to protect the page Human Rights in Venezuela, and more precisely the page edited by Rd232. I think that this is not fair:
- first, Rd232 writes that I refused discussion and it was in fact exactly the opposite: he has been reverting all the additions that I have made to this page, without discussion. On the contrary I have accepted a lot of the modifications that he proposed and he has refused absolutely everything.
- second, before protecting the page, on the basis of his modifications, wouldn't it be fair to ask me to provide my arguments? I was not informed at all of this request for protection. The request was made on the 8th of January at 9:58am and protected only a few hours after. There was no urgency anyway.
- is it fair that the guy who is always reverting and blocking the growth of this page takes the initiative to protect a page, just like that? Voui (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The page has been protected to stop the edit war that is about to start. At no point have I said any side is more or less responsible. Constantly reverted each other on the article page is pointless, and will end up with people being blocked for WP:3RR or edit warring. Use the article talk page to continue the discussion that's already well underway, and draft a userpage version, as was agreed on the talk page. Thanks. GedUK  21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You just gave a recompense to somebody behaving badly.Voui (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

cancer

i go fuck you mom and i go make you fucking horny kill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.10.41 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 13 January 2010

You're being spoofed

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Thought I'd let you know that the abusive user User:EmailerToAllofyou, a sockpuppet whose sole purpose here is trying to spread information about a non-notable thirteen-year-old would be singer (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy) is spoofing your sig in declining speedies on his new article Sarey Savy (Singer-Songwriter). See this diff.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. GedUK  10:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, your signature has been "forged" in a couple of places -- here and here by User:EmailerToAllofyou. I've blocked the editor for a week right now, but I think indefinite is in order, just don't want any more socking right now. -SpacemanSpiff 08:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you've indeffed them. Thanks for that. I'm not sure whether it would be wise for me to take any administrative action as I'm probably involved, in a roundabout sort of way. GedUK  10:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed to indef a little later. The wonders of Wikipedia, you should look at the edits on the article talk page and article itself, with speedy keep notices by you! cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dax Sheppard

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for semi-protecting the page. I was getting tired of reverting vandalism on it every day. Happy trails! Throwaway85 (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully they won't come back afterwards. GedUK  11:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A man can dream... Throwaway85 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Jammie Jolly

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

hello,

you deleted my page Jammie Jolly and I need to know why? The importance of my page is that I am the only independent label making Gospel music on Staten Island in the city of NYC. I am independently own and operated and I am an african american who is living the dream of owning his own small business. I am looking to be inspriring to others. Can you please upload this page back, or tell me what else I an do to make this happen?

Thanks

God Bless

Jammie (Jnice27 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Hi there. I deleted the article because there was no indication of why it was notable by wikipedia's standards. Have a read of WP:FIRST, which gives some guidance on writing articles on Wikipedai, and particularly WP:BIO, which sets out the standards that we need for biographies. I can restore the article to your userspace so that you can edit it, let me know if you would like me to do that. Regards, GedUK  08:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


yes please do and I will work on this tonigth and read the doc to make sure to put the write info in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.101 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done Page is now at User:Jnice27/Jammie Jolly. Take your time with it, Hope this helps, let me know if you need any more help! GedUK  20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Two questions I have: 1) how do I add the pic box to the right of the page? Also can you read it now and tell me if its okay to post? I redid it and added the references which should validate it more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.243.203 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You need up upload the picture first, you can do that at Wikipedia:Upload, but please be careful of copyright issues.
I did make some comments, they're further down this page. Basically, it needs another source I think, not necessarily online, a newspaper or magazine interview that will help to demonstrate notability. GedUK  19:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jammie Jolly user id is Jnice27

Hello,

Can you check my page now and tell me if you think its ready to post? I made the changes added the references. Also I'm not sure how to add the picture box? Can you advise on this part? I really appreciate you working with me. This is hard stuff, but i'm learning a lot about programing to make a page look good. Thanks

God Bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnice27 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What it still needs is another source. The audio interview is probably OK (I've not listened to it yet), but have their been any interviews in magazines or newspapers? They don't have to be online. GedUK  11:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Radio Interviews are the only thing so far. That BKS1radio.com interview is towards the end of the conversation. There is also enjoy harvest.com wkmb 1070 radio interviews. I will see what additional sources are available. You should be able to take a look at the site tomorrow to see what additional features I put up. let me know Thanks. I really appreciate all your help on this. God Bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.243.203 (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated the picture and the document with additional resources. Man this is not easy lol! Anyway can you please take a look at the Jammie Jolly file and let me know if its ready and if so can you upload to the main server? Thanks look forward to your comments take care and have a great evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.243.203 (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and have a look at it later today. It's probably OK now, at least to avoid speedy deletion like last time. GedUK  08:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


who will post it officially to wilki you? or is there something I have to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.243.203 (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're happy that it's ready, then just use the 'move' tab at the top, and remove the 'User:name/' part at the start. GedUK  08:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection notice

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Soon to be moot but I've just noticed that the protection notice at Human rights in Venezuela is 1 week from today, i.e. 21 Jan, and doesn't match the protection expiry (15 Jan). This seems to be driven by {{pp-dispute}} having an "expiry=1 week" parameter, which isn't documented in the template. Perhaps you could fix it, and, since the lengthening date may be a source of User:Voui's evident frustration, make a note on the talk page. Thanks. Rd232 talk 12:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. Rd232 talk 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what happens when I try to do things manually with that template! At home, the sscripts sort out templating, at work, I have to do it all by hand, and don't use pp-dispute often. (Oh, and that vandalism above is fine, doesn't bother me). GedUK  12:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Userspace query

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi GedUK, I have a (hopefully) quick process question for you. Yesterday User:Molteninjabob replaced the dab page The Six twice with a hoax article. I reverted twice and posted warnings and additional information on the user's talk page. The user has now recreated the article in their userspace here. My concern isn't necessarily the inappropriateness or silliness of the article, it's that there are seemingly real people mentioned with an actual picture used. This would seem to me to be a BLP issue as there is no evidence that these non-notable individuals have consented to their images and personal information to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Is it appropriate to speedy delete the page from the user's sandbox? Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The biggest issue I think here is the photo, as you point out. It's been tagged for deletion, and additionally apparently an OTRS email has been sent. There's nothing to say that the OTRS has been seen yet though. I can't check the original blog from here (my work won't let me open blogs!), but I'll watch it for now. I'm not an expert on images by any stretch of the imagination. User:Moonriddengirl is a good source of info on images, and is also an OTRS person, so they may well be able to take this further, sooner.
Please let me know if there's any more help you need from me on this (or indeed anything else). GedUK  15:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Cheers for that, I've asked Moonriddengirl for additional input. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocking question

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ged. As threatened, I'm here to pester you about the tools. Could you check that what I did to this guy was correct? I'm reasonably confident it was, but given it's my first ever block a second pair of eyes would be good.

Also, supposing he'd had a few productive contributions in his history too, making him not an SPA - what block length would have been appropriate then? 24 hours or so?

Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good block. I would use the uw-voablock template rather than uw-block3, but that's a little thing, the effect is the same. If he'd have had some constructive edits, you have to weigh up the constructive versus the vandalism, before deciding if it's VOA or not. I've indef blocked as VOA before if say the first three are constructive, but the next 10 are vandalism (assuming thye've been warned of course). If you think there's enough constructive edits to indicate they could be a good editor, then yeah, 24 hours would be fine. Sometimes shorter is fine too, if you think that the timings of their edits compared with their history indicates that the vast bulk of the 24 hours they'd have been logged off anyway.
You might additionally want to watch the page, and protect it if it comes back, and then block the IP/editor as block evasion. GedUK  08:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the tips. And yes, I have the page watchlisted for reappearances. Cheers! Olaf Davis (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries. If you haven't already, and use the right browsers (ie not IE), have a look at my monobook, and User:SoWhy's, as there's a lot of helpful admin scripts/tools available. GedUK  09:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look. I'd been thinking of investigating what was out there, but I thought I'd get some experience doing things by hand first. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The AfD closer is great. Closing an AfD as delete is almost as fiddly as starting an AfD in the first place! The CSH helper is very useful as it put your reasoning for declining on the taggers talk page, so they can decide what to do with it next. GedUK  10:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Skirmish at Many Branch Point

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Given the IP editor who has been editing that article returns at infrequent intervals, a 3 day protection is probably of limited use. Is it possible to have it semi-protected for longer? Say a month? Justin talk 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Protection usually ramps up, 3 days - 1 week - 2 weeks - 1 month - 3 months - 6 months - year - indef. I'm reluctant to leap straight in with longer protection at this stage. I'll keep an eye on it. GedUK  12:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, no worries. Justin talk 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Environmental list AfD

