User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2010/September

One of my pages has been attacked on Wikipedia; I need your help GED UK please

Dear GEDUK; my user name is User: ALBA-BALAMAND and I am blocked and that's why I can not contact you through my profile; so I disclosed my IP address cause I am obliged to. I have been attacked on 28 August on Wikipedia; my page about "WISSAM SHEKHANI" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ALBA-BALAMAND/Wissam_Shekhani ) was been attacked by a user called User: Jade 7492 . He edited the first 2 lines of the articles; using bad unrespectful words. Can you please GEDUK stop him and remove what he added cause I can not edited since I am blocked and I promised you not to edit using my IP Address. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.165.40 (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's already been dealt with. GedUK  19:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI. sonia♫ 08:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, ta :) I've nothing really to comment on it. GedUK  09:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Last warning?

Give me the link of the previous warnings. You said it's last warning.--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's on your talk page, you've replied to it. I have a low tolerance level for people who come on to wikipedia to edit it for any reason other than improving the encyclopedia. Your own edits summaries Only for the entertainment (I'm making a movie), revertable after next 30 minutes indicate you are not here to improve the encylopedia. Hence a final warning. One more unconstructive edit and you'll be blocked. GedUK  07:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already said that it is revertable after next 30 minutes. And you reverted. It's my fault for not reverting with myself. My edit summary already explain I am making a movie. I finished my movie now. I don't know if I make constructive edit without references, will you have more than 1 warning?--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits aren't done with the intention of having the reverted; edits are either to improve the encyclopedia, or they aren't. I don't believe that your edits were made with the intention of improving the encyclopedia, but for your own motives, connected to a movie apparently. That's not acceptable. GedUK  07:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm American. And I haven't edit Polish articles in the past 10 months.--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lock articles?

I've investigated TVP articles. I've seen an anonymous Thailand editor and an anonymous Poland editor, edit warring together on TVP1 and TVP2. To prevent from future problems, can you protect these two pages?--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TVP1 is already protected, and I'm watching TVP2 to see if protection is necessary again. GedUK  07:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will always checking TVP2 article, if he ever comes back, protect that article.--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

NO! DON'T DO THAT!!--125.25.21.68 (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm NOT 125.25.14.239. I'm 125.25.21.68, and I'm 12 years old!--125.25.21.68 (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ged UK have to do that. After the protection is over, provide some references in your edit. If you can't find references, then don't edit the article.--125.25.72.205 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TVP

I was really making movie. But that makes an idea. Can I have TVP as the TV channel page forever? And let TVP (disambiguation) as the disambiguation. Because I see that every articles in the disambiguation, only Telewizja Polska got the official abbrivation as TVP. Others is only the "short name". (Unofficial abbrivation).

And Telewizja Polska article seems to be the vandal target. It recently got vandal by IP 83.6.3.144. You can check it.--125.25.72.205 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no clear article there that should be the TVP article that I can see. GedUK  16:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Aryan Shahabian

Thanks for the info. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem! GedUK  16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

I have no problem at all with you adding some additions to User:The C of E/List of clubs inspired by others, thank you for that. And can I ask for some advice from you? Do you think this is ready to go in the main page or if it could do with a bit more work? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the description sentence runs on way too long, and gets rather lost. How about something like "This is a list of clubs who were created in tribute to or whose name was inspired by another." I realise that doesn't quite fit the Juventus one, which was about the strip if I remember right.

As for is it ready? I guess that references would help, in the spare column. Most of it will be sourced in the original article, but it can't hurt to repeat it, I'd have thought. The other issue is the title. I guess "List of football clubs inspired by others" covers it (make sure you include football). I'm not really an expert on lists, to be honest, I've never really worked on one. GedUK  19:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thank you. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's nice to talk about editing for a change! GedUK  20:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Strip and Arbitration Committee

Just one more thing on Gaza Strip, could you please note the user block on the ArbCom page at the bottom? I didn't realize the issue was so deep until I read the article's talk page. Thanks. --CompRhetoric (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I knew there was ArbCom stuff about that whole area, but didn't have time to hunt it out before I had to log off. GedUK  14:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Shoya Tomizawa

