User talk:Ged UK

Hollow Bodies (album)

You can delete this redirect page and move the article now as the AfD ended. Thanks, Insulam Simia (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

• Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case

• Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard

• News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech

• Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess

• Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Same old, same old

I see your previous block on User talk:HoarseForeman. He seems to be persistent and for some reason addicted to unconstructive edits. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's (effectively) indef blocked now. GedUK  08:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

NA Deletion

Dear Ged UK, I feel like the deletion of Nazarene Ally was too fast, less then 24 hrs. I read A7, and I would like to add that it is notable, and important because it is the first group of its kind for the Holiness Movement Churches, and the COTN, which represents some 5 million people. Thank you for your time, and I hope you reconsider its deletion. Moonraker0022 (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I can restore the page to your userspace for you if you like. Had you included that fact that it's the first groupo of its kind in the original I might not have deleted it. However, please note that whilst that might be enough to pass speedy deletion, which has a lower threshold, that won't be enough to establish notability to wikipedia's standards. It needs external, independent sources that cover the subject in depth. Let me know if you want me to restore it. GedUK  10:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Artsy Fartsy Show

Hi. You recently deleted this article per WP:CSD#G5 : "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". However, G5 only applies to articles "which have no substantial edits by others". I pretty much rewrote this article from the ground up, so I would say G5 doesn't qualify in this instance. Could the article please be restored? I don't mind if you think it should go to AfD for being a non-notable stub, but I'd prefer to take that to a full discussion as I can probably argue for it being at least good for a redirect to WBAI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  10:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - can you do the talk page too? Oh, and some of the earlier revisions in the article were partial copyright violations - should they be revdel'ed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, sorry I should have done that the first time! Sorry about the deletion, you're quite right, this was one of a set of his I'd deleted in a row.

I can't actually revdel, only redact an edit (a technical difference, perhaps, but important). Redaction criteria are set out at WP:RD, and personally I think that replacing the copyvio text in this case is sufficient, per WP:CPI. If the copywrite holder wants it removed, then of course it will be. GedUK  10:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks for the heads up. That all makes sense. I was aware of the banned editor's contributions, which were frankly bizarre - he seemed to do a search for sources, copy and paste text into the article, then insert sources randomly. You then had articles that superficially looked okay, citing reliable sources, but were in fact rubbish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think he was a paid editor; get the stuff up there quickly, get paid, move on. GedUK  11:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Daredevil Project

I am currently working on this page and adapting my writing style according to the traditions of WIkipedia, sorty for any offence I may have caused- I certainly did not mean to promote this company through wikipedia. Please do not delete my page because I am currently in the process of completely overhauling it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmRob07 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't the most recent admin to delete it. The version I deleted had no indication at all the company was notable. You should contact RHaworth (talk · contribs) if you haven't already. I can't restore an article someone else has deleted. GedUK  19:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User edit warring and making false claims ect...

User:Winkelvi decided to revert me here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Design_the_Skyline&diff=568373829&oldid=568301090 with some false claim that I changed the band member's name to zeroes (even though this is exact opposite which is clearly obvious when you click that link showing the diff) and then aftward he reverted me again when I changed it back.

Then when I went to his talk page, being as pissed off as I was, he decided to say I was making "personal attacks" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&diff=568690152&oldid=568682941

what is this guy even thinking? So in a nutshell he convicts me of doing the exact opposite of something, then when I tell him what he did was wrong he removes his own messages, calls it personal attacks and edit wars with me again? What the... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.140.208 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Doom vs. D00m

Hey - I was just replying to your message on my talk page when there was an edit conflict and you removed what you wrote. Just for the record, here is the text of my reply:

The zeroes aren't vandalism, they are how the guy spells his stage name. And I didn't use rollback except on my own talk page. I used Twinkle for the other edits. Please look into the facts (not just take what an IP user reported for 3RR says at face value). Look at the edit warring report, please.

Hope we can get on the same page with this! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As these two comments are related to the same issue, I'll merge them together. To me, this looks like a big misunderstanding. Without a source in the article, no hidden text note, removing '00' for the more standard 'oo' seems a perfectly reasonable response. Winklevi, your edit summary for this edit is a little confusing. Reading it again with the additional information I've now seen, I think I can see what you're trying to say, but on first reading to me, and the IP, it does seem to say that 'oo' is what it should be, and that the IP has used '00', which of course they hadn't.

It would have been better to add the source at the start of the process, rather than engaging in an edit war (even if both sides thought they were reverting vandalism). Additionally, if you'd have explained it on the IP's talkpage rather than just sticking to a templated message, that would probably have helped too.

Mr IP, additionally, please refrain from personal attacks; calling someone an idiot and asking if they're crazy rarely gets a good response from most people.

I'm going to copy this to the 3RR report as well, and close it as a misunderstanding, which I think it was. I hope this has helped sort this out :) GedUK  20:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Addressed your resolution at the edit warring report page. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The only reason why he's "Dani D00m" on twitter is because that name is taken, here's a verification from the band's website http://www.victoryrecords.com/designtheskyline it's still pretty ridiculous and unbelievable that this guy would make this much drama out of this. Twitter isn't even a source to begin with and yet he's using it as a means to just because he used a name that was taken and used zeroes to get around the fact that it was taken by someone else on a social networking site. Now this is really just getting sad.