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

May I ask, what was your rationale for re-listing an article that had been listed for AfD previously, relisted, closed no consensus, reopened, and relisted twice already? We are now up to not just double jeopardy, but quintuple triple, and you just had to make it sextuple quadruple? Why? Anarchangel (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous relist didn't gain any extra insight into the community consensus (indeed, only one extra reply, and that was a comment). I felt that one more relist would hopefully get more replies, which it has. GedUK  15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. GedUK  15:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion question

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ged, I'd like to ask your advice on an undeletion question. I'd written out a big paragraph here explaining my thoughts and a proposed cause of action, but a server error nuked it and I don't feel like typing it up again, especially as it's late. So, in brief:

The article's been deleted as a copyvio. The author asks for bits of it excluding the copied text to be restored, and the deleting admin's said on my talk page that she doesn't mind my doing so. But the clean bits are all mixed up with the copyvio content in the article history, so how do I go about doing so while respecting the GFDL?

Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's one of those times when I wish that people would give me the link they're talking about ;) Is it 2006-07 Victoria Salmon Kings season, because that seems to have already been recreated? Yes, the text in the deleted history is a copyvio. To be blunt, it's a poor delete in my opinion. As G11 points out where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving; if I'd have seen that at CSD, I'd have declined the speedy, and ripped the copyvio text out, there's still enough content for the article to stand.
On a hypothetical answer to your question, I'd have done one of two things: restored the article to their userspace minus the text; you can restore selective edits on the restore screen, so you could not restore the edits causing the copyvio (though that's a faff), or (and preferable I think) I'd have taken all the code into my text editor of choice, takenout the copyvio, then pasted it back in and recreated the article.
Hope this helps! GedUK  08:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry about missing the link - I find it annoying when people do that too. Evidently I didn't preview it in my annoyance at losing the original version...
That was the article I was talking about, and your 'probably preferable' solution is the one I'd decided was likely best too. Thanks a lot for the help! Olaf Davis (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually it's 2006–07 Victoria Salmon Kings season, just to be confusing. I think I'd intended to put the link in the section title but forgot... Olaf Davis (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw that I cocked up the link, and yet I copied it from the title page; i hate en/em dashes, I never know how to write them. I'm going to make a redirect from 2006–07 Victoria Salmon Kings season to the right one. Don't worry about the link, I was only teasing ;) GedUK  11:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Solar energy

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the protection. I don't know what's going on on that page. All I know is that I've seen some apparently coordinated, geographically disperse vandalism on all types of solar articles lately. Apparently it's been going on at a slow burn rate for a while now. Out of curiosity, do you know what it's about? Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and not a clue! GedUK  09:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Loverdrive

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there, could you take a look at the edits of User:Loverdrive. As per WP:DUCK it is quite clear that this is the same user as the one hiding behind the various IP addresses editing This Is War and Edge of the Earth. He is continuiung to ignore quite clear consensus on both articles by reverting the numerous registered users that have undone his edits. The user has previously been blocked for disruptive editing in the past, and it is clearly counter productive to engage in a revert war with him, despite this disruptive editing in the face of very clear consensus amounting to no more than pure vandalism. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped him a line, and watchlisted those two pages. GedUK  14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm gonna stay away from those pages for the time being as I'm at risk of breaking 3RR and could do with cooling off! Thanks for your swift response. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IP user block

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You're right, I have changed settings to 1 month. Regards, --Angelo (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Goettsch Partners

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I posted an entry for Goettsch Partners, a Chicago-based architecture firm that works internationally and was founded in 1938. Basic information on the firm was included along with a firm history, list of notable buildings (posted and linked elsewhere on Wikipedia), and links to outside sources. This information seemed to replicate similar content for other architecture firms already posted.

Can you explain why you deleted the page?