Hey. Sorry about protecting that article; I saw some vandalism in there and I thought the article might have been targeted since it was a recent death, but you're right - there really wasn't enough to justify it at the time. I'll keep an eye on the article and see what happens. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, the marshals did actually drop the stretcher, though I shouldn't think it affected his death. I've got it on my watchlist too, as I'm a bike fan and was watching the race. Protection probably isn't a bad thing, I suspect there'd have been a lot of tributes left otherwise. GedUK  16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news

• In the news: WikiLeaks and Wikipedia; Google–WP collaboration to translate health information

• Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky

• Dispatches: Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

• WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force

• Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th

• Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more

• Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers

Any idea what User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers is about? (I noticed your name early in the edit history - and I have some vague recollection from the past, but I can't put my finger on it). It looks like a user draft of an article, but the user it belongs to User:Ganerer has made no edits to it and it's just being edited by some IPs (including our Thai 125.25.x.x ones). (In fact, I can find no edits by Ganerer at all). If this is a genuine working draft, I don't see who's controlling it, and I see no sign of it ever being transferred to main space. There's a similar one that I've nominated for MfD at User:Ganerer/List of computer pranks, but having found this second one I've hesitated - any ideas or suggestions? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and judging by User talk:Ganerer, it looks like they might not have been around since 2006. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it was moved FROM main space in Feb 2010 by User:Tw3435, who is now indef blocked for page move vandalism, so should it just be moved back to main space? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the whole thing is a mess, especially the "Artists who sings for Multiple Productions" section - it's largely done by our 125.25.x.x. friends, and is completely unreferenced - and I see they've even commented to say it doesn't need references because it's not a mainspace article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking at that. No idea why it was moved in the first place. It's a wildly different article to the one i declined to speedy. Yes, move it back to the main space and PROD it I'd have thought. GedUK  12:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess you were following the 125.25.x.x. edit trail too then ;-) I'll do as you suggest - move and PROD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved to List of Cambodian singers and PRODed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it might be worth semi-protecting the redirect at User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers while PROD/discussion continues? One of the clueless IPs took it upon themself to revert my move, but did it by copying, pasting and blanking - I've reverted now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  15:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know it's now at AfD, after an IP contested the PROD (after getting confused with CSD). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Template

I'm asking the unprotection of this template [1] for a semi-protection. It's been over a year and the only anonymous IP user that disrupted the template (thus creating an edit war) has been proved to be a sockpuppet in use of several IP (always the same range). Several articles related to Mexico have been semi-protected because of him, in order to avoid his anonymous practices (always with the goal of avoid scrutinity).

I'm requesting unprotection because the "disscusion" we were having a year ago with this anonymous user was based in the fact that he was willing to concede and discuss, things that never occurred given the fact the he only reverted and reverted, even with all the arguments presented.

The template was stable for years, until the disruption of this anonymous user, who enganged in a edit war because he just couldn't stop reverting and got the tempalte blocked. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 19:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  14:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Hey there. I was just about to protect this, and saw that you had done. I was about to fully protect it though, as that looks more like an edit war to me, even if it hasn't broken 3RR (yet). The IP's edits aren't really disruptive, and there is an argument to be made about WP:WEIGHT, though this isn't the place for it. I'm not going to change your protection, but wondered if you might consider reviewing it and fully protecting it? GedUK  13:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello GedUK. Please take a look at Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein#Criticism of the current rewrite, which I have now boxed up. The former title of this section was 'Morons on the loose again in Wikipedia.' Since the IP would qualify for a block for disruption if he were registered or static, it is hard to see him as a potential good-faith contributor to the article. I also semied the talk for a week. You may revise either protection if you think it appropriate. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, and I agree the tone wasn't helpful. I'm not going to change the protection, just thought I'd mention it. :o) GedUK  13:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Went to full protection for a week, since I can see the need for discussion of the Hitler material. The talk page is unprotected for now unless there are more personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Righto. GedUK  13:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is very depressing. I'm engaged in a complex rewrite to try to get the article to FAC. The anon's edits were indeed disruptive—which included calling me a moron, repeatedly removing sourced material; and perhaps trying to out me (if it wasn't him it was certainly an odd coincidence)—which is why I requested semi-protection. You're now halting article development entirely for one week because of that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to get more discussion of the Hitler material? I see that you and the IP debated it on the talk page, but there are some other editors of this article who chime in occasionally such as UncleDouggie and Grunge6910. Perhaps if a discussion or RfC were opened to more thoroughly ventilate the Hitler material, and if at least 3 people were to add comments to it, that would be enough reason to lift the protection. It is possible that more action may be needed against the IP in the future, and if there was a solid consensus on the talk page, that could be something to point to as justification when taking the further action. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed, in all the hundreds of articles I've protected at RfPP I've never seen an article fully protected because one anon repeatedly removed sourced material, and insulted another editor; and with outing going on too, perhaps from the same anon. And the other editor trying to get it ready for FAC. It would be funny were it not so depressing. The anon is not going to take it to FAC. The other editors on the page aren't going to either. I am the only person stepping forward to do that. If it goes to FAC, it will need the Hitler material in it in some form, because it has been so widely discussed.

