Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kww (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 28 January 2010 (→‎Your speedy decline on Innocent Heart). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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[reply]

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)[reply]
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[reply]
 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The AfD is NOT old, it was only just before Christmas. GedUK  13:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't understand. Now the page is ok. It passWP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--ItHysteria (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, what's happened since? Where has it charted? GedUK  13:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It peaked #81 on the Oricon singles chart. Have you read the Loverdrive edit?.--ItHysteria (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I didn't found a independent site, but a official site is still ok.--ItHysteria (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There are certainly some similarities. Checkuser is the best approach, it will help clarify the situation. GedUK  18:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god. What?--ItHysteria (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...and so that it doesn't read like a blatant advertisement. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that too. I didn't actually read it. GedUK  17:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RFA

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)[reply]

Hi there. I didn't actually delete it, you should contact Tone (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who was the deleting admin. GedUK  21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Motor skill

Is it just me, or did the protection you added expire already? I'm assuming that wasn't intentional. -- Bfigura (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, nevermind. I just managed to misread the dates involved, and it looked like it instantly lapsed rather then lasted for a day. -- Bfigura (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do that all the time! GedUK  13:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday Was a Lie

Hello. Concerning the warning about edit warring on Yesterday Was a Lie which you placed on my talk page: the purpose of my edits was to remove changes which had been made under a bogus consensus reached by conversations between SPA/COI sockpuppets. The accounts in question have now been confirmed as, indeed, being sockpuppets. Seeing that this is the case, would it now be OK to return the article to the state it was in before those socks changed it to put the film in question in a better light? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me; my issue was not with the content or the consensus, but the edit warring. As the other parties have been blocked, there seems no reason the edit war will be continuing. Thanks for your patience. GedUK  13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Login Problems

I'm having trouble staying logged in. I login like normal and then it logs me out automaticly on the 2nd click. Whats the deal and can you fix it.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, not really, sorry. I'm not very technically minded. I can only suggest that you try the Wikipedia:Help desk. GedUK  19:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your speedy decline on Innocent Heart

What part of G5 do you interpret as requiring that the banned user was banned for creating articles? G5 applies to all articles created by all banned users, regardless of any merit that the article might possess.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. He hasn't been banned, he's been blocked. G5 would apply if he'd had a ban on say, Obama articles, and then created an Obama related article, G5 would apply. There's no reason to delete articles created by blocked users if there's nothing wrong with the article. GedUK  20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is: the purpose of going through a banned user's contributions and carefully obliterating them is to ensure that the banned user ultimately gets the point and ceases to contribute. It's a time-consuming and tedious activity which is only effective if carried out completely. The only criteria called out in WP:BAN is that no other user has made a constructive contribution (which this article meets). As for whether he is banned, the criteria there is whether any reasonable admin would unblock him. With over 20 sockpuppet cases and over 50 socks later, he's banned: no reasonable admin would unblock him. Please either process the speedy or give your consent for me to replace the tag so that another admin will process it.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK&oldid=340586229"