Matthewclarson (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Matthewclarson

I debated with myself for a little while as to whether their work on notable buildings was notable enough sufficient to pass through A7; obviously I decided it wasn't. I'm happy to restore it to your userpage for you to work on it. What it needs is references in reliable sources that are independentre of it; features in architectural magazines, newspapers, that sort of thing. They don't have to be online. Let me know if you would like me to userfy it for you. GedUK  09:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Please do restore the entry to my userpage, and I'll give it another try, with your suggestions. Matthewclarson (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Matthewclarson
  Done It's now at User:Matthewclarson/Goettsch Partners. Let me know if you need any further help :o) GedUK  17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Edge of the Earth

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I see your recent edit on Edge of the Earth. The afd is old. The recent edit of Loverdrive improve the page, and now it pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--ItHysteria (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The AfD is NOT old, it was only just before Christmas. GedUK  13:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You didn't understand. Now the page is ok. It passWP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--ItHysteria (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Why, what's happened since? Where has it charted? GedUK  13:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It peaked #81 on the Oricon singles chart. Have you read the Loverdrive edit?.--ItHysteria (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Still, WP:NSONG says "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The only sources added to the article apart from the chart listing are on the band's own website, so unless there's some significant third-party coverage out there it seems as though redirection is appropriate here. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A official site is a reliable source. I don't see problems. Still, the page pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--ItHysteria (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Not in the Wikipedia sense - "reliable sources" must be independent of the subject, or else anyone could publish pretty much anything about themselves on their own website and get it included. So the GNG is not met because of the reliance on self-published sources, and the section of MUSIC I quoted above would seem to recommend redirection. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't found a independent site, but a official site is still ok.--ItHysteria (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The 81 on the Japanese chart was considered at the AfD, and reliable sources couldn't be found for it, and it seems they still can't. GedUK  14:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I add an independent source for the release of the single and for the peak position in Japan. Now, I don't see problems. The page pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--ItHysteria (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The domain www.marsdust.com doesn't appear to be registered. Also, given the recent AfD it's probably best to achieve consensus on a talk page before recreating the article: when (or if) other editors agree that one is justified you could recreate it, but this switching between an article and a redirect is not very desirable. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:ItHysteria

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am almost convinced this is the very same editor as User:Loverdrive. I also have my suspicions regarding User:Matthew Riva. They all have overlapping editing patterns, and take a look at the way they all participated in the Edge of the Earth AfD, all signing their names in the exact same way, somehow introducing two hypens before the signature. ItHysteria has recently restored This Is War to the preferred version of Loverdrive [4], leaving the edit summary of "revert disruptive editing. don't remove positive professional reviews for negative ones.". Just wondering what your opinion is and whether I should file a sockpuppet report as if true, then Loverdrive is attempting to evade his block. Cheers, Nouse4aname (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly some similarities. Checkuser is the best approach, it will help clarify the situation. GedUK  18:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh god. What?--ItHysteria (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Keraunoscopia's talk page.
Message added 19:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation Error Rate

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The only meaningful content on Translation Error Rate is

Translation Error Rate (TER) measures the amount of editing that a human would have to perform to change a system output so it exactly matches a reference translation. Due to the large space of possible correct translations, automatic machine translation (MT) has proved a difficult task to evaluate. Human judgments of evaluation are expensive and noisy. Many automatic measures have been proposed to facilitate fast and cheap evaluation of MT systems, the most widely used of which is BLEU, an evaluation metric that matches n-grams from multiple references. A similar version of this metric, typically referred to as the NIST metric, was proposed by George Doddington.

The first reference contains the following text in the abstract:

Translation Error Rate (TER) measures the amount of editing that a human would have to perform to change a system output so it exactly matches a reference translation.

It then contains the following text in the first sentences of the introduction:

Due to the large space of possible correct translations, automatic machine translation (MT) has

proved a difficult task to evaluate. Human judgments of evaluation are expensive and noisy. Many automatic measures have been proposed to facilitate fast and cheap evaluation of MT systems, the most widely used of which is BLEU [7], an evaluation metric that matches n-grams from multiple references. A similar version of this metric, typically referred to as the “NIST” metric, was

proposed by Doddington [2].

