User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2009/December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



{{talkback}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomie (talkcontribs) 15:11 2 December 2009

Thanks for protecting Johnny Test Episodes

I'll let you know if they continue vandalizing the article after the lock expires. Thanks. Heavydata (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. GedUK  10:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As soon as it expired, IP's began adding fake information once again. I'm putting in another request. Heavydata (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, but I see that your request was dealt with by Tedder. GedUK  09:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good day Mr. Ged Uk; we need your urgent help

The page of an important contemporary Lebanese polymath "Wissam Shekhani" was deleted by you; please help us to bring it back again. We tried to create it again, but it was deleted too for the second time; we beleive that we made it correctly as per the policies and we did not know how to fix this issue!!!. Can you please Ged UK help us to bring it back; "Wissam Shekhani" deseres really to be nominated for his artistic and engineering achievements; please help us to bring him back. Thank you a lot. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talkcontribs) 01:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Have a look at the notability guidelines, which sets out what you need to have, particularly sources about him, rather than just mentioning him, and that are independent of him. Sources need to be reliable and verifiable. If you like, I can restore the article to your userspace so that you can work on it there. GedUK  14:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh Please; that will be a great help from your side; please restore the article and we will try to fix all the notability problems. The problem here in Lebanon, people do not care too much for intellectuals and inventors, and therefore most of books and journals here talk about intellectuals only after their death. Thank you again GED UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talkcontribs) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you a for your answer; that will be a great help from your side Mr. GED UK to restore the article and we will try to fix all the notability problems. The problem here in Lebanon, people do not care too much for intellectuals and inventors, and therefore most of books and journals here talk about intellectuals only after their death. Thank you again GED UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talk • contribs) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talkcontribs)
I've restored the article and moved it to your userspace. It's now at User:ALBA-BALAMAND/Wissam Shekhani. When yuo're ready, let me know and I can move it back to the main space. Take your time, it won't be deleted from where it is. Hope this helps! GedUK  12:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear GED UK, you are a really kind constructive person; we (in the name of The Lebanese organization of rescuing Lebanon's Cedars trees and Lebanese organization of building scientific research centers) thank you a lot for your help and support Mr. GED UK. We will be doing the best to collect the reliable sources and we wioll contact you once ready for your evaluation. Thanking you again for your support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talkcontribs) 05:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Dear GED UK, you are a really kind constructive person; we (in the name of The Lebanese organization of rescuing Lebanon's Cedars trees and Lebanese organization of building scientific research centers) thank you a lot for your help and support Mr. GED UK. We will be doing the best to collect the reliable sources and we wioll contact you once ready for your evaluation. Thanking you again for your support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talkcontribs)
I can't believe you fell for that, This Alba user is a sock for VincshekhanEli+ 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Never heard of him. I only came across this page via WP:RPP. I'll look into it. GedUK  09:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems likely. As you've started an SPI, I'll await the results. GedUK  09:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Neonet AB

How come that Investment banks, stock exchanges and other multilateral Trading Facilities is accepted on Wikipedia, but not Neonet that are bringing these markets together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no indication in the article that it met the notablilty guidelines, backed up by reliable sources. Have a read of those, and let me know if you want some help with it. GedUK  20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the article met the notability guidelines and was backed up with reliable sources such as the Annual Report, but maybe I was wrong or misunderstood. I looked at similar organizations for inspiration, and thought I created the article the same way that they were. I am happy to receive help on this.H haeggstrom (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the article to your userspace, it's now at User:H haeggstrom/Neonet AB. Essentially, the article needs external, independant (ie not press releases, company PR, accounts) that discuss the subject. That can be online or offline. These could be article that discuss what the company does and how it links things together, that sort of thing.
The accounts that you linked basically confirm it exists, which wasn't why it was deleted. It was deleted because it didn't make a credible claim to being notable. It's generally accepted on Wikipedia that just being a listed NASDAQ company isn't inherently notable (see WP:LISTED), but as a NASDAQ company it shouldn't be too hard to find some decent sources for it.
I hope this helps, and let me know if you need any more help! I don't think it'll take too much for this article to meet the notability guidelines, so we should be able to get it moved back to the main space pretty soon. :o) GedUK  08:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's perfect Anwar al-Awlaki

Thanks for watchlisting it.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's alright! The request on the external website is slightly alarming, but equally a lot of what they're asking people to do should actually improve the article. It's just keeping an eye on what else might happen. GedUK  09:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This edit today would appear to be just the sort of edit that we were concerned about.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Followed by this. Time to semi?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, just seen those. Not quite enough yet, it's only 2 in 10 hours, and quite spread out. GedUK  08:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Meets the more than 5% of edits test, though (especially when you don't count the reverts). I don't think its written anywhere that we need to average more than 4 a day. But, I defer to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but of the last 50 edits covering 5 days, only 7 have been IPs. That's just not enough for protection in my view. Not yet. I expect it'll come, but we'll see. GedUK  08:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection, I note that per that guide the following militate in favor of protection as well: a) the vandalism from a wide range of accounts/IPs (consistent w/the call on the website); b) it is a high-profile page (this is the fellow who was emailing the Fort Hood shooter); c) The problem can have a detrimental effect on how Wikipedia looks to the public; d) the subject of the page a living person, and e) this is a higher quality article, and therefore more damaged by vandalism. Also, all or almost all of the vandalism is coming from unregistered users, and as to the 5% figure -- the guide says "consider a lower threshold for protection for articles on living people". Oh yeah -- they suggest measuring the IP vandal edits versus the IP helpful edits. I think the vast majority have been reverted as unhelpful and flawed in one way or another.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at the last 100 edits. 14 by IPs (14% ... same as the 14% rate in your 7/50). All 14% were innapropriate, and reverted. And all we need is 5%, or less than 5% where (as here) it is a living person.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Just checked the prior 100 as well. 11 by IPs (11%); and all 11% were reverted (including one at least that was derogatory towards him).--Epeefleche (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Yes, I know, but also, it's an essay, not a policy, and Every case is different, and 'passing' every criterion does not mean a page must be protected; administrators are at liberty to use their discretion.
I really don't want to come across as a hard-ass, it's really not my style. There's just not enough at the moment, that's my view. I'll protect it when it gets bad enough. GedUK  09:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Got it. Would you have an objection to my listing it at the noticeboard?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No, that's fine, but I would prefer it if you made this conversation known, in case another admin thinks they're treading on toes. GedUK  09:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course, thanks -- I'll link to this discussion. But just so I'm clear, they should not feel they are treading on toes if they have a different view, is what you are saying?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No, that's absolutely fine. If another admin wants to protect, then I've no problem with it. GedUK  09:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Description of "Sri Kriplavanada" - formally known as Yogacharya Swami Kripalu

