User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2010/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Thank you

Many thanks for the barnstar, Ged, very kind! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem! GedUK  09:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Email

dear Gad please email me at ggspk@live.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudahmed66 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No. If you want to email me, use Special:EmailUser/Ged_UK or just ask me here. GedUK  11:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

dear Gad please email me at File:Ggspk@live.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saudahmed66 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just told you how to email me. I don't email people. GedUK  12:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RPP

Hi, first off, thanks for the protection on UFC 109 you granted on RPP earlier. I have a question though regarding it. I don't know what the next step is really regarded this individual across the various IPs. They seem to have infinite numbers of IPs to use and are intentionally targeting UFC pages in an attempt to deliberately introduce errors. They've been doing it to Mark Coleman, adding about 20 fake fights and now the individual has moved on to event pages such as the one you've protected.

Ordinarily, this wouldn't be a problem, but all I can do is warn the various IPs, which doesn't do any good, considering admins are unaware of the situation and would think it ridiculous to take to AIV immediately without warnings (as in that IP doesn't have a warning, but the person behind it has had dozens). Given the refusal by admins to indefinitely protect past pages (despite the lack of new information to ever come out now), what can we do? I'm stuck for ideas, but we can't keep up with the current situation, as the pages are getting vandalised more heavily than ever, across multiple events (not just the one protected) and I can't keep control when I've got 1500 pages on my watchlist.

Any ideas/advice would be appreciated. Cheers. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a range block? kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is quite adept at working them out, which I'm not. Failing that, you could raise it at AN or ANI and see what other admins suggest. GedUK  21:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Disney's House of Mouse

They're back, Ged, this time under IP 76.178.53.41 (talk · contribs). I've reverted the damage and left a "vandalism4m" warning on their talk page, but I haven't (yet) submitted a WP:RPP or reported them to WP:AIV. Please let me know whether or not this was appropriate, or if you need anything else. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. Thanks! GedUK  06:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Ged, I was looking at the 65 times this talk page has been vandalized this year. There are 19 unique accounts/IPs, most of which fall into a handful of groups:
Could some/most/all of these be WP:LTA/BF101? Also, is there some broader action that can be taken, such as a range-block on the 71.136 and 76.168 IPs, for example? I'm asking largely out of ignorance; up until recently, my experience with vandals has been mostly limited to WP:RCP activities and this WP:LTA stuff is a little new to me. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Rangeblocks, are, frankly, beyond me. I'll rustle up an admin who knows about such things to have a look. GedUK  12:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Not much that can be done with a rangeblock here: it's a pretty wide range (I can't get it below 32,768 addresses) and extremely active. The collateral damage would be unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. We'll just have to keep an eye on it. I'll continue with my blocks. GedUK  12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, if a anon uses a dynamic IP like this, a three month block will hit mostly the wrong users. One or two days is usually just as (in)effective since he'll switch IPs anyway. If it's disruptive enough on one article the only thing that can be done is semi-protection. Amalthea 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I had a gut-feeling that there wasn't much else that could be done about this, but figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Instead of going after the vandal(s) directly, perhaps an edit filter could be created to recognize this particular vandalism pattern, wherein the size of this specific talk page (currently around 6Kb) jumps dramatically in a single edit (at least ten-fold, lately more) usually by an anonymous IP. Any thoughts? -- Bgpaulus (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Possibly, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Does it get hit enough? GedUK  11:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, there must be some way to pro-actively protect Wikipedia from a persistent, long-term vandal like this one, otherwise we're just playing Whac-A-Mole, Wikipedia-style. By the way, I just reverted this latest instance of vandalism by yet another IP in the same range, 76.178.39.253 (talk · contribs). Like last time, I've posted a "uw-vandalism4im" to the vandal's talk page, but haven't yet taken any other action. -- Bgpaulus (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find some edit filter experts, because this is a bit tricky I think, if it's even possible. GedUK  18:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made a request for an edit filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#IP talk page edits adding large amounts of text. GedUK  12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for doing that, Ged. I've added my two cents' worth to that discussion. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I just reverted this latest instance of vandalism by yet another IP in the same range, 76.93.235.252 (talk · contribs). This time, I didn't bother with any warnings (why waste my time?); I just requested an immediate block on WP:AIV, referencing our discussion here. -- Bgpaulus (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
And got the desired result; I agree, no point in warnings, they know the rules. Thanks again! GedUK  06:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Another one: 76.178.39.253 (talk · contribs). Reverted and requested block. BTW, if you don't want me cluttering up your talk page with notes like this, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I don't mind. Maybe next time start a new thread, then this one can be archived soon. GedUK  14:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Pending changes question, why did I need to accept this edit by myself ? I thought that it should have been accepted automaticly as I am both Autoconfirmed and a Reviewer ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not really sure. It *might* be because the previous amendment hadn't been checked, but I'm not sure. Be better to ask someone like Amalthea or on the pending changes help/talk page. GedUK  19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad I am not the only confused one - I have asked here. Codf1977 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'll keep an eye on it so I know too! GedUK  19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed at Wikipedia:Pending_changes the last row of the table states "Note: Under pending-changes protections, "visible immediately" assumes no previous pending changes remain to be accepted.", so I guess that fits this case? GedUK  08:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Protection