So, the entire contents of the article is lifted verbatim from the first reference. And despite the article's claim that this is a "common" measure, I can find no other mention of this measure other than this paper (which is published on many university websites, but appears never to have been published in any peer-reviewed journal -- making this a case of WP:OR as well). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done GedUK  12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Of DAKSH article from SASTRA s page

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

DAKSH is SASTRA university's tech fest if i have to create the page what specific rules do i have to follow because all rules of wikipedia are very long and too many implications ...!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smavikir (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the festival notable (ie why is it important)? You need to produce reliable sources that are independent of the subject (ie not a press release) that cover the subject substantially (ie not just a listing that it's happening). Wikipedia isn't a listing magazine, or repository of all knowledge. Just what's notable. GedUK  11:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've just looked at the article, I was misremembering it. I didn't actually delete it, orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did, you'd be better off asking him. But generally, you can't COPY from another website, that's illegal, it breaks copyright law. You need to rewrite the content in your own words. GedUK  11:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
...and so that it doesn't read like a blatant advertisement. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that too. I didn't actually read it. GedUK  17:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Four articles for deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ged UK, I nominated Dirty Money (group) for deletion on 21 January 2010, but until now no one has commented on the discussion. Could you possibly leave your comment here about weather this article should be deleted or not?

Also following your notices, on my talk page, about creating two large lists nominating those mixtapes by each of those two artists I have nominated one of those and you can join the discussion here. Thank you. JuventiniFan (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the Dirty Money one. Don't worry about it for now, it's got 7 days, and it can be relisted by an admin if they don't feel there's been enough discussion. GedUK  17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Traverser (band)

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why? This article contained no false references or links, and is linked and referred to by several other articles that have been reviewed and accepted. Simply citing that a particular music act is not notable enough is an opinion and not fit grounds for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonpaulsergens (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it in December, I presume because it had no credible indication that is was notable. I didn't delete it on the 24 January, so I can't comment on the state of the article at that point. I've looked at it as it is now, and certainly there's enough in it to pass through the CSD A7 criteria. GedUK  08:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

AfD Nomination of Russet Noon (April 18, 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Ged UK, I'm writing to request that you consider restoring the article on Russet Noon, which was deleted back in April of 2009. The argument against keeping this article at the time was based on the alleged lack of notoriety of the novel. However, there is a Wikipedia section under author Peter David's main article, which is entitled Potato Moon. As you will notice, this section refers to Russet Noon by name, since Potato Moon is a parody of Russet Noon. Given that Peter David could be considered by many to be a legendary author in the comic book genre, how is it not notorious that he decided to host a red-robin satire on his personal blog about Russet Noon?

Please be kind enough to let me know your thoughts about this appeal.

Ladysybilla (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I didn't actually delete it, you should contact Tone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who was the deleting admin. GedUK  21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Motor skill

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it just me, or did the protection you added expire already? I'm assuming that wasn't intentional. -- Bfigura (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh, nevermind. I just managed to misread the dates involved, and it looked like it instantly lapsed rather then lasted for a day. -- Bfigura (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I do that all the time! GedUK  13:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Concerning the warning about edit warring on Yesterday Was a Lie which you placed on my talk page: the purpose of my edits was to remove changes which had been made under a bogus consensus reached by conversations between SPA/COI sockpuppets. The accounts in question have now been confirmed as, indeed, being sockpuppets. Seeing that this is the case, would it now be OK to return the article to the state it was in before those socks changed it to put the film in question in a better light? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me; my issue was not with the content or the consensus, but the edit warring. As the other parties have been blocked, there seems no reason the edit war will be continuing. Thanks for your patience. GedUK  13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Login Problems

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm having trouble staying logged in. I login like normal and then it logs me out automaticly on the 2nd click. Whats the deal and can you fix it.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, no, not really, sorry. I'm not very technically minded. I can only suggest that you try the Wikipedia:Help desk. GedUK  19:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your speedy decline on Innocent Heart

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

What part of G5 do you interpret as requiring that the banned user was banned for creating articles? G5 applies to all articles created by all banned users, regardless of any merit that the article might possess.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. He hasn't been banned, he's been blocked. G5 would apply if he'd had a ban on say, Obama articles, and then created an Obama related article, G5 would apply. There's no reason to delete articles created by blocked users if there's nothing wrong with the article. GedUK  20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course there is: the purpose of going through a banned user's contributions and carefully obliterating them is to ensure that the banned user ultimately gets the point and ceases to contribute. It's a time-consuming and tedious activity which is only effective if carried out completely. The only criteria called out in WP:BAN is that no other user has made a constructive contribution (which this article meets). As for whether he is banned, the criteria there is whether any reasonable admin would unblock him. With over 20 sockpuppet cases and over 50 socks later, he's banned: no reasonable admin would unblock him. Please either process the speedy or give your consent for me to replace the tag so that another admin will process it.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Your method is totally pointy, and I cannot condone it. G5 doesn't apply, and I won't speedy delete an article that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria solely because of who created it. If you want the article deleted, take it to AfD. GedUK  20:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It could be equally argued that declining G5s because you disagree with the intent of the speedy criteria has some pointy characteristics as well. The article's at AFD now. Perhaps in the future you should abstain from processing G5s. Only deleting articles from banned users if they fail other CSD criteria as well doesn't make for an effective criterion.—Kww(talk) 21:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Woody Johnson - again