I have noticed and understood why my post on "Sri Kriplavanda" page was taken off and now protected from any edits. Apologies for any confusion that may have caused.

However I would like to point out that this was done due to INAPPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION of Swami Kripalu's biography posted by calamitybrook. The references used are NOT VALID AT ALL. ALL OF THE REFERENCES LISTED ARE FROM A COMMON PERSON RATHER THAN NOTABLE DOCUMENTAION BY SWAMI KRIPALU. They are references used from websites that have no affiliation or understanding of Swami Kripalu and his lineage. One of the reference used "Quotes" in this article was a transcription from Swami Kripalu's discourse according website owner. That is a third-party transcription where content cannot be validated and easily taken out of context. It would be wise to post on wilkipedia on Swami Kripalu teaching's, beliefs, lineage, and yoga - rather than jamming the article with absolute lies.

I would like to request Sri Kripalavanda post for speedy deletion. I have enough material that I can post about Swami Kripalu that would be beneficial to Wikipedia Users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sb3232 (talkcontribs) 13:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to delete the page. If you have other sources, then use those to improve the article. Sources directly from the subject of the article, "First person evidence" is not the best source of information about a person. 'Common people', ie third parties, are a more reliable source. Please use the article's talk page to work with other editors to reach a consensus on how to improve the article, rather than edit-warring. Thanks. GedUK  08:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Hey Ged, thanks for the comments in my RfA. Pass or fail, would you consider coaching me a bit? Grsz11 15:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a whirl! I've not really coached before, so I'll do some reading up, but yes, should be a good learning experience for both of us! GedUK  15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Any advice on how to proceed right now, as far as following up on questions and such. I'll be back later tonight (My time, that is). Thanks, Grsz11 20:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The only way to tackle an RfA is honestly. I think you're doing fine. The opposes you can't do much about, especially when a lot of the are supporting because of a bad answer to Q4, when your answer is pretty much spot on (Kurt seems to go out of his way to be awkward sometimes). The other issues are done now, you can't change your answers, nor people's minds. Just have to see how it goes. The only other thing I'd say is don't get stressed about it. GedUK  22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Upstanding youth


It looks like you deleted an article a few days ago for a ska band called "Upstanding Youth" on 11/27. Ostensibly this was because the article did not indicate why it was important or worthy of being an article. I can't find the original article to suggest reverting it or the log of the deletion on your contributions page for some reason. I would suggest though that it should exist because, for example, they come up on Pandora as similar to more well known artists like Less Than Jake or Reel Big Fish, and they have multiple albums for sale on Amazon. I'm not sure what the threshold is exactly for a musical act to be considered important enough for inclusion on its own, but as a noob it strikes me that they have met it. Thoughts?

Thanks, (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)MGN.

Hi there. I've reviewed the deletion, and I have restored it, as it does make a credible assertion of notability. I have also nominated it for deletion via the articles for deletion discussion. This will usually take 7 days, and is a community decision.
Have a look at WP:BAND for the criteria for musicians and bands. GedUK  08:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to cancel my old account, please HELP