Also, the material can't be discussed until it is written up properly, and I hadn't finished doing that, or finished the research for it.

What puzzles me is why you changed to full protection (and for a week!) 20 minutes after having semi-ed it, though nothing had changed in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that this isn't being discussed at RfPP. Could we talk about it there instead? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd have fully protected it (and was about to, having pondered it for about 30 minutes). Whilst I agree the IPs editing style isn't very helpful at this stage, their removal of sourced material isn't vandalism, but because they don't think it agrees with WP:WEIGHT, as they've said numerous times in edit summaries. An RfC or other DR techniques are a better next step than excluding the IP from the article essentially just because they're an IP. GedUK  15:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind it being discussed at RfPP, but that page gets a lot of traffic. I'll leave a note there directing people here. GedUK  15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ged, first, someone else had semi-protected it. I don't think it's right for you to effectively overrule that decision 20 minutes later. But ignoring that, please consider:

1. The anon turns up having made no edits to the article before, with a number of IPs over several days and repeatedly removes notable, and carefully sourced material from an article.
2. He leaves insulting edit summaries and insulting posts on talk that violate NPA.
3. As this is happening, a new account is created that tries to out me in an edit summary on the same article, which had to be oversighted. That may be a coincidence, but I'm having a hard time assuming that.
4. He misunderstands the material he's removing, confusing it with a conspiracy theory he's read about from a source that's not even used in the article.
5. The article is in the middle of being fixed up for FAC. I'm an experienced editor. I know what's required at FAC; no editor who knows my edits would accuse me of being someone who brings nonsense to FAC.
6. The Hitler material must be in the article for FAC in some form. FAC is not a popularity contest. It doesn't decide what to include according to whether one anon doesn't like it. FACs must cover all notable material, and this is clearly notable.

With respect, to fully protect in favour of the anon, who almost certainly won't take part in editing the article, isn't rational. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change the protection. I only asked Ed to review his. I'd have asked you the same thing in a similar circumstance.

I can't comment on the oversighting because I can't see it.

Yes, the edit summaries have become insulting, and I agree that it's not the best atmosphere to be discussing anything in, but I think we should AGF and at least try to engage in discussion

I don't have an opinion on the content really, I'm trying to stop an edit war. GedUK  15:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can see that something was oversighted in the article history, just as the anon was reverting.

You effectively did change the protection by asking Ed to change it. That's not normally done at RfPP. Once an admin has made a decision that tends to be that, unless it's clearly in error.

You're assuming good faith of an anon who has edited disruptively, but not of an editor with 100,000 edits who's trying to prepare an article for FAC for an anniversary. I don't think I've ever seen that done at RfPP. The anon isn't going to get it to FAC.

Please take the point that this material must be in the article if it wants to be a featured article. It can't just be ignored. Too many people have written about it, and anyway there's no reason to want to ignore it. The sources are good, the debate is interesting, and I hadn't even finished writing it up. I'm not going to discuss it with this anon, especially with the outing issue. So all that will happen now is that article development stops pointlessly for one week, thereby rewarding disruptive editing and insults. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