Thanks Ged, for the semi protection of Just like Mom. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem! GedUK  07:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Suicide Silence

Hey, just wanted to ask. Umm remember when you protected the article Suicide Silence? Well I was thinking that it would be a good idea to remove it and add a pender, I wanna see what ideas the IPs haves. But if they're still gonna be dicks just go 'head and lock-it all back up again. I mean yeah; it's a popular band, but several things that are popular on Wikipedia have had their protections removed and a pender added for the same reason as I explained. So what do ya say? • GunMetal Angel 07:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Let's give it a try! GedUK  08:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

I feel it was a great error to delete this article. It doesn't fall under criterion for speedy deletion A7 as it is important and very significant. It is the oldest and largest organization dedicated to research Bigfoot with exclusive rights to most major pieces of evidence including the Patterson/Gimmlin film and several others. They are currently partaking in a venture with the popular television network Animal Planet. They have thousands of members and volunteers from coast to coast and host expeditions almost everywhere in the US year round. They also host a prized database used by all their competitors from various Bigfoot organizations and interested individuals. This system tracks all the new and old possible reports and sightings. The BFRO is also linked to other articles.--Timpicerilo (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if some of that was in the article, it wouldn't have met A7. I will restore it and tag for AfD. GedUK  19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I will work on it.--Timpicerilo (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done Restored and tagged for AfD. That'll give you a week to work on it. First thing you need are reliable sources. GedUK  20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "High Throughput Genomics"

I want to know why the "High Throughput Genomics" page was deleted. It was indicated that there was no purpose to the site, but I believe that the work that they are doing with the multi-gene asssays is changing the way scientists carry out experiments. Although htg is not a pop-singer or multi-billion dollar compnay, it is significant.

- The Night Writer —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Night Writer (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Size of the company is irrelevant. All that was in there was self-published stuff, or references to scientific journals about the theory of the work they do, not that appeared to refer to them directly. It needs independent sources that explain why the compnay itself is notable. GedUK  20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Černová tragedy

There was no progress. The edit war started again after the protection expired. I think there is needed a new protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.186.130 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  21:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Re-review

Hello! I am asking you to re-review a eventual page protection of User talk:The Rolling Camel. The reason is I have done the same request before, and that time HJ Mitchell indefinitely full-protected the user talk page (although not the same as the one I am requesting now) for the same reason as now. The case can be found here. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really can't see the point. Who's it misleading? The user's been blocked. I've blanked the talk page bar the warning. GedUK  18:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for use of your admin status

Hi, Ged I don't have admin status so I can't do this job. But if I give you this job which isn't that big do you think you can do it for me?