Dear GED UK, We used one account under the name of "vincshekhan"; that was before and now we are not using it; and which we want to delete now; so can you please help us to delete it immediately. We did not know that if we create another account we will be accused of "Sockpuppetry"; specially the administrator "Eli" (the person who is always behind us and proposing "immediate speedy deletions" to "Wissam Shekhani" and we do not understand why!!! this speedy requests) had accused us of "Sockpuppetry and we are suspects now!!!! :). So please GEG UK delete our old "vincshekhan" account and we will not ask any favor from Eli anymore, only from you. Hoping from you to explain to Eli our above opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talkcontribs) 10:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Accounts are not generally deleted. If you are now editing under a new account name, simply redirect the old account to the new account. You must stop editing with Vinchekhan immediately. I can help you with the redirect if you like.
Using two accounts at the same time is called sock-puppetry, and is not allowed except in specific circumstances.
Eli is not an administrator, she has nominated articles for deletion, she does not actually have the ability to delete them.
I will comment on the SPI that is open that you are using the same account.
I hope this helps. GedUK  10:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Please GED redirect our old account "vincshekhan" to our new account "alba-balamand"; me and my coleagues in the university alumni are still new in WIKI issues and we do not know how, and we are not anymore accessing the "vincshekhan" account as you requested; thank you GED UK. Again we are facing a new problem; a new "request for speedy deletion" for an Art Work created by "Wissam Shekhani" it is under wikipedia commons file name "QISARYA EXODUS.jpg"; how can we save it before getting it deleted, we do not know how, please help us to keep this sculpture !!! Dear GED UK, me and my colleagues had felt that there is a strange issue happening behind our all downloaded materials in WIKIPEDIA; almost all what we are posting in the free encyclopedia are requested for speedy deletion, is this on purpose? is it becasue we are Lebanese (I mean arabs) and some people like ELI do not like to see the art work of arabs posted online for all the world to see!! We have big doubts now here and about Eli real nationality, he seems to be against his own race, specially that we noticed that 1000's of the images are downloaded on wikipedia every day without this persecution!!!!!!!! Really that's sounds weird for you now, I know, but me and my colleagues are all wondering why this agressive sudden speeady deletion requests!! please take in cosideration our concern seriously in order to be like all other normal users, without this strange persecutions!! Thank you again GED UK, with all our respect and thanks to you great efforts in helping us; and we as Lebanese invite you to visit one day Lebanon and discover more about our small green country where christians, muslims, and agnostics are living in harmony with love and respect. thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talkcontribs) 16:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've redirected your old user page to your new one.
I've had a look at Commons, but I'm not an expert on there, I'm not an admin there either. There are two files that are the same, and, so one needs to be deleted as it's a copy of the other.
You need to email to explain that you have permission to use the picture.
Sorry, but I can't help you more than that, I don't know much about copyright of images, and Commons is different Wikipedia. I hope this helps! GedUK  18:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
God you gave me fucking goosebumps!!!!! a poet like you shouldn't waste your time on wikipedia, Listen "Wissam" stop referring to yourself as "we" because you know you are not fooling anyone (unless you have Dissociative identity disorder ). The real issue here is that you are advertising obscure art and an unknown personage (yours) who does not even have a single article written about neither locally or nationally. The deletion falls under WP:vanity and the deletion is totally justified since all the so-called references you cite are social networking websites. And i am quite sure your article will be deleted again and again, and i'll make sure that happens until you prove notability of your "curriculum vitae" of article. Quoting Wissam "We have big doubts now here and about Eli real nationality", i have proven my affiliation and my loyalty check my edit count and my contributions to WP:LEB and you will see that unlike you i'm not here to satisfy my narcissism. Oh and learn how to fucking sign it's about time you learn something here. Sorry for BITING but i dont like whiners talking about me on other users pages. Eli+ 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Eli you do not have to get that much angry; we did not mean to hurt you. If you check back, we insisted on GED to explain to you our opinion, so we did not intend to write this is behind. I am not wissam, dear Eli, my name is rami and I am a friend of wissam; I did not tell him yet about all these arguments here, he is just aware about the deletion of his page. When I say "we" is just to respect my other 3 friends who helped me in building wissam's page on wiki, we are members in his environmental organization and his colleagues in the university alumni. Why you are that much upset and angry Eli, we really do not want to fight with anyone, we just need help, that's it, besides wissam is not a poet :) . Do not worry eli, we will not anymore post the page of wissam on Wikipedia , others will do later, so relax, you do not have to delete it again and again. About the signature, I personally do not know how, maybe my friends know, I will ask about it soon, you do not have to be ironic, Just teach me how to do it simply, isn't more positive. Regarding, wissam shekhani, we as his close friends, we appreciate a lot his artistic works, he still too young to have all the books writing about him, That is why we couldn't find the books which you are asking as reference, maybe after his death you will read about him yourself. Again eli, we apologize from you if we had offended you., but be sure that we did not mean, we are just a group of intellectuals who are trying to add something more to The lebanese culture and great people, but you did not allow us. Thank you anyway and this is your rights, hoping that the history will be more fair. My name is rami, I am from lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBA-BALAMAND (talkcontribs) 23:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: 2010 FIFA World Cup Protection

You, sir, are a hero. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If I was concentrating, I'd have been watching the article as I was watching the draw! Still, got there in the end (good draw too!) GedUK  19:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I am referring to the speedy deletion of 21:42, 4 December 2009 Ged UK (talk | contribs) deleted "" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of–supermodelmetv/)

Sorry I did not get to check that I have done my references proper, and must have hit "Save" for the article to go Live before I completed it. I was having so much trouble formatting the article and I believe that it was layed out in a big mess.

Would I be able to re-edit the same article with proper references this time?

Kseah (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it to your userspace at User:Kseah/ where you can work on it. GedUK  09:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

A piano keyboard encompassing 1 octave Hello, Ged UK/Archives/2009! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.
KV5 (TalkPhils)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Medical website

Thanks for the clarification note you left on my talk page. I wasn't sure at all which category to list it under, as sometimes there just doesn't seem to be a neat fit, so I checked what it was last deleted as, which was a G2: Test page, at 18:27 earlier today. Although admittedly the page has been deleted now three times in two hours, all with different reasons! :) Don't worry about the templates, some of them always seem really harshly worded. Miyagawa (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And it's just been recreated again. I've deleted and salted. GedUK  19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Was it wise to not block [[::User:SirushoPR|SirushoPR]] (talk · contribs) indef? The accounts clearly either vandalism-only or compromised, and that isn't likely to change in 31 hours. Even if it does, shouldn't the account be blocked as a promotional username? It did upload and insert a picture to the Sirusho article. Rami R 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indef seemed way over the top. It's not a VOA judging by the vast majority of contributions. Possibly compromised, and if they pick up again after 31 hours we'll see. If it has been compromised, in 31 hours it's perfectly possible that the actual owner will have got their account back. The picture doesn't really imply a spam account either, seems more likely a fan. No proper PR company would even think about releasing a PR photo under GFDL. GedUK  11:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. It's not the nature of the edits, it's the name itself. From WP:UN: "Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution." and "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. [...] Since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked." So even if we accept the argument that this is just a fan (which I admit is the most likely explanation), we still get that the account should be indef blocked.
  2. In 31 hours the account is far more likely to remain compromised. Leaving it blocked until getting confirmation that the user has regained access to his account appears to me to be the more appropriate course of action. I don't think I need to remind you that indef≠forever. Rami R 13:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right. I don't deal with WP:UN very often (this is the first I can remember in months), so I'm a bit rusty. I've updated the block. Thanks! GedUK  14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're just tripping over each other...