One thing you can't see from the oversighting is that the account that tried to out me also called me a lying cunt in the edit summary. That was the edit at 00:30 Sept 7 that you see suppressed in the article history. Given the insulting posts from the anon on talk at 10:29 Sept 6 and 09:20 and 09:51 Sept 7, it's not unreasonable to assume it's the same person. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have undone the full protection of the article. If Slim still believes that semi is justified, then she can take the issue to whatever forum she prefers to request that. Due to the complexity, ANI may be the best place. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the material the anon is objecting to, btw. To call it fringe is to completely misunderstand that the debate took place in academic books and journals, as well as in popular publications. That is the problem with taking the side of anons who don't understand the editing culture. They think because something is wrong in their opinion, it can't be included. But when an issue is debated to this extent it can't be left out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I always try to do in cases such as this is to ascertain whether semi-protecting the article is simply favouring a logged in user over an IP in an editing cycle or edit war. That's what I felt that semi-protecting this article in this case would do. I asked Ed to review his decision (and that's something that I think is right to do; admins have asked me in the past to review my protections, and I've asked other admins to review theirs (it's a good learning and evaluation excercise for at least one of the parties at the very least)), and he's decided he's comfortable that this is not the case in this situation, and that's fine with me. GedUK  07:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite right, Ged. Because of the dispute between you and me, Ed removed the protection entirely, so we're now back to square one, and probably rinse and repeat.

Looking through the anon's edits it's clear that this was Goodmorningworld editing logged out with a number of IPs, but not telling us it was him. I appreciate you not wanting to favour logged-in users automatically. But I think you need to be careful not to go to the other extreme, where you in effect act against logged-in users automatically, which I found somewhat insulting. If you do that, then all anyone has to do to get you to favour them is log out.

When someone is working hard to get an article to FAC (which with this article is going to involve a ton of work), and you see someone else acting disruptively, I can only say as an admin that I would strongly favour the person who was working to fix the article, not someone trying to halt it. That the latter was an anon would be an additional point against, but it would be the disruption and personal attacks I'd focus on (and his posts didn't become insulting, as you said somewhere; they were insulting from the start.)

In future when you ask someone to review their protection (and Ged, I have never seen you do that before), please do it under the same request on RfPP, so that people can see you've intervened. All I saw was a straightforward request for sprotection, which was added; then suddenly it was changed to seven days full protection, which made no sense until I went hunting for the reason. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on Ed's change of protection. If you want the protection revisited, then obviously RfPP is the place for it, and I won't get involved. I can't speak for Ed of course.

I concede your point that the best place for this to have happened was on RfPP, but I think you credit me with more influence over Ed than I think I have.

I'll certainly review my conduct in this, particularly my perhaps over-enthusiastic application of AGF to an IP who had been less than civil. I hope this will be enough to placate you and I hope start to rebuild what I think has become a somewhat damaged editing relationship between us. GedUK  11:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's nice of you given that I'm berating you. I'd like to straighten things out between us too. The reason I got annoyed is that I've seen it happen to other editors on RfPP, where anons have been apparently favoured, and every time I think, "there goes another long-term editor's faith in Wikipedia." I think we AGF too far in the wrong direction sometimes. A regular volunteer organization would never say to its volunteers: "We care at least as much about any random passerby who causes you trouble as we do about you." That pushes human nature to breaking point.

It's always worth bearing in mind that anons aren't discriminated against because of some inherent quality they can't change; they can change it in seconds by logging in, and sometimes the reason they don't is that they'd prefer not to have the edits associated with their account(s), which makes too much AGF doubly problematic. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's one of those things I'm always aware of when I semi-protect, and it is one of those balancing acts we admins have to try and get right. Maybe I got this one wrong (I know you think so, and I concede I may have done too); who'd have a mop? GedUK  14:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there! Well, I do apologize for going on about it, and thank you for being so gracious about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, if you're still watching this page, that I've seen your new request at RfPP, but I think I'm too involved now to be impartial, and so I'll leave it to someone else (hopefully someone else turns up soon!). GedUK  12:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Case brought before Fringe Theories Noticeboard.--82.113.106.29 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortitude HTTP page

Hello, I have created a page for a web server called "Fortitude HTTP" which was renamed about 6 months ago. This renaming really made the program hard to find under its new name - which *I believe* led to it lacking notability and therefore valuating WP:GNG. It has now received many reviews by actual humans in addition to decent download counts and ratings. Is my user space page for this program now suitable as a stub for article space?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FourtySix%26Two/Fortitude_HTTP

Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FourtySix&Two (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on software when it comes to AfD, but it's got a review, so that has to help; but more is always better. I'd take out the bit about wikipedia, it really doesn't add anything to the notability of the product. I might be a good idea to ask the AfD nominator and maybe the !voters what they think as well. GedUK  20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm in the process of following through with your suggestions. Thanks!! FourtySix&Two (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jay Cost

Hi, I started a page about Jay Cost, which you deleted. All the other Weekly Standard editors seem to have their own page on wikipedia and, thus, when Jay moved there I thought it made sense for him to have his own page too. He is quite a well read political commentator in the US, so I think it makes sense to include him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.51.219 (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to help me out. What's the name of the actual article, as Jay Cost has never existed, and I can't see something similar in my immediate recent deletion log. GedUK  06:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the original page had wrong capitalization. The title was Jay cost (with a lower case 'c'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goncalo (talk • contribs) 07:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ahh, I see. I've restored it, and moved it to Jay Cost with the correct capitalisation. I've also PRODded it, which means I've proposed it be deleted after 7 days. That can be removed by anyone, but you ought to improve the references to indicate that he's notable to wikipedia standards, which is higher than those for speedy deletion.

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article. Radio City 1386AM

Hi

I am the webmaster for a Hospital Radio station in the South Wales area, I am about to write a wiki article about the service. I typed in our name Radio City 1386AM and it shows that you deleted an article about this, I just want to find out what was writen (if you remember) and why it was deleted as this was not writen by myself.

Thanks

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by DABenji (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I deleted it because there was no indication as to its significance. I can restore it to your userspace for you to work on and improve upon if you like, though there isn't much content there. Have a look at WP:FIRST which gives some guidance on what the key things to include in an article are.

Hospital radio stations are not usually considered notable, but it's a case-by-case thing, so if you can demonstrate notability by using reliable sources that are independant and substantial, then it's fine. Hope this helps! GedUK  11:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that would be brilliant, like I said I didnt write it but as I am the webmaster for the service I am responsible for web based content about the station so I would like to take a look at what was writen to re write it and get it accepted.

Thanks David —Preceding unsigned comment added by DABenji (talk • contribs) 12:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done OK, I've moved it to User:DABenji/Radio City 1386AM. Work on it there before you move it back to the mainspace, otherwise it's likely to be tagged and or deleted pretty quickly. Let me know if you need any help and I'll do my best. GedUK  12:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to the content of that article, I wonder if you could take a look at it and let me know what you think. Most of the information about our history has been copied from our website which I have full rights to copy, other information has been copied from wikipedia pages but referenced, I hope this is correct.

Thanks David —Preceding unsigned comment added by DABenji (talk • contribs) 09:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there!

I think this is a great start. However, there's some key issues you need to address.

1. Most importantly, we can't just accept your word that you have permission to use the website content. I hope that you understand that! We have a number of solutions to this:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details on the talk page and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note on the talk pagewith a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on the talk page.

However, by far the simplest solution is to just rewrite it. What you must do is avoid usages like 'we', 'our/ours' etc, as that just makes it read like a press release (which if it's copied from your website, it is!)

2. I think the logo's a little large. Additionally, it MUST have a licence attached to it. We can't just use images without permission. I'm not an expert on image licences, but you can find out more at Help:File_page#Copyright_information, and a list of tags is available at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags.

3. Within the history section, you coold use some more wikilinks to the other hospitals

4. Don't reference other wikipedia articles. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, we don't consider ourselves to be a reliable source! It doesn't really need any background on the history of music and medicine, just a link to the relevant articles which cover it in far more depth

5. What it really, really needs are more sources/references. The Guiness Book one is a good start, but press reports (independant ones, not press releases written by the station) for example about charity fund raisers, notable DJs (you've got some links to some, but it would be helpful to source that) or that talk about the station and particularly why it's important to the community would be great.

There's enough in it now I think for it to pass the speedy deletion criteria that it was deleted under last time (though I can't guarantee another admin would view it the same way). It's borderline on the more important and harder notability criteria; more sources will help enormously.

