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 Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 25 May 2011 (→‎Senkaku Islands dispute: tweaking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Chevrolet Vega

Thanks for that. I despair at Barnstarbob's actions, who clearly has learned nothing from his recent block, nor the advice he has been given by several admins. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no problem! GedUK  13:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I request that you unprotect Chevrolet Vega. The RfC that was going on has been closed, with a clear consensus amongst editors that the article could benefit from significant changes. There is a high degree of likelihood that, once unprotected, the article will experience "enthusiastic" editing both from Barnstarbob and, potentially, from other editors. However, Barnstarbob's recent behavior shows that extending the protection will not reduce the likelihood of edit warring once the protection has been lifted. To my way of thinking, we might as well "bite the bullet" and lift the protection now, then let the dust settle where it will. Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I'm watching the article and will protect it again and/or block users who edit war. GedUK  12:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! And I fully expect you to beat me roughly about the head and shoulders, or at least slap me with a trout, should I introduce any edits that even hint at edit warring. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chevy Vega article

I put the complaint in on 842U and BikerBiker as making major changes to the article against consensus from the Automobile project discussion a few months ago. I made a few changes today as per that discussion without deleting anything..only changing section titles suggested by 842U, and changing the form of the Reception section as suggested by 842U without deleting content, and minor tweaks to the lead sections suggested in the discussion. The current discussion does not support a re-write, only changes to the lead and Reception sections, which are the only sections that have been attempted by 842U and BikerBiker to completely change to begin with. You could have waited for a response in the discussion from other BikerBiker who caused the Lock, based on my complaint. This is non-constructive rehashing of two Users who clearly could not have their way at restructuring these sections of the article with biased, non-neutral contributions, and are in fear of not getting their way again, with BikerBiker's request of the longer lock. Look at my edits of the two sections. I'm almost certain they would have gained approval by the other participants as only form was changed, not the content (which isn't needed).

The article should be rated B (not C) with a review pending for A rating, as it meets all criteria. This would be more constructive for the article at this point in time, and is long overdue. It was recommended by an administrator (who also worked with me on the lead) for a GA review long before the Automobile Projects discussion several months ago.

A rating states the article is well-organized and essentially complete (it is) having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like or elsewhere. (it was) Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. Very useful to readers. (It is) A fairly complete treatment of the subject. (It's complete) A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. (An expert would find nothing wanting) Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article (done) and style issues may need addressing. Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, (it is) It should be of a length suitable for the subject,(length was actually trimmed and three sections were split) appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources.(it is) It should be well illustrated, (it is) with no copyright problems.(none) Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate.

B rating states A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. (not needed) Expert knowledge may be needed. (not needed) The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. (not needed) Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.(it's very complete and would satisfy experts) (Barnstarbob (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Let it drop Bob, and let's have somebody completely neutral do a quality rating. Your WP:OWN behaviour means you are in no position to give an objective review. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC
Stop interfering every time I make a post. You obviously need to control all aspects of the site including talk pages. It's my goal to have it rated. It wasn't your goal. You're WP:OWN edits lead to the block from my complaint. againt you. I've followed the discussions and User suggestions and have not changed User contributions at will. You have. Your goal has become clear, and at this point, it's not beneficial to the article or the site. There is much time I've wasted and could have been improving other articles Right, that's what we should be doing...actually improving articles that need improving, not turning good articles into biased web blogs.
Ged UK-How do I go about getting this article reviewed for an A rating, which should have been done after the Project Automobile discussion, several months ago? An administrator suggested a GA review way back before the Projects Discussion and this current conflict. Thanks.(Barnstarbob (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The article was protected to allow the RfC to reach its conclusions without the article constantly changing
To request a review by the relevant wikiproject, you'd add it to the project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment, though this article is already listed there.
To list it for GA status, you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. GedUK  11:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rattle golden samba for lucas Leiva.