[1]Steel 20:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, you're tripping over me ;) Yeah, I saw that, still, we weren't that far off each other's judgement! GedUK  21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all! Good luck with it, yell if you need help :) GedUK  12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for blocking that user, they were making very disruptive edits. I did notice just as you blocked him that a couple of their contributions were constructive but most of them were very disruptive, including offensive ones with strong sexual depravity,[2] so perhaps indefinite block is still justified. Just wanted to make you aware of this as I said vandalism only.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry, I checked. By the letter, it wasn't vandalism only, but the vast majority were vandalism, more than enough for an indef. Thanks for raising it though! GedUK  13:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok cool. :) While I am here, would you be happy to give me roll back rights? Quite a few of the articles on my watch list (almost 1,000 articles) are prone to vandalism. I have used twinkle for a number of years now but the added tool would be of help. If not then no problem I can put in a request on the project page for requesting roll back rights.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me have a quick look over your contributions. Give me 10 minutes. GedUK  13:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done I'm sure you know, but rollback is only for vandalism. Be aware that if an IP/editor has made several edits on the trot, and only that last one is vandalism (unlikely, but possible!), rollback will roll back all their edits till it finds someone else on the history, and it can only be used on the last edit(s). If you make a mistake, don't worry, just drop them a quick line. GedUK  13:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) Yes I was aware that it is only for vandalism. The only question I have is, what happens if say an anon has made say 6 vandalising edits, the article where their first vandalising edit has had several productive contributions to it since the vandalism, does that mean that roll back would undo the constructive edits of other users? Like you say if a mistake is made it can easily be corrected and i can drop a note to anyone effected. I will certainly be cautious and monitor the results very carefully with my first few uses of it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Rollback only rolls back the last edit to a page. If the last edit to a page isn't vandalism, then yuo can't use rollback; you have to undo, or copy-paste as per normal. If the last 5 edits to a page are by the same person/IP, then Rollback will roll all the last 5 edits back. GedUK  14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I was just striking out my question and got an edit conflict, I didn't read your previous reply carefully enough, you had already answered it. At least it is not possible to roll back thousands of productive edits by established wikipedians LOL! Have a good day. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem! Better to ask until you're sure, than not ask at all! GedUK  14:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Read my comment. Alefbe (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your message,

Why on earth did you make this report at AVI? At the time of the report, they'd only made one edit, had recieved one warning for it, and that's it. Is there something else, sock concerns etc, that you need to me to look into? GedUK  13:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re, your message, I probably shouldn't have clicked the 'vandal spa' checkbox, but both of those other ones still apply. I do not know if you are aware, but all obscure wikipedia namespace talk pages are usually used by people to advertise their company. There are a few ways they attempt to do so. The first contribution by that user is one of them. Others involve completely blanking the page an replacing the contents with an ad for their company. Either way, the fact that these accounts do this belays one simple thing: They are trying to get an ad out for their company, and they do not care about our policy on such a thing; why else would they search out a page that is not visited often and use it for promotion? They know what they are doing, that is quite clear as they knew enough about wikipedia to look up the markup, and they also knew enough about it to find the obscure help pages so hopefully their ad will get by undetected.. and sometimes, it does. Pages go for weeks without anyone noticing, as the topic is so obscure, the page is not on anyone's watchlist. I've seen this happen many times before, and I for one believe in a zero-tolerance policy against those who try to turn an obscure wikipedia talk page/help page into an ad for their company, in an effort to get it to stay, longer than say, it would as an actual article. I hope this explains things. If you check the history of any obscure wikipedia namespace talk page, you are likely to find attempts at making them ads.— dαlus Contribs 23:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I agree it was spam vandalism, and needed to be removed. However, there's no way any admin would block that IP based on one edit, unless it's linked to sock-puppetry. Zero tolerance to vandalism is one thing, but the blocking policy simply doesn't support it in the majority of cases. An IP who writes 'motherfucker' in one article and doesn't care about our policy is at least as much at fault, and no admin would block for one instance (or they shouldn't!). GedUK  08:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


I am messaging you in relation to the alterations you made to the Seatwave entry on Wikipedia. The sources for the information contained in the addition I made to the entry are contained in the entry itself and are unimpeachable sources. The constant removal of accurate information in relation to Seatwave means the Wikipedia entry becomes nothing more than an advertisement and endorsement for then. Could you let me know how I can keep verifiable facts giving a more balanced view of Seatwave in the entry? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I had to remove some of your edit as the sources you cited aren't yet sufficient. I did move some of your content further down, as it didn't really fit into the lead. I also tidied up your references somewhat. What would be very helpful is to know which edition of You and Yours the company was featured on (eg the date of broadcast).
You also say that records of transactions are held by Ticketmaster and are verifiable. Unless TicketMaster have released that information to the public, it doesn't meet our verifiability criteria, which basically say anyone should be able to reasonably get hold of the information (ie it's published online, in a book or magazine, TV or radio show etc). If they have released it, then let me know where that can be found, and it can be referenced.
That goes equally for the section that is cited as being "Festival Republic Ticketing Staff, reading Festival 2009". Where is this information available? If it's just staff that haave told you, then that isn't sufficient, as there's no way for anyone else to check that.
I hope this helps, let me know either here or the article's talk page, if you need more help. GedUK  13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion SNAF Campania

Hi, I saw you deleted SNAF Campania. Can you please tell me why? Thankx, JanT (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the name of the company/article is SNAV Campania, and SNAF was an implausible redirect, so it was deleted under R2 of the speedy deletion criteria. GedUK  08:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok, I think I remember that at first I accidentally created SNAF Campania and linked to it, then found out it should be SNAV and renamed it (or created a new one, can't remember exactly) and then the redirect was created to allow for the links to solve directly. My plan was to clean that up and I forgot. But when I saw your notice (or automated notice) about deletion I though that you deleted SNAV Campania - again I mixed the two names. (I have one source where the SNAF name is used iso SNAV). So yeah: you were fully right and I should have looked/searched better before asking.... But tks for your reaction. JanT (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Persian people


I have written a message on the dicussion page of the Persian people article, which basically states;

I think that the right decision have been made. Clearly the issue was an editing war and bring the editor to the discussion table so a consensus can be reached in a FREE climate of debate, using arguments and logics instead of socket puppets, bots and so on.