Hope this helps! GedUK  10:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats brilliant, as far as the copyright issues you brought up, I uploaded the logo and I thought I put the licence on it correctly as I created that logo didnt think there was a problem, the same with the history content as I wrote it for the site didnt think there was a problem. I have some links to the local papers website for an article they did on us would that be of use?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DABenji (talk • contribs) 10:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is fiddly, but basically whilst you may have written it, it belongs to the station (almost certainly, anyway). Re the logo, you uploaded it, but it doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the station. For example, I could load up a picture of the Coke logo, but that wouldn't make it mine!

Absolutely the local papers. It doesn't have to be available online, but that helps. There's a range of templates you can use to help you cite stuff, have a look at citation templates for more, or let me know and I'll help. The bst one for a newspaper is {{citenews}}. GedUK  11:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry didnt word that quite right, I designed the logo for the station managed to sort the copyright bit, needed to add a tag or something. I have added more content and references. How do I go about getting it onto the mainspace?? sorry as you might have spotted I am a newbie to the wikiworld. Thanks David —Preceding unsigned comment added by DABenji (talk • contribs) 11:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You just use the 'move' tab at the top, and remove the first part. I'll have a quick go at rewriting and tidying up the sources, as I think there's some easy fixes to the copyright issue. Give me 20 minutes. GedUK  12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by DABenji (talk • contribs) 12:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm done for now. I would suggest you keep working on the history part before you move it, as it's still very similar to the original. Hopefuilly you can get a feel for how I've rewritten it. Also have a look at the newpaper article and see whether there's any info in there that you can either add, or source for stuff that's already there! GedUK  12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant stuff, like I said thanks for your help.

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by DABenji (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Monobook.js

I stole your username highlighter from your monobook. Seems nice so far. Thanks. Useight (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it's not mine! But it is very useful. GedUK  18:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Hi, thanks for protecting the page. But could you please give me the right to maintain the page, if possible. If you look at the history, I have always tried to maintain neutrality. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, page protection doesn't work like that I'm afraid. If you have non-controversial edits that there is consensus to add, use the {{editprotected}} template and an admin will be able to do them for you.

Hopefully the protection will encourage the waring parties to discuss the issue on the talk page rather than constantly reverting. GedUK  11:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Solicity for deletion

The userpage and talk page of RAM216166bot having one solicity of deletion and permanent blocked, you having rights for delete now. BRAMCPPF (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done No reason to delete it. GedUK  07:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested protection for Hamas

Hi, following your declined page protection on Hamas , I am not sure if the actions of that user are suitable for reporting on the 3RR page, since he/she didn't actually revert more than once a day, however there is certainly an ongoing edit war of one editor against multiple editors. I believe that performing mass reverts while the topic is in discussion is un-wikipedic, but I'm not sure if it is disallowed by the 3RR policy. Can you perhaps take a look at the edit history and let me know your opinion? Marokwitz (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, 3RR is a poor shorthand for edit warring (that I probably shouldn't have used!), and it's the edit warring noticeboard rather than just for 3RR. They don't appear to have broken 3RR, but it certainly seems that there's a case about edit warring; slow-rolling edit wars are just as disruptive. If they're constantly editing against consensus of several editors, then that's an issue, and we shouldn't lock down a page to stop one editor at the detriment of all the others. I don't have time to look at in in depth now, but I'd have thought a report to 3rr, if they've been adequately warned, would be fine. GedUK  13:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article review?

I hope you don't mind me contacting you - The C of E suggested you might be interested in helping us both out. I understand that you have experience of reviewing good article nominees, and recently The C of E nominated the article Razer (robot) which I rewrote. Would you be interested in reviewing it for us? It was recently peer reviewed, so many criticisms which might have been raised during this process have already been resolved (IMHO). No worries if not, but looking at the size of the backlog it would be nice to kick start proceedings! Either way, thank you for your time. CountdownCrispy 18:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have much experience of reviewing GAs, though I did a lot of work on James Cagney to get it to GA. I'll happily have a go at this though! I always loved the design of Razer, and in fact I had no idea he/it had an article! I'll hopefully get some comments written up by the end of the week. GedUK  07:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's extremely kind of you. As you'll see when you delve a little deeper, Razer very nearly didn't have an article - it has survived three AfDs in its time, which wiped out most other robots that were once present on Wikipedia. Things have stabilised since the most recent AfD back in April 2008. In all fairness, much as I loved Robot Wars and found it a pleasure to rewrite this article (and revisit my childhood, more to the point) I can understand why it wasn't deemed appropriate for an encyclopaedia to include two dozen stubs for robots that never won any series or titles — and in a couple of cases even any battles! ;-) Thanks in advance for your time. Best regards, CountdownCrispy 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  08:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Block renewal required