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please protect the page again? Same anonymous user polishing the turdy parts. PR (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done GedUK  21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Betaville

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I ve tried to create this entry twice till now and it has been deleted without any notification twice. There is no dispute on the reliability of the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looneydoodle (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There was no indication that the project was notable. It's not a question of reliability, but notability. Wikipedia doesn't store information on everything, just what's notable. Have a read of the notability guidelines, and you'll see that we require independant, reliable sources that talk about the project. I'm happy to restore the article to your userspace so that you can work on it there. Let me know. Hope this helps, and let me know if I can be of any further help. GedUK  08:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

talkingback

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
-) Thanks for your msg on my talk page wrt deletion of Sarparah Qaumi Ittehad. Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
And thanks again ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 10:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 11:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 11:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you get time

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Drop in at the village pump here. Your views would be valuable on the setting up of a new category of established editors. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 13:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahir Manzoor Lone

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You declined speedy on this, but the discussion at AfD is basically a giant argument for WP:SNOW. Could you please take a look, and if you agree with my assessment, delete based on WP:SNOW. The article is clearly a hoax, but not quite clearly enough to qualify for speedy. Nevertheless, it's not surviving AfD, and leaving it for the full week is pointless. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 18:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done GedUK  20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, you are right that I should not have put the "feel free to delete" comment in the RFPP request. It's just frustrating to have to go to this level of effort to fight socks of a banned editor from removing the deletion discussion links and speedy tags from other articles that she has created. Thanks for the semi-protection.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's alright, I know it's frustrating, and I do appreciate your vandal fighting efforts. GedUK  08:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Ginsengbomb's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

for the semi-protection on Mary Surratt. I had rather hoped this person would give up with the 3 month protection, but apparently not. He must have sit back and tried every so often to pop up the same day the old protection expired. Experience tells me the IP would return over and over. It's appreciated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. GedUK  09:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Antiuser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User pages

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, is there any article describing the policy for dealing with vandalism/spam on user pages? Because it seems rather murky to me, I used to not touch userspace at all when patrolling recent changes, then I noticed user pages getting tagged with CSD and such so I figured it was allowed and followed suit. I'll try to be less hasty from now on, lesson learned, but it'd be nice to know what the guidelines are... XXX antiuser eh? 11:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Wikipedia:User page have the general userpage guidelines. It is a grey area around promotion/spam on userpages, but I would tend to give a user a week or so to knock something into shape. If this page isn't edited in a week, retag it, or let me know, and I'll pick it up. If you see the user updating and working on it, it's fairly safe to assume that it's a genuine attempt to write an article. GedUK  11:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lesser Of Two and Embers

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I added the bands Lesser Of Two and Embers to wikipedia recently. You intervened to stop the speedy deletion of Embers. Thank you. I hope you could take a look at Lesser Of Two since these two bands are projects of the same husband and wife music collaboration. Also, Embers was nominated for deletion after you stopped the speedy deletion. I am new to wikipedia and I'm not sure if it is normal for people to nominate something for deletion after a deletion has been prevented. I provided the documentation that was requested, or at least I thought I did. After a quick look at other sites of similar bands there appears to be less documentation than what I have already provided. Is this normal?

Also, any suggestion would be appreciated since I am new to wikipedia.