Also, We may need to bring a neutral expert for fact checking if such exists.

Danz23 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to respectfully ask that you unlock the article and undo the changes done by Danz. He is violating wikipedia's rules and editing based on nationalism as evident from his comments on the talk page. I myself left a comment. The previous version was factual, sourced, and very informative, now its not.Kalifo (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Albanian genocide

Ged, you have previously edited the redirect at Albanian genocide. If you remain interested, please see the discussion at Redirects for discussion. Grsz11 15:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Persian people problem again

The article about the Persian people has been reverted yet again, almost immediately after the editing restrictions was removed, and this is so frustrating. No consensus has been reached, we are not agreeing on anything and the thuggish editing wars have started yet again. I am thinking about requesting further editing protection. Danz23 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This page should be semi-protected. There is obvious sock-puppetry of banned users. Alefbe (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
We need to talk more since we have opposite view over this article, and User Alefbe, is going around and telling I have suck puppet Ids, because he has different view and keep reverting my edition. You can go a head and investigate a suck puppet case I am pretty sure we find the trolls, since I don't have another ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenShadow (talkcontribs) 07:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Innapropriatly Warned User?

Hi Ged, on the intervention against vandalism, please look at the IP I reported again. Please look at the articles that are serially targetted by spam IP's. Me, Sineed and other editors are finding it difficult to keep up with these one issue IP's and there deletions. Please investigate further. Materialscientist has already blocked several IP's with this behaviour. I suspect this one is a sockpuppet related to them. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please can you give me more specific diffs so I can have a look. The IP you reported has only made one edit today, I can't see the need to block them based on that edit.
Alternatively, if there are several pages being repeatedly targetted by IP vandals, then the page could be protected to sto pIPs being able to edit. The place for that is requests for page protection. That could well be more effective if it is a variety of IPs. GedUK  14:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I think SH is referring to (talk · contribs) - may be an unauthorized bot or just a very very patient editor making... strange edits. Appears to be steadily removing information from Sikh-related articles. I don't have the knowledge of Sikhism that SH does, so I cannot say with confidence that these are vandalism... they may simply be a content dispute.- Sinneed 15:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC) No need to reply to me, just trying to help. :) I'll put the page on watch in case I can be useful. - Sinneed 15:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you might be right. I can't tell if that's vandalism or not. Probably editing with tabs, so looks like a bot, but isn't. GedUK  16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about content, just the steady removal of references and certain information, which seems common to all the articles. It's like a concerted effort or concerted censorship. I just wish the editor would talk or comment. Regards. --Sikh-History 16:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Are the edits vandalism, as defined at WP:VANDALISM. That's the question, otherwise it's a content issue. If you think it's vandalism, let me know. GedUK  16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
HI Ged, look at the reverts by the IP on this page. He has defintly broken the 3 reverts rule and hase removed referenced material.Thanks --Sikh-History 13:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. As he's been blocked for now, let me know if you would like me to do anything else. GedUK  13:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tom Cilmi

I submitted a page on Tom Cilmi who was elected to the Suffolk County Legislature on Nov. 3 of this year. According to Wikipedia criteria for "politicians", a local legislator is considered worthy of inclusion. Furthermore, although it was not in the article, I have received numerous awards, including the Islip Chamber of Commerce Community Service Award, the Islip Rotary Club Community Service Award, and the Long Island Junior Soccer League Volunteer of the Year Award. I sit on many committees, including Action Long Island's Small Business Task Force as well as their Housing and Development Task Force, and the Islip Anti-Bias Task Force.

Please explain your reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcilmi (talkcontribs) 15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry, it's the way it was written , even though it's the first word of the article, I didn't see it. Mea Culpa, I've restored it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. GedUK  16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo ho ho

PS sorry I missed the Oak, hope to be there in Jan. ϢereSpielChequers 19:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! My festival at this time of year is holiday-time-and-I-need-a-breakival. I didn't make to the PE yesterday either, forgot and was too busy. I should be there in Jan! GedUK  13:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankans in the United Kingdom

Hi. Regarding Talk:Sri Lankans in the United Kingdom, the problem is that when the merge template was added to British Tamil, the editor mistakenly suggested they wanted to merge it with British Sri Lankan, which is a redirect to Sri Lankans in the United Kingdom. As a result, the merge discussion is taking place at Talk:British Sri Lankan. Surely it would make sense to move that page to Talk:Sri Lankans in the United Kingdom because otherwise people will get confused. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's a discussion already happening on merging articles together, let that run. Signpost it as necessary. If things get merged, moved, deleted during that discussion, then these things blow up, I've seen it happen before. When the discussion is over, then the deletions can happen if necessary. GedUK  15:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the advice. It just seemed strange having the discussion on a page other than the one belonging to the merge target. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You can move the discussion easy enough, just copy/cut and paste it to where it should be. At this point, moving the whole article would be premature. GedUK  16:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't requesting a move of the article, just the talk page. I wanted to do it properly rather than doing a cut-and-paste job. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Articles should always be attached to the relevant talk page, or everything gets really confusing. Copy and paste of the discussion is fine as it's about merging things does the job. GedUK  13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly. Anyway, thanks for the advice and I have how copy and pasted the discussion as suggested. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

finding deletion discussion


The article Volume_and_surface_elements_in_different_co-ordinate_systems was deleted in June. The discussion summary says "Redundant, volume and surface elements are already given in the specific coordinate system articles." And, I know that is true for the cylindrical and spherical coordinate systems. But I can't find it for the Cartesian coordinate system. Is there any easy way to look at the discussion?

Why do I care? I found a link to the article in Surface_integral. I added links for spherical and cylindrical coordinates. I would like to do the same for Cartesian. Or maybe this implies the Cartesian coordinate system page needs to be changed. I'll have to dig out a math book.