The job is about cricket. And basically for a cricket team you have a flag next to it so in cricket article rather than writing "Flagicon|West Indies" you would write "cr|WIN". So if you don't mind the link you have to edit is here and the flag you will need is [["File: West indies cricket board flag.png|". In the country data the flag has disappeared so using the second link you need to put that flag into the Country data West indies.

Sounds a bit unusual for a request. But can you please do it as I'm not admin and I can't edit that article. It's causing a real pain for the cricket editors. Cheers, Wiki id2(talk) 11:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I think. Please confirm that it works! GedUK  18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 Not done That is a non-feee image, which is why a blank placeholder is used in the template (to comply with WP:NFCC. This is dicussed in depth on the template talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry :/ GedUK  20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Firm (American band)

Why did you move this article while the Requested Move discussion was still ongoing, and without even commenting or participating on the discussion? Were you aware that the discussion was happening? I would encourage you to either move the article back and allow the RM to continue, or to explain on the Talk page why you chose to forego the usual procedure. Propaniac (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Amherst College

I am requesting a re-review of your decision to fully protect Amherst College for 2 weeks. The editor requesting protection is engaged in a discussion with several other editors (myself included) who have substantially more experience and familiarity with the extant consensus surrounding the issue in question, exhibits the characteristics of a WP:SPA engaging in tendentious editing, and attempts to provoke editors and then remove offending comments. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting that the full protection of Amherst College remains for 2 weeks or more, until the sabotage movement ceases. The editor who has asked for protection is in my opinion reasonable in doing so. Apparently, these "experienced editors" are attempting to overturn the community concensus on wikipedia to include summary statements of selectivity on a collegiate article lead.
Also, I deny that the editor who has requested for protection is guilty of provoking other editors. If you have the time, please review this yourself. In fact, these so-called experienced editors have been provoking other new members of the wikipedia community with their "experience," and recalling non-existent concensus or evidence to support their fallacies. Proofallgames (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have done a check. The editor in question here has not removed offending comments to cover up, but added additional comments to his or her original ones almost a few minutes later, leading others less careful to accuse him or her of a wrong act.
Moreover, there are at this moment only two supposedly experienced editors who have been bent on going against the community concensus. Proofallgames (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Madcoverboy in this case that full protection should be re-reviewed (in this case it simply fixes the version of the editor who called for the protection). There is an ongoing debate on this article about specific language for the lede, but there is no "sabotage movement". Npdoty (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think it was the right call to protect the article but it's not a big deal and it'll expire on its own. However, I recommend looking at requests for protection a bit more closely in the future, though, so the tool is not manipulated by disruptive SPAs. ElKevbo (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
So ElKevbo, now you have turned to lecture the administrator. Thank God, you are not an admin, despite how "senior" or "experienced" you are. I recommend that you improve the current standstill by suggesting ways to improve the lead, and not teach others, including SPAs and Administrators, what to do. I stand firmly by the decision of the administrator 218.186.9.11 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, ElKevbo, your actions or words are very offensive and disturbing to many. Could you please make your intentions clear. Are you trying to improve the lead or what? Thank you. Why are you firing everybody? Agesworthuser (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're just going to insult me can you at least do it on my Talk page and leave this poor administrator out of it?
And how many different accounts are you going to use? You're not fooling anyone. ElKevbo (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Speak for yourself ElKevbo, you should spare the administrator too. I shall not waste time arguing against you anymore. You write juvenilely.Agesworthuser (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted my rationale on the article talk page. GedUK  18:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request an extension of the article's protection for a week. As you can see from the above debate, the issue is far from resolved, and I fear that when the protection expires in two days the article will be trashed in a very extensive edit war.Rppeabody (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It was protected till the 8th anyway, i just put the wrong date in the template. GedUK  11:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2010/July&oldid=1143535977"