Please see Lucas' twitter page if you don't agree that he received the award. "Thanks Kop" is his message,placed on Sunday 15th May. It is a serious award,voted for and awarded by many Liverpool fans. It has also been featured on the www.lfc.tv website this week. see below http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/video/Features/Duo-win-Golden--26217.php3

If the club can recognise it then i'm sure the player would like wiki to recognise it too.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher maguire (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know he won it, and I'm certainly not disputing that he should have won it (he's been our best player this season), I just don't think it's a notable career achievement. Club player of the year, yes. Offical fan-club, maybe. A general fan award from an online awarded by an indeterminable number of Koppites? Not really. GedUK  11:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Elmander

Can you have a look at the above article? Sisman Yanko and I are having a small battle over the transfer of the player to the Turkish club Galatasary. Galatasary have published that they are signing the player on a free transfer and have reported this to the Turkish stock exchange. However, Bolton deny knowing anything about this and report that the player hasn't signed anything although they expect him to. I have included all these facts in the body of the article but Sisman Yanko is reverting and only including that Galatasary are signing the player. European clubs are well known for announcing that they expect to sign a player when they in fact haven't (e.g. Cesc Fabregas from Arsenal to Barcdelona) and until Bolton or Elmander confirm the signing I feel that my edit is the better one. I have tried to advise Sisman Yanko on this page, but all they have done is add vandalism warnings to my page and I am now close to violating the Wikipedia:3RR. Nice. Quentin X (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been done while I was offline, is this done? GedUK  18:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sisman Yanko did report me for violation of the 3RR, although I feel this was incorrect and there is still no result. I think we have come to an understanding on the article itself. Quentin X (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Senkaku Islands dispute

Do you know the phrase "a plague on both your houses". As you may know, it comes from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet? This idiomatic phrase expresses a kind of frustrated curse on both sides of an argument. In the play, Mercutio's words are spoken just before he dies in Act III, scene 1.

IMO, this English expression captures the reasoning which informed Nihonjoe's decision to lock Senkaku Islands here and Senkaku Islands dispute here. My guess is that the reasoning which informs your judgment here mirrors the thinking of Nihonjoe. He offers a succinct, indisputable analysis: "It's a POV-magnet, and edit wars happen frequently."

Despite the ways in which you and Nihonjoe are both very correct, could it also be valid that you both misconstrue the problem at hand. A temporary bandaid is a mismatch which rewards an edit warring strategy rather than suppressing it. Please reconsider this context:

A. diff 20:32, 2 May 2011 Tenmei (58,335 bytes) (in the absence of talk page responses to reasonable questions, the POV headnote is unjustified -- contradiction without support is unpersuasive per WP:DR -- see talk)
REVERTED by Lvhis here, not addressing specific argument nor explicit questions
B. diff 20:53, 24 May 2011 Tenmei (58,335 bytes) (Per WP:NPOV dispute, ""simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" -- specifics & engagement with questions is essential)
REVERTED by Lvhis here without acknowledging explicit issues and concerns

Do you know the game of musical chairs? Please re-examine this sequence of edits from a slightly different perspective -- as illustrative of something like the familiar children's game.

In effect, your disinterested administrative judgment turns the effort to encourage collaborative editing into a game of musical chairs. In response to an questions consistent with WP:Burden, Lvhis explained: If the POV-Title was still on there, I would have been happy to discuss this with you. Now, I am not interested in. Because this article and its title now are looked like without dispute on them."

Compare Talk:Senkaku Islands#Edit request from Lvhis, 24 February 2011

In the development of talk page threads at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, a number of inter-related strategies have become manifest, e.g.

  • repetitively proposing POV-tag without acknowledging previous threads which address variants of the same subjects
  • persistently reciting a mantra of POV complaints without acknowledging the existence of responses or the existence of archived threads which address similar claims.
  • insistently reiterating a bifurcated "false dilemma" overview which construes both contributors and issues as "favouring one side over the other" while marginalizing any other parsing analysis.

Locking the article (or unlocking it) becomes a red herring which distracts attention from our processes for discerning the threshold requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.

In other words, is there a better way forward?

Please consider unlocking the article. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK&oldid=430893414"