User talk:Ged UK

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it UNLESS I sent you a templated message, in which case, start a conversation here or leave a {{Talkback}} or {{ping}} message.

If you leave me a message: I will answer here, so please add it to your watchlist.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives (index)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia

Featured content: A lousy week

WikiProject report: Just the Facts

In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute

News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year

Discussion report: WebCite proposal

Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters

Extending protection

Hi, regarding the protection on Progressive Utilization Theory, we have been trying to reach consensus, but there is still a long way to go. I respectfully request another extension of the protection - for a month or two - as a premature, automatic lifting of the protection is only likely to result in another edit war. Thank you for your kind consideration. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a few days left to go yet, so I'd hold off for a while. I'll watch the page, but I'm minded to let the protection run ou and see what happens. It's easy enough to restore it. HAppy to discuss further, I'm not 100% in my mind yet. Ged UK 12:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand... some wizardly experiment perhaps

... but when the protection does get lifted on that article, it's likely to be a turkey shoot wherein everyone tries to be the last to impose the content they want before protection is reimposed. I know that might be interesting to watch, but it would not be as interesting to take part in. Please do reconsider my request. I believe that another month or two to wrangle our way toward consensus - with a somewhat decent version of the current article still readily available to readers on Wikipedia - could be helpful. If we don't get clear after that, then the only recourse I see is a more long-term protection or semi-protection on the article or mediation. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended it another month. Ged UK 12:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ged. I greatly appreciate it. Hopefully, within the next month we will see a bit more progress toward consensus. I believe we can merge the two sets of content and thereby create an even better article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page : Football records in Spain

may you please take a look at football records in spain ,this page is containing various different records in Spanish football, I added 3 new records into it but 83.36.24.36 keeps removing them because he believes they are not needed !!

Those 3 records well referenced from the related club website and even classified clearly under national records even not just a club records !! so anything clearer than that even ?? how should someone opinion or even bunch of people opinion about it make a difference in that ?? its a clear case...the related club classified it as record , so if someone likes it or not it shouldn't stop being a record .

and since its referenced I can't see any reason to remove it .

the website : http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/the-honours/detail/card/fc-barcelona-team-records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:747E:4239:7B1F:42AC (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:747E:4239:7B1F:42AC (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been addressed by another admin. As a general point though, sourcing something from the club itself is not good practice; they could be wrong, lying, enhancing etc. A third party source, like the league or FA for example, would be better. Ged UK 12:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines

Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit

In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press

Featured content: Featured content gets schooled

Edit war in Malayalam cinema page

Hi, Edit war in Malayalam cinema page was mainly done by anonymous IPs who edited out versions with citations. These IPs operate in complete disregard to talk page discussions. The latest version existing contradicts with South Indian film industry which is given protection from such IPs, by allowing edits only by autoconfirmed users till February 27. Under permission by admin Spartaz, I corrected an edit at South Indian film industry done by such an anonymous IP which left a statement that contradicts the citations there. It has stayed there as anonymous IPs are not allowed to edit. Could you kindly restore the Malayalam cinema page to a version before the edit war started (Feb 18) or a latest version by an autoconfirmed user. Thanks Prathambhu (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and the talk page. It seems that the User:Prathambhu was trying to push his POV despite the consensus reached by other editors in the talk page. This user wants to glorify his home city in all articles in wiki. He is also engaged in edit war in South Indian film industry:

[1]
[2]

So, please do not revert to any older version upon his claims. Let there be a consensus in the talk page first. Thanks, Samaleks (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]