User talk:Ged UK

Undeletion question

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

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

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)

Goettsch Partners

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

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)

IP user block

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

User:ItHysteria

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 [1], 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

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)

Deletion Of DAKSH article from SASTRA s page

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)

Translation Error Rate

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). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Four articles for deletion

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)

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)

AfD Nomination of Russet Noon (April 18, 2009)

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)