User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2010/November
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Requesting UnProtection of Little Green Footballs
I am requesting UnProtection of Little Green Footballs.
I believe the original protection request was erroneous. It read:
- "There is an edit war between IPs that cannot be dealt with through blocking because the IP addresses keep changing. The material being added fails WP:RS and introduces WP:BLP issues. Thanks!" [[1]]
there are a number of errors in this statement of events. for one, whether the material in fact fails WP:RS or consequently introduces WP:BLP issues is highly disputable, and is in fact probably incorrect if what is currently the word at WP:RS is any guide. second, this material is not the material which is being added in a disruptive manner which resembles vandalism. rather it is content which has stood for more than a month after having been tested by two other users at the time of its inclusion and is now being blanked from the article in a disruptive manner which resembles vandalism.
with that in mind, i would prefer not to have the page semi-protected, as the effect of this action would be to freeze the article as it is, in turn rewarding the behavior of the two users who opened their accounts this evening with the apparent sole purpose of section-blanking items they didn't like, almost to the point of 3RRing themselves. Notanipokay (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- How can the article be frozen if established users can edit it? (PS, I've moved this here rather than the subpage you put it on). GedUK 10:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- i am not an "established" user. i have put in a request for edit. [[2]]Notanipokay (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's already been edited since I semi-protected it against those new, unconfirmed accounts. I'm trying to protect the stability of the article, rather than make any judgement on the reliability or otherwise of sources. As the disruption was carried out almost entirely by IPs/new accounts, semi-protection is the best way forward for now. GedUK 13:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- i am not an "established" user. i have put in a request for edit. [[2]]Notanipokay (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
AFL protection
- Australian Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
May I ask you to reconsider the wisdom of protecting an important article for a week rather than block a user who has repeatedly had problems (and been blocked) for edit warring on this subject? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- 60.240.231.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Or for that matter, both users. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's the fact there's IP and a user edit warring each other (and others) that tipped me towards full protection. If GPW (and everone else) agreed not to edit that section during the course of the discussions, I'd be minded to change it to a semi. I'll make the suggestion at the talk page. GedUK 08:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Changing it to a semi protect would just mean that GPW "wins" as the ip's including me aren't vandalising. He requested the semi-protect just to stop the ip's from editing so he could have the final word, not because of vandalism. 93.182.149.137 (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I was more thinking along the lines of block the editors, let the page be free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't give yourself a hernia or anything. :P Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- You may want to consider the "third option", which was listing all years - see the last edit I made to the page (editing from my phone at the moment, so can't give a diff). The article is about the league as a whole, including its history, so the infobox doesn't have to just be a current snapshot.The-Pope (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really for me to decide on what should or shouldn't be in the infobox; I'm only trying to stabilise the article. GedUK 09:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well as there is only one editor destabilising the article, I think you've made the wrong call. We've tried talk page discussion, he just doesn't budge an inch.The-Pope (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly support The-Pope's comment. I was having a "vigorous" chat with this particular editor (Gpw) and The-Pope came up what I thought was a great, defusing compromise. (Congrats, BTW.) Did our destabiliser even consider it? No way. Went back to his rant about him having the only sourced information - obviously not true. The content needed IS a matter of perspective and interpretation. Many options exist, but the person calling for this block can see only one. No compromise, nor constructive discussion, is possible with this editor. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I realise that this is frustrating, but I think that protection is the best way forward for now. However, as a compromise, feel free to relist it at RfPP and ask another admin to have a look at it. I've no problem with them amending my protection, blocking users or whatever they see fit. Judging by the number of complaints I've had today about my protections, I'm wondering if my perspective is skewed today. (Feel free to refer to this thread at RfPP). GedUK 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly support The-Pope's comment. I was having a "vigorous" chat with this particular editor (Gpw) and The-Pope came up what I thought was a great, defusing compromise. (Congrats, BTW.) Did our destabiliser even consider it? No way. Went back to his rant about him having the only sourced information - obviously not true. The content needed IS a matter of perspective and interpretation. Many options exist, but the person calling for this block can see only one. No compromise, nor constructive discussion, is possible with this editor. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well as there is only one editor destabilising the article, I think you've made the wrong call. We've tried talk page discussion, he just doesn't budge an inch.The-Pope (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really for me to decide on what should or shouldn't be in the infobox; I'm only trying to stabilise the article. GedUK 09:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Question about the Amazing Race Asia 4 lock
Hi, I'm just wondering why The Amazing Race Asia 4 page was locked? Was it something I did? Kinda confused. I'm active on The Amazing Race 17 and Asia 4 pages deleting false/unsourced information, fixing some edits and adding to the tables, you know generally helping out. Does it have anything to do with some IPs adding in false information about an episode that hadnt aired on TV? I don't mind that the page is locked, just confused. Thankyou 82.15.11.104 (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, chances are you're an unfortunate victim of other people's vandalism. Sorry about that. GedUK 13:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's okay, thankyou for the prompt answer. Guess I'll just focus on TAR 17 for now and watch for Vandals 82.15.11.104 (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 November 2010
- In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric
- WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey
- Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails
- Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days
- Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news
I've started having a look at James Cagney, starting by looking at overall layout from something of a distant view. And over all I think it's pretty good - the placing of photos and quotes is pleasing to the eye.