Well, I appreciate a pointer to the discussion. Thanks LightScatteringGuy (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. There was no discussion, the article was deleted as an expired proposed deletion. I can restore the article to your userspace for you to work on if you like. GedUK  13:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks. When I read "work on" I am concerned you believe I will try to fix the deleted article. To clarify, I do not plan to fix/replace (undelete?) the article ... I just want to transfer some of the information (i.e., useful links) to another spot. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, well, in that case, I've restored it to my userspace. It's now at User:Ged UK/Volume and surface elements in different co-ordinate systems. Let me know when you're done with it, and I'll delete it again. GedUK  21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I am finished. Thank you. You can delete the page. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done GedUK  10:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

steven dubois article

can you email me a copy of the article please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevolivin (talkcontribs) 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done And if you like, I can restore the article to your userspace if necessary. GedUK  08:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of my page The Draconia Chronicles

What was wrong with the The Draconia Chronicles page? Please specify your reasons why this was edited to be a speedy deletion. Message back very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianOfGaia (talkcontribs) 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The article was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 - web. There was no indication that the subject was notable, there were no links to reliable sources that discussed the comic, nothing to indicate why it was important. The only link (apart from those to the site itself) was to an article about non-mammalian mammories, which only mentioned The Draconia Chronicles in passing, it certainly wasn't the subject of the article.
I hope this clarifies it, let me know if anything is unclear, or if there's any help you need from me to develop the article. I can restore it to your userspace if you would like to work on it further. GedUK  13:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You indicated above that you could restore my article to my userspace, and I would like that done in due time. Upload and I will edit. GuardianOfGaia (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done It's now at User:GuardianOfGaia/The Draconia Chronicles. GedUK  08:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Yes, I do take a lot of crap for new-page patrol. And then some people ask me if I want to be an admin! Ha! And the talk page does need some archiving. I used to have a bot doing it, but it just quit or something. May need to use what you use. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Try MiszaBot III (talk · contribs), it's quite dependable for that kind of stuff and quite easy to set up (see its userpage with a link to instructions). Regards SoWhy 16:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, MiszaBot III is my bot of choice, can't fault it really! GedUK  20:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The End of Time

Hello, just be absolutely sure you follow what's happening on the talk page, here is the original talk page comment, with spelling mistakes, made back in May. Here is another editor rather pointlessly correcting that post, months later. This undo then is simply restoring the comment to how it was originally written, since it's no-ones place to edit other people's talk page comments. Clearly not vandalism, then. I hope that's made it clear. Thanks. Maccy69 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,I'm an idiot! It was Hektor, not you. Ooops. Maccy69 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I was just wondering if you muddled me up. Easily done. I'll have a word to Hektor if you like. GedUK  21:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I just have. Sometimes there isn't enough room in the edit summaries for people not to get the wrong end of the stick, so I thought it was worth being sure. And also it would be better coming from an editor who hasn't got involved. Maccy69 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I've watchlisted his talkpage and obviously the article. GedUK  21:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page

Dear UK: I realize why the page was deleted. Would this new entry info. work? Thanks!

Love and Light, Tom.

"TB Wright, b. 1955, author, communications aide to Presidents Ford and Nixon, inadvertantly involved in the removal of the eighteen minute tape missing from the Nixon trial, Co-Founder Katuah Sudbury School for children in Asheville, NC, two published books, coursework creator One Penny Millionaire!(tm), worked directly with Werner Erhard in transformational seminar field, awarded Presidential Service Citation, nominated for Pushcart Prize in Poetry." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to have been created now anyway. GedUK  22:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of qutIM's topic

Hello, as I see you've deleted article of qutIM.

> non-notable chat client

I think, that the fact, that qutIM is in official gentoo, lucid ubuntu repos, and is going to be added to debian, ubuntu and fedora repos, is a good disaprove of Miami33139's words. - this is an approve of my words

> This non-notable chat client has no third party sources and looking for them in the obvious places does not uncover any.

We store sources of qutIM's project at, you can see that project is active, also by having a look at core and jabber repos you can see, that we use 3rd party libraries as k8json, q-xdg, gloox, Qt, kdelibs, libidn, jdns and so on, but I can't understand why it is important. I always thought that using sources of external projects by copying it into own project is _very_ bad, and better to use 3rd party libraries. It's one of the rules for well programming. Also what is "obvious" places?..

> Article was written by an SPA who has only edited this article and may have a COI.

Yeah, I've written this article because I'm Nigmatullin Ruslan - author and main developer of this software. You can check it by registration email which is equal to the same in sources of program (copyrights with name and email are in every source file).

> No notable differences between versions

About what versions are you talking about? Software versions? I think that increasing number of supported protocols from one to five (icq, jabber, mrim, msn, twitter), adding of plugin support and adding theme support is very important difference, isn't it?

So my questions are: why have you deleted the article? And why have you deleted it so fast, as I have no time to answer?

