User talk:Ged UK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Quarter 4, 2013[edit]


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2013
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2013, the project has:


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

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2014[edit]


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2014
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2014, the project has:


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

Page protection for Good Luck Flag[edit]

Hello, Ged UK!

Thank you so much for protecting this page pending the resolution of an edit war. I have been corresponding with my Wikipedia mentor, Mr. X, about this situation, and I'd like to share the most recent part of that correspondence with you. After reading it, I hope that you'll agree that unprotecting the page and inserting the consensus content will result in one of two possible positive outcomes: either the consensus content will remain without further reverts, or the IP will revert again, at which point he/she will be proved to be acting in bad faith and action can be initiated against him/her.

Yesterday morning:

IP has again replaced the sourced content written by Koshihikari with the same unsourced content. And this happened after Koshihikari opened a discussion on the talk page for the article. What is the next step? Oh, by the way, I checked's user talk page and found a warning. Can one assume that he/she is aware of the warning? Thanks again for any and all assistance! Ailemadrah (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I would assume that the IP is aware of the warning, but the only way to know for sure is to see if they respond to it or delete it. You may also want to leave a message on their talk page inviting them to the article talk page using the Talkback function.
The next step would be for discussion leading to a consensus on the article talk page, while the article is locked. If you and Koshihikari agree on the content, and the IP doesn't join the discussion, then that will be the established consensus. At that point, you can request that the page be unprotected, or wait until the protection expires 10 days from now, and introduce the consensus content. If the IP then reverts the article, they are not only edit warring, but also editing tendentiously, and should be reported to WP:EW/N.- MrX 15:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday afternoon:

Thanks again, Mr. X! I've done both things you recommended: inviting the IP into the discussion using Talkback and adding my own comment to the talk page, agreeing with Koshihikari's content. So I guess we all have to wait now to see if the IP responds, correct? Ailemadrah (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That's right. Since the IP has consistently taken no longer than ½ day to revert, and usually reverts within a few hours, I would expect them to participate in the discussion in a similar time frame, assuming that they are editing in good faith and are here to improve the encyclopedia.- MrX 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This morning:

It's been over 24 hours and the IP has not responded. Would it be appropriate to now ask that the page be unprotected? I do believe that the IP is not editing in good faith, and I would not be at all surprised if his/her response is to revert again, at which point we would have proof of a tendentious edit. Ailemadrah (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You can try, but you might find admins reluctant to unprotect it so soon. You can ask the admin who protected it (Ged UK), or you can post a request at WP:RPP.- MrX 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So what is your opinion regarding the best next step? Ailemadrah (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd say wait a week to see if they reply. Whilst they do normally revert quickly, they might be away, for example. If after a week there's been nothing, then I'll change it to semiprotection. You should mention the discusssion on their talk page as well, if you haven't already. GedUK  11:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, Ged UK! I did leave a message on the IP's talk page on 26 June inviting him/her to join the discussion on the Good Luck Flag talk page, but there has been no response. Ailemadrah (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, Ged UK. The IP has reverted again, within hours of Koshihikari putting in the consensus sourced content. Mr. X told me that if this happened, it would be considered a tendentious edit that should be reported to WP:EW/N. Should Koshihikari or I make this report, or is it something that is handled by an admin like yourself? Ailemadrah (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it ought to be made by someone involved in it, as you know what yuo're talking about. An admin on the board will action it. I see that the IP has been blocked anyway, so there's probably no point now. If they come back and do it again, the block will be longer. Sorry for the delay, I've been very busy! --GedUK  11:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

2016 NHL Entry Draft[edit]

Can you please remove the protection that you applied to this article? NHL Entry Draft articles normally have a 24 month lead time before the event as this ensures that the event is properly covered. The issue that this article has is not whether it should be created, but when it should be created.

In the state the article was in previously that would be considered enough to let the article stand based on the criteria that has been used for previous editions (2011-2014 specifically). In addition there were some transactions that had not yet been added to the main space. Please let me and the four or five other editors that normally contribute to these articles get back to doing what we normally do. Deadman137 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. You should speak to Coffee (talk · contribs) really, because this is related to their AfD close. All I was doing with the protection was enforcing that. Otherwise you can take it to DRV. GedUK  11:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The article has been to DRV already with a result of No consensus[1]. The AFD stands as a result....William 13:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. --GedUK  11:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]