One thing that strikes me is that some of the sections seem a bit long, and I wonder if they could usefully be sub-sectioned with level 3 subheadings? I write web-based material in my RL job, and one of the things we find is that people's attentions are held better if blocks of text are visually broken up a bit (The psychology of reading is quite interesting - even arbitrary subheadings seem to make text visually more pleasing, regardless of what the headings actually say).
Anyway, that's my first thought -- I'll dig a bit deeper over the weekend and start making some copy-edits (I'll probably make some changes just to see if they look and read better, so please do take my changes as suggestions and feel free to revert as you see fit).
Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, I look forward to it. I don't have a problem with breaking some of that up, but I need to find a way to do it, and where to do it. I'll have a think about it. GedUK 14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Really sorry about the delay. I've had quite a bit of hard brainwork to do in real life, and on Wikipedia I've only been fit for vandal-stomping. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Netual point of view
Hey, I do not know how to get somebody to discuss on Australian Football League talk page. Maybe you could get somebody or even you could help us out to sort out an proper way to finish the discussion. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Israel-Palestine editing
Hi Ged UK, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 November 2010
- News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity
- WikiProject report: WikiProject California
- Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science
- Election report: The countdown begins
- Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
hi
please have a look at Tuluva page the ip apparantely has an account.isn't this sock puppeting.08:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Requesting you to un-protect the article Tuluvas. Kindly look at the talk page. My point is to restore the article to the original version and consensus has to be reached before large changes are made to an article.188.52.8.156 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Bow Creek Ecology Park has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This small park is not notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gorrad (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 November 2010
- News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership
- WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon
- Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains
- Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
- Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Hope you're still online...
We need your tools on WP:ANI. Got a troll out and about. You'll know who it is. IP hopping. Would like to manually archive his target threads but don't know if that's possible/how to do it. Revert Ignore is currently being applied but we need blocks of the IPs and probably semi protection of ANI if manual archive doesn't work. Thanks in advance. N419BH 08:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's been protected already, just as you were requesting this! So mnay admins watch that page it's always having protection turned on and off. GedUK 08:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
2010 Asian Games medal table
If you protect 2010 Asian Games, please protect 2010 Asian Games medal table too from being abuse by anonymous user. Thank you. --Aleenf1 13:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Bow Creek Ecology Park for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Bow Creek Ecology Park, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bow Creek Ecology Park until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gorrad (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I found a possible block evader that edited around 2 hours ago. IP is User talk:213.246.151.130, IP appears to be static as it belongs to a company. Momo san Talk 14:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: Your protection tag on VG Chartz
The date on the tag should be 11/25, since that's when the protection is set to expire. (The tag shows 11/23, two days prior to the actual protection expiry.) Just a quick note there, bro. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm *stares at fingers suspicously*. Thanks for letting me know! GedUK 15:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's the left index finger's fault! Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ged - given that this was an edit war between 3 users who followed process and 1 who broke 3RR, would you consider giving the IP a block instead and unprotecting? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hey there. Sorry, not been on much this weekend, and won't be on uch for the next week. Feel free to do what you will with it :) GedUK 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Done - thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
sorry but AGF
Sorry about this one but I was monitoring another article in a starbucks queue and someone jostled my arm at the wrong moment so my finger hit the rollback key rather than the article on my iPhone. You made the reversion about 2 seconds before I attempted to self-revert. "Assume this was a mistake" would have been a better comment. --Snowded TALK 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kumar
Akshay Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, Ged, you protected this article in Sept for a month (semi} and since it expired it has been the same, pretty constant, could you re protect if for us, I would like to test it with pending protection if you are able to apply, if not then semi protect it indefinitely, that seems a shame though as there are occasionally a beneficial contribution from an unconfirmed user, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK 21:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Ged. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 November 2010
- News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations
- Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder
- WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Candidates still stepping forward
- Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
When is a block not a block?
Hello. Could you please check the block status of IP 218.188.16.95. According to the talk page, you issued a one-year block four days ago. However, the IP in question is continuing to edit. They haven't been very active, so I don't think it's urgent. However, I'll keep an eye out and post something at AN if the problem escalates and you're too busy to respond.Thanks, Rivertorch (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, no, check the date again ;o) I blocked them for a year, a year and four days ago, 18 November 2009. I'll issue them another warning and it'll start again I imagine. GedUK 08:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. Well, what's a year in wikitime, anyway? Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2010
- In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report
- WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Voting in full swing
- Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News