Thank you.javascript:insertTags('Noodlesteve (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)',,)

Hi there. I wouldn't say it was normal, but it's certainly not uncommon.
There are 3 methods of deletion on wikipedia. Speedy deletion is without discussion (that's the speedy part) , and is the lowest threshold; you need to make a credible assertion of notability, and a request is assessed by an administrator (in this case, me).
Articles for deletion (AfD), that Embers is going through, is a community decision that takes 7 days. You, or anyone else for that matter, actually need to demonstrate the notability as defined in policy. Other editors will look at the article and see if it meets the notability guidelines, and WP:BAND.
Lesser Of Two has been proposed for deletion, which means if no-one does anything to address the concern in 7 days, it's deleted. You can remove that tag yourself with no penalty, preferably by addressing the issues raised. Are there any reviews for this band, that would really help? If you do remove the tag, don't be surprised if someone nominates it for the same deletion discussion as is happening with Embers.
You can get involved in the Embers deletion discussion (the link is in the tag), and you can explain why you think it's notable. After 7 days, an administrator will evaluate the discussion against policy, and determine consensus. I hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else. GedUK  19:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This Is War

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Maybe you can't read, maybe you are stupid. GO HERE, CAN YOU READ THE DISCUSSION? THE SPIN RATING ISN'T 1,5. SO STOP REVERT MY EDIT!--95.247.183.68 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (Loverdrive)

Thanks for letting me know, you're now blocked. GedUK  18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me the opportunity to reinstate the beatlupus wiki page

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Administrator,

Hello there, and thank you for your comments. I am writing to you to ask if I can re-instate the beatlupus wiki page. I now have read the guidelines and understand the nature of the deletion - and please, all comments are welcome, thanks. I didn't understand the initial suggestion of incorporating some of the beat lupus info into another lupus site. Now I see why that was suggested. I had not yet updated my page with all the relevant information that it needs. I feel that there is some exciting content that is relevant to all patients and caregivers of lupus. This information has to deal with advocacy on Capitol Hill, Washington D.C. Last year and the year before, the Lupus Research Institute, the largest funder of novel research for lupus in the United States, organized a lobby session. The requests were for funding to create an educational class about lupus for all medical students nationwide. The request was added and matched, and further lobby sessions have created more financial support for this program from the US government. Also requested was the higher of the two proposed hikes in funding for the National Institutes of Health. Also proposed was legislation granting power to the FDA to either approve or deny bio-similars.

I would like the opportunity to include all of this information on the beatlupus wiki page. The page will be geared towards complementary techniques to battle lupus which are unique yet non-controversial and are backed with countless medical journal articles that I plan to include. But of course let me know your thoughts. Please allow me to try to meet your requirements and work with you so I can share this information with the world.

The reason lupus and advocacy and complementary methods of treatment (diet and exercise) is relevant is because lupus affects 5 million people world-wide. It affects approximately 1.5 million Americans, and, in the United States, lupus is more prevalent than multiple sclerosis and AIDS combined.

I also want to provide links to current treatment. No new drug has been FDA approved for the dedicated treatment of lupus in 50 years. There is much new research being done and some of it has passed phase III clinical trials. As such, new important events are on the horizon for lupus patients, 50 years in the making. Please allow me to share these news releases and articles with others.

In addition, the site advocates that lupus patients and caregivers get involved and provides mechanisms for them to do so. This I feel is also a unique feature to the discussion of lupus. It promotes donation, awareness, and speaking out about lupus with the end goal of an eventual cure. With the potential new drug on the way, this issue is more pressing than ever before.

So in the meantime, as I understand it, I have the opportunity to re-write the beatlupus wiki page, is that correct?

I will try to do so with your approval as my highest priority! Thank you so much. If you would be so kind as to keep sending me emails to notify me of your comments, that would be much appreciated: my email address associated with wikipedia is rmizuno@comcast.net. As I am indeed new to wikipedia, this is all welcome and helpful.

Yours truly, Regan Mizuno Regan Mizuno (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I've restored the page to your userspace, it's now at User:Regan Mizuno/Beat Lupus. I always hate deleting articles about charities, because they're almost always for worthy causes, and this one is no exception. Nevertheless, there was nothing in there that says why Beat Lupus is important in Wikipedia terms. There are hundreds of thousands of charities, not all of them are notable.
Don't include information about combating Lupus, or anything about the disease itself in the article. The article should be about the charity, not Lupus itself. There's an article on Lupus, some of what your suggesting may belong on that page, but I'm not an expert on that subject.
Have a read of notability and WP:CORP for the standards that WP requires. You need to find independent sources that discuss the subject (ie Beat Lupus, not the disease) in some detail. I hope this helps, and wish you luck. If you need any more help, feel free to message me. GedUK  19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2010/January&oldid=1148812790"