With best regards, EuroElessar (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The article was deleted first in July 2008 as at that stage it was non-notable I believe. It was deleted again in August 2008 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QutIM. I deleted it again yesterday under speedy deletion criteria G4 which allows deletion of content that has been deleted by a discussion when it's recreated. There was no substantial difference between the version deleted in August 2008 and the one I deleted yesterday; those were the versions I was referring to. Hope this clarifies things, if not, let me know. GedUK  13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
So, are we talking about notability of sowtware or about up-to-date of article?
If the second, you could just notify me about that fact, but not just delete the article. (or no article is better, than non perfect one?) By the way, article contains all needed information about used cvs, supported protocols. Up-to-date information about last release, what else information is needed there? List of plugins, manual for plugin writing? I don't think, that it's suitable to place it here, article should provide only main info about the topic.
If the first, I've already given you links which approve, that qutIM is notable client, it's really hard to get into official repos if nobody knows you. And some more links: This sites are not supported by me, but created by qutIM's community. qutIM is in list of gloox's users:
Also Nokia has done port qutIM to Symbian: , it approves notability of qutIM - qutIM is app with the highest rate at , and also it's in top-5 of the most downloaded apps:
By the way, if it is a problem, that I'm in the fact the only editor of this article I'm able to ask my germain/сzech/bolgarian users to take a look after this page. So tell me what I have to fix in article and situation with it. EuroElessar (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello there Ged UK. Even though I do understand that some content has to be deleted, but in this case I fail to see the point in it's deletion. If it is an unactualised and "general" content of the article that matters here, then it's just because there are other, rather more specialized wikis about qutIM and this page should be the lead to them.
In my opinion here should be general info and links to the official website/forum and it's particular "sub-communities".
If is there something else that must be done to meet the standards, please tell us what it is.
Thank you for your time and effort
Stj cz (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Fora aren't generally considered to be reliable sources, as highlighted at the deletion discussion. Have a look at the reliable sources requirements to see the sort of sources that are needed. GedUK  20:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, both and are famous secondary sources, I can't understand why they are not reliable. Also I can't find any requirements for notability of software there
Also some more secondary sources, but now mostly on russian:
Also information about qutIM was published in some famous magazines like }{aker (April, August), ITFormat
Do you need any more reliable sources? EuroElessar (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The nokia and links you've provided are both forums. As I said, fora/forums aren't usually considered reliable sources. I can't tell about the russian ones, though several look like they're forums. The Haker and IT format ones might be notable, but I can't read them. Are they magazines written by professionals, or user-contributed, like a forum? GedUK  20:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
XAKER is a journal with more than ten year history, and yeah, it's professional one.
ITFormat looks to be journal with both professional and user articles.
By the way, there is no rule that sources must be english, so it looks like I'm free to find them at any language. EuroElessar (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sources don't have to be in English, but english language sources are preferred, as more people will be able to read them. I'll consider how to progress this, but I'm minded to restore the article, and then take it to AfD so that the wider community can consider these additional sources. I need to check the previous version to see whether they were included when the first discussion took place. I'll try to do this later today. Thanks for your patience. GedUK  08:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for my intrusion to you conversation. Here is a small list of english-spoken resources, mentioned qutIM:
Qt-Apps (btw it's a software portal rather than forum)
Freshports - FreeBSD software ports
Gentoo Packages
Softpedia - Software encyclopedia, Mac section
Archlinux software
Maemo software
Macupdate - Mac software
Software informer
Slax packages
Mops Linux packages
I suppose, that such known distributions as FreeBSD, Gentoo, Archlinux or Maemo can be considered as reliable sources. (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it does at all. There's plenty of evidence it exists, I'm still considering the other sources. I will get to this this evening, I promise. GedUK  14:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the article, and renominated it for deletion. I have added all the links you've given here to the nomination. The wider WP community will weigh the sources you've provided, and determine if this demonstrates notability. Thanks. GedUK  21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. Would it be possible for you to remove all the templates that now cover this user's talk page and summarise them with one post (or, alternatively, would you mind if I did), as a whole string of templates on a new user's talk page seems very bitey to me, and I don't want to scare away what could be a valuable contributor? Thanks in advance. GedUK  15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem if you'd rather condense the notices into a smaller message. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GedUK  15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done If you find anymore, could you just add the filenames to the bottom of the list, rather than templating. Thanks again, and thanks for your work on image copyrights! GedUK  16:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
Message added 14:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WuhWuzDat 14:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User page spam

Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages.

I don't need the pointless advice, thank you. Free clue: edit counter. Note the stat for deleted edits: I have twice as many deleted edits as you have of all edits combined. So yes, I know what I'm doing. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's not the best template, sorry about that. But equally, that was a poor tag, in my opinion. GedUK  15:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Friends of the City of Ottawa Archives (FCOA)

Hello Ged,

I recently created Friends of the City of Ottawa Archives (FCOA), but I am not sure why it got deleted, please let me know, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawser (talkcontribs) 06:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. It was deleted because there was no indication that the association was notable, ie why it's important. Have a look at notability guidelines, and the reliable sources guidelines, that explain the sort of things Wikipedia needs for the article to stay. I can, if you like, restore the article to your userspace for you to work on. GedUK  15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


Hey there, I thought (because of your participation in the conversation here) that you would like to know that I coded a bot to mark CSDed AFDed and PRODed new-pages as patrolled. See the bot's discussion for approval here. I would appreciate your comment. NOTE: I am not trying to canvas you, I just wanted some input. Tim1357 (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Ugg boots

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY (TALK) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


It seems you are unfamiliar with this portal. These articles (and others) on the same "portal" have been deleted under A7. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The article in question itself has previously been deleted under A7. [11] Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've reviewed, and deleted. GedUK  20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Have a nice day. Starblueheather (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


[12] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's why I brought it up at ANI: look at the article's history and the warnings given. I'm not the only one who might be mistaken here in calling it vandalism. It might need wider attention. By the way, said user did it again, after your warning. Apologies if it offended you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Lemme ask you before I make another mistake: Is blanking the deletion discussion vandalism? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I'll sort it. GedUK  09:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
One other thing - on the article page it still has the administrator comment stating it was voted to "keep." Am I jumping the gun or did you simply miss that? Regards. --Manway (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I missed it. I'll sort it now. GedUK  10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for the potential over-reaction, but you've seen for yourself now how this user pushes one's "christmas spirit" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's alright, you brought the request in good faith, and it was only the second user that was the problem, not the first. I'm not sure about the socking yet, but SPI is the place for that. GedUK  10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi GedUK

I marked the Corelis page for speedy deletion as it was (IMHO) simply a placeholder/advert for this pretty unremarkable company with no valid information for the general public. In the past this has been sufficient grounds as I know this page has been deleted previously.

Did I perhaps use the wrong delete code ? or Have the rules changed and if so is Wiki destined to be a gazetteer of random company listings ?