Could you kindly renew the block on IP 216.252.20.235. Fresh off the two week holiday you gave them on Sept. 7th, they've simply picked up where they left off. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard, Kuru zapped them for 3 months. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Always quickest to go straight to AIV, loads of admins patrol there. GedUK  19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Scripts; thanks

Thanks Ged for the scripts; I took a few and they're working out pretty cool :) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) GedUK  19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

User page vandalism reverters rock :-) --bonadea contributions talk 10:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I was just about to block them too, but Peter Symonds got there first. If your userpage gets hit a lot, I can protect it for you if you like. GedUK  10:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a huge problem at present, but I'll get in touch again if it should become annoying. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 10:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Eglinton, County Londonderry

Can I also thank you for your quick response at Eglinton, County Londonderry. Bjmullan (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. GedUK  13:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So you are another one of these roll-over type Admins who don't believe in proper discussion? Hang your head in shame! --87.113.24.44 (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thailand vs Poland

Sorry to bother you, but this low level vandalism by Thai kids attacking Polish TV things isn't showing any sign of stopping - latest I've seen is [2], again from a TOT dynamic IP address in Bangkok. Do you have any thoughts about how we might try to tackle this? Or can we do no more than just hope to keep spotting them and continually revert? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My patience just snapped! I've given it a long protection. Can you remind me of the other targets, and I'll work through them. GedUK  14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through my watchlist, and the following have all had edits from this group of vandals (some have been protected before)...

• Channel 3 (Thailand)
• Channel 7 (Thailand)
• Hanoi Radio Television
• Ho Chi Minh City Television
• Lao National Television
• List of Cambodian singers
• Myanmar Radio and Television
• Myanmar International
• MRTV-4
• Magyar Televízió
• National Broadcasting Services of Thailand
• Royal Thai Army Radio and Television Channel 5
• TVP
• TVP1
• TVP2
• TVP Polonia
• Television in Burma
• Telewizja Polska
• Vietnam Television

We also have the following two Talk pages that were provided so that one of them could work on proper sourcing, but they've made no attempts, so I think it's time for them to go..

• Talk:Magyar Televízió/draft
• Talk:Vietnam Television/draft

I've got more regional TV articles preemptively watched, but they've been clean so far - I'll let you know if I see similar nonsense breaking out anywhere else. Thanks for your help with all this.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is too much, 3 other vandals has been stopped, ONLY ME IS HERE. But I'm not intended to edit other pages than TVP1 and TVP2. Unwatch them.--125.25.82.172 (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is register your own named account, and then you can't get confused with the others or hit by the same page protections -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Channel 7 (Thailand)

You protected this for 6 months due to excessive vandalism, but unless i'm missing something it hasn't been edited in over a month--Jac16888^Talk 17:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

GedUK and I have been watching this problem for some time. There is a small bunch of IP editors in Bangkok, Thailand, who have been cycling round a number of TV related articles, vandalizing, adding nonsense, adding unsourced changes, etc, and if you block their current targets they then move on to some of the others. So I agree the best approach is to semi-protect all of the articles that these people have been damaging, and that might put them off - but I'd suggest we can perhaps unprotect specific articles if needed, on a demand basis? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, sounds reasonable--Jac16888^Talk 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

• News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

• In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

• WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hey, since you are the one who already protected the List of Rajputs article on this request, I would request you to please re-protect it as the anon keeps reverting me for no reason and keeps adding names which have no indication of existence and no sources. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  20:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Chilean presidential election, 2013

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilean presidential election, 2013, you said the decision was to keep the page, yet it was somehow removed. What reason was there for this? At the very least it can be a redirect in the interimLihaas (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted by Philippe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as an A3, no content. It's not protected, you can recreate it, but remember WP:CRYSTAL. GedUK  21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)