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 Hvyhiter (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 28 October 2010 (→‎RE: Removal of Center for Chemical Addictions Treatment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Disruptive/biased user Haldraper

On the Liverpool FC article, i broadened and improved what was a short lede using cited material. I used the same IFFHS reference as is used on Juventus, Real Madrid, AC Milan articles... recent success as is used on a great number of featured club articles...the clubs home colours as is used on a great number of featured articles, the clubs home city as is used on a great number of featured articles. I thoroughly researched other club articles, following a precedent to ensure the material was valid. The user Haldraper unjustifiably removed this with clear breach of bias,. used "fan" as a reason (irrelevant but i support Cardiff City).. a user who edits on Manchester United (made a lede edit referring to them solely as "United"). Please ensure this user does not continue to make invalid removal of researched, cited material. Thankyou..--AaronRodgers27 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too involved in the LFC article to really get involved in an administrative capacity I'm afraid. I'll have a look at it. GedUK  18:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a simple content dispute. I've started a section on the talk page to clarify consensus. Thanks. GedUK  11:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message..--AaronRodgers27 (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Just to say thanks for the Barnstar. I really didn't expect that!

Yeah, I went to add his departure from Neighbours the other week and I was shocked at how short his article was so I added to my (seemingly never ending) list of things to do on Wikipedia. I knew he was notable enough though because on Zeke Kinski's article it says that Werkmeister has been nominated for Logies.

Well, next on the list for article expansion/improvement are Madeline Duggan, Morgan Baker, Callum Stone and Dale Smith.

So are you a Neighbours fan then? --5 albert square (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, thoroughly deserved. Yes, Neighbours is the only soap I watch, and I'll miss Zeke when he's gone, and I hope Matthew assembles a career in the style of say Guy Pearce or Jesse Spencer, rather than just about everyone else that's left the show! GedUK  06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to ask, do you know if there's a limit on the number of times you can nominate an article for DYK? I'm going to expand Respect (The Bill) at some stage and I've now found out that the producers had cameo roles in the finale so if I could expand it 5 times over then I was going to nominate it for DYK again. The only thing is it was mentioned in DYK in September. I'm wondering would it be possible to nominate again? --5 albert square (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, sorry. I know virtually nothing about DYKs. GedUK  15:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I daresay I can find out from a 'regular' of the pages :), by the way did you see the strange edit someone made to Neighbours before? Saying Network Ten are airing the same episode every day! As if! --5 albert square (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't actually watchlist it. I used to, but it was too difficult trying to keep a handle on vandalism or unconstructive edits when you're several months behind the plot, plus the fact that I kept finding plot spoliers! GedUK  12:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protection of article Neha Sharma

I request you to protect the article Neha Sharma due to excessive vandalism. You had earlier protected the article for the same reason. Now, the protection has expired and the article is again suffering from vandalism. I have posted here instead of Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection hoping for a fast action.

мαуαηк αвнιѕнєк (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article, received semi protection status. мαуαηк αвнιѕнєк talk · contribs 21:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Always quicker to go to RfPP, my editing times are erratic! GedUK  15:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2010

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 2 — 3rd Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2010, the project has:

Content

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina protection

Hello Ged, you semi-protected the above article a month ago and TW removed the move=sysop protection (it was re-requested today). This is due to a glitch in the script, so please check an article for previous protection settings before protecting with TW. Thanks! Airplaneman ✈ 04:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, OK . 90% of my protections are without twinkle, mainly because I forget I've got it on ths computer at home! I'll be careful. GedUK  15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TVP Polonia

Just noticed this article listed on WP:RFPP. May I ask why you reverted SlimVirgin's unprotection of this article? [1] It doesn't seem to be receiving much in the way of problematic IP edits. WJBscribe (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have just replied there. GedUK  15:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is "there"? There seems no logic for the protection. I notice you didn't reply to my first question about this a couple of days ago too... 82.152.216.15 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ged UK. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is moved from the AN/I, as the case was closed. Some questions for you: 1) explanation of "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask". Which explanation, and where "every time"? What is "you know perfectly well" supposed to refer to? 2) I believe that by declining an unprotect request having protected the article in the first place represents a conflict of interest. I would've thought you could've explained the protection, and then the request should have been reviewed by someone impartial. Why wasn't this done? 3) Why no explanation in edit summary or on TV Polonia talk page? 4) Where is the vandalism? Which tv station articles? It certainly isn't TV Polonia. Many thanks in advance. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already offered to provide a list of the protected articles on my Talk page as soon as I have time, seeing as it was me who identified them - please be patient. As for the rest of your demands, I strongly suggest you just let it drop now and we can discuss the article itself in a productive manner. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of articles, with explanation, now on my Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also in my talk archive, in September I think. Links at the top of this page.
To answer your questions 1)I think that's been explained at ANI, but I assumed you'd seen the reply I had already made at ANI, and I may additionally have confused you with someone else. Sorry if that is the case.
2) Standard practice is for the protecting admin to review a request at RfPP, there's often background another admin may not be aware of, as in this case.
3) There should be the rationale in the protection log. Additional comments may perhaps have been a good idea, with hindsight.
4) See above. GedUK  18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help?!

Hey, I was just wondering if you could help me. I've been working on the article London Road Stadium and there is an image I would like to put on it. It's a CG image from the BBC and it's relevant to the article. However, I'm not really sure how to go about uploading it. In the past I've only really uploaded my own photos and when I've tried to upload images from the internet, I've (rightly) been pulled up about copyright issues and the images have been deleted. Could you tell me exactly what I should do, since I feel that the article should have this image and knowing how to do this will help me in the future. Thanks very much, AndrewvdBK (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear :/ I'm really not the best person to ask. I'm really only familiar with the broad copyright concepts. You'd be best off asking someone like Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) who totally gets copyright. GedUK  18:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of North London Skydiving Centre for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article North London Skydiving Centre, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North London Skydiving Centre until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, though all I did was decline the speedy. GedUK  06:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problems has stopped

Haven't seen TV-vandal problems for months with another 2 editors, only me is here (there was 3 editors) and 2 new editors, one of them is semi-active and another one is gone. The MRTV editor said Midnight RTV is local, the TVP editor is now gone after both TVP were protected. I'm American. All my TV works are on Magyar Televízió, and still no progress to List of Cambodian singers??--125.27.55.153 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no vandalism for the simple reason that the relevant articles are semi-protected - I'm pretty sure some of the 125.25.x.x IPs are just waiting for the protection to expire so they can carry on again. Let's let the current protection expire naturally and see how it goes then. If you don't wish to be associated with the others and wish to do some more editing, it's easy enough for you to register your own username. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's the point of protecting them. Sorry. But if you registered an account, in days you'd be able to edit them again. GedUK  20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are Ged UK and Boing! said Zebedee sockpuppets?

Both of them are British and always support each other (no offense)--125.27.55.153 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you wants the victim (me and other 125 IP) to loose. Even they sourced, both of you will say it's not the proper sourcing. While other can edit without sourcing.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you have evidence to support a charge of sockpuppetry, take it to WP:SPI, otherwise stop accusing us of dishonesty - it is a serious accusation which you should not make lightly. Neither of us wants anyone to lose, we just wish to protect Wikipedia against people who abuse policies like WP:RS. So if the 125.25.x.x editors want to carry on editing, they need to start listening and stop acting disruptively. And if you are not one of the disruptive ones, register your own account and you will have no problems - it really is that simple -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be very careful flinging accusations like that around, 125.27.55.153. Lots of offense taken. GedUK  20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JamesBWatson's law says If a person makes absurd accusations of sockpuppetry against established and reliable editors, without producing any plausible evidence at all, then it is 99% certain that that person is a sockpuppeteer. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, you might be on to something - the only other time I've been accused of sockpuppetry, the accuser did indeed turn out to be a puppeteer! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Nomination of Voice Commerce Group for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Voice Commerce Group, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice Commerce Group until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. VictorianMutant(Talk) 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

A block may be in order on user Fixblor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - he is engaging in the exact same pattern of disruption at page List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes, as he did previously at Template:Treehouse of Horror. I have contributed Featured Articles within the topic and am a member of The Simpsons WikiProject, so I'll refrain from performing admin actions myself in this case - but it does appear to be necessitated at this point. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst you're probably right, I think - as they're making an effort to get a consensus discussion going - that blocks might be unhelpful at this time. I'll leave the same message on this talk page as the template one, and will watchlist, and take it from there. GedUK  10:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Removal of Center for Chemical Addictions Treatment

Hello

I see that you deleted the page due to - A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion.

After re-reading section A7, I see that I failed to emphasize the importance of the organization to the community.

The organization has:

  • over 40 years of experience helping the residents of the Cincinnati-area improve their lives
  • been a finalist for the ONE Award (honoring non-profits in the Cincinnati area)
  • been a multi-year recipient of the Cincinnati Better Business Bureau Torch Award (honoring Ethical organizations)
  • been certified by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) every year since 1975
  • affiliations with the United Way of Greater Cincinnati

Is this sufficient justification to get the page re-added? I'll modify the content appropriately to emphasize the aforementioned value of the organization.

If this does not address the reason for removal, can you please elaborate on what is missing/wrong with the previous page?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvyhiter (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the awards nominations and wins are probably enough for it to get through A7, which has a lower threshold than the notability guidelines, as it demonstrates significance or importance. However, to get through the notability guidelines, and to avoid it being deleted via WP:AFD (which is a community discussion rather than one admin), you need to make sure you add reliable sources that are independent and discuss the Centre in some detail.
I can restore the page for you to your userspace where you can work on it, then you can move it to the mainspace when you're ready. Let me know! Regards, GedUK  06:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring to my userspace would be great! I appreciate the words of wisdom about the potential for deletion from community discussion. Thanks! hvyhiter (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive vandalism protection for Adam Weishaupt

You were kind enough to protect article Adam Weishaupt back in July. If you would once again be so kind, it would be appreciated. Thank you for your diligence._Ingram 05:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingram (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  06:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Soccer (magazine) protection

Good move, I was getting sick of reverting IPs on that article. It's weird how some innocent little articles become such big targets. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. GedUK  09:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re

No worries, it's not a rush whatsoever. Grsz11 13:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Cagney

I've started having a look at James Cagney, starting by looking at overall layout from something of a distant view. And over all I think it's pretty good - the placing of photos and quotes is pleasing to the eye.

One thing that strikes me is that some of the sections seem a bit long, and I wonder if they could usefully be sub-sectioned with level 3 subheadings? I write web-based material in my RL job, and one of the things we find is that people's attentions are held better if blocks of text are visually broken up a bit (The psychology of reading is quite interesting - even arbitrary subheadings seem to make text visually more pleasing, regardless of what the headings actually say).

Anyway, that's my first thought -- I'll dig a bit deeper over the weekend and start making some copy-edits (I'll probably make some changes just to see if they look and read better, so please do take my changes as suggestions and feel free to revert as you see fit).

Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I look forward to it. I don't have a problem with breaking some of that up, but I need to find a way to do it, and where to do it. I'll have a think about it. GedUK  14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Magyar Televízió/draft

This has been at MfD for 16 days now, and they're usually closed within 7 days - any idea what to do when something has apparently been overlooked like this? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK&oldid=393487098"