Mapstain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapstain (talkcontribs) 10:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. No, I don't think you tagged it wrong, I certainly see where you're coming from. If you had have tagged it 'wrong' I'd have still deleted it if I thought it met A7, no credible assertion of notability. However, I felt that there was probably enough in there to pass through that, though it's probably borderline. However, the CSD notability criterion is a lower threshold than the general notability guidelines that people will use at AfD. You can still WP:PROD the article, or take it to WP:AFD for discussion. GedUK  11:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Decline/Accept

I just googled the title and 0 hits (not even Myspace/Facebook) popped up, and I didn't even see anything that would make the subject notable. Nevertheless, you deleted it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wiki Greek Basketball's RFA

I've posted a reponse to your comment you left me. The nomination article has been closed as unsuccessful. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

2011 Cricket World Cup squads

Hello, you deleted 2011 Cricket World Cup squads, can I get it back at least to this location, User:Blackknight12/2011 Cricket World Cup squads. Thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

CSD Brain Shift

Egg on my face. This is what happens for working too much. I was doing some CSD work and found this iffy page by somebody I had just warned. Thanks for the heads up. I should take a break. -- Alexf(talk) 22:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. When I saw your name on the template, I thought I'd misread it, then I thought it was too much Christmas cheer ;) GedUK  13:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion declined: FictionPress

Excuse me, but you declined a speedy deletion request of mine on a page with not a single reference. Not to mention the previously settled AFD nomination. Maybe the "one million stories" thing does define importance, but the fact that it can't be verified could cause a challenge to that assumption. Can you please lead me to where I can request at least a merge with until the subject can spawn its own page? ~JCM 00:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, I didn't know it had previously been deleted, you didn't tag it for that, you tagged it for notability. A7 credible assertions of notability are a lower criteria than the general notability threshold. I will delete it now. GedUK  13:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Škocjan Caves Regional Park

We just want to know why the page Škocjan Caves Regional Park has been deleted? We added all references where we found information about the Park.

We (user Škocjanske jame) ARE from mentioned park, and we think it is in everybody's interes, that people get right information about natural sites. That is why we created this page, because page Škocjan Caves was not enough. We do not have just cave but also this surface - protected area - included on UNESCO's list.
And we realy want to know why you deleted this page, even if we added references.

Thank you
Škocjanske jame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Škocjanske jame (talkcontribs) 09:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The caves are certainly notable, and should have an article. However, you can't copy the text from another website, this is illegal. The text on the website belongs to the Caves, not you, even though you work for them. You need to write it in your own words, don't just copy someone else's. Let me know if you need any further help. GedUK  12:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Good day! Just want to inform you that User:Iamamoron! evaded his block again and created a new sockpuppet (User:The New Iamamoron). Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thanks. GedUK  13:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What is my next step?

Hello Ged UK! Could you please tell me how I should proceed with the article that I wrote on Alfredo Corvino? Right now, it is on 'Seamanjg/Alfredo Corvino' which I understand is a "personal work area" for me to create without bothering or upsetting the editors! <G> I have rewritten the article several times trying to change both the words and the structure to avoid plagarism as well as copyright issues. I do not know if you could check it out... or if I need to move it to a regular article... I also think that there is a "hold" on the former version of the article so I can not revise it. I do not want to upset you - now that we are on such friendly terms... <G> but I do need some expert advice! Thanks very much.

Seamanjg (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I protected the page, but that was only a temporary block, it will expire on the 3rd. I'll have a look over your draft, and move it if it's ready. No offense taking, asking questions is good! GedUK  11:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done I've made some edits, tidied up the citations and moved it to the mainspace. Congrats! I've added some wikilinks that are showing up as red. That means the article doesn't exist. My gut feeling is that some of these people/organisations are probably notable as well, and maybe you'd be able to create those as well ;)
Hopefully, you'll be able to see how I've done the citations; as a hint, use the CITE button on the editing toolbar, as that will do all the formatting for you. There's a few things that could do with some citations, maybe you got the info from the book that I can't check, or I just missed them in the webarticles. Just add the citations.
You also might want to review the categories, as there may be too many, but I have a bit of a blind-spot to categories; I never use them.
Welcome to Wikipedia again, and thanks for being patient enough to come back! GedUK  13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ged UK! Thank you very much for working on my first article. I have not viewed it yet but I do plan to study it carefully so that I may improve my skills.

1. Categories... I am a fan of organization and therefore like categories <G> but if you notice, most of the categories are commented out in the article on Alfredo Corvino. (This may become clearer when you read my note on templates below.) The categories represent a complete organizational structure that might be appropriate for different articles... be it a person, a style of dance or a particular piece of repertory... in ballet For example, the category 'Ballerina' produces a List of Ballerinas and aids the user in finding similar articles.

2. Template... I am trying to develop a template that I can use as I develop more articles as part of the WikiProject Dance/Ballet. The intent is to develop some consistency and style. Is this a proper approach to take?

3. CITE.. I do not seem to have a CITE button or is that the 'Insert a ref' button? Does Wikipedia prefer specific citations or are the more general references that I list at the bottom of the article acceptable? How do I handle a situation where (blush) I am the expert? For example, I contributed to an article on the Iranian National Ballet Company and provided some references however some of the information provided was 'first-hand' knowledge as I personally worked with this company. Since the company was dissolved in 1979 and most formal documentation was in Iran and probably destroyed, what is the proper manner to proceed?

Thank you for all of your help... and patience! <G> Once I have a decent understanding of things, I promise that I will not burden you... regurlarly. <G>

--Seamanjg (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I've uncommented out the categories on the live article, so they are all now showing. As I said, I pay no attention to categories, so I can't really give you any advice. Hide or delete them if they're not appropriate.
The template idea seems perfectly sensible. I'm glad you found the wikiproject that's relevant; it would be sensible to gain consensus with other users there about the best way forward. Consensus is a very important thing here!
Ah, yes, sorry, I forgot you need to turn that on. On your preferences (link at the top of any page) on the editing tab, you need to select 'Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)', then the last button will be the citation button (feel free to fiddle with the other settings of course, you can't really break anything!).
Well, the key fact to remember is verifiability; can anyone else go and find the information? Is it published? The best place to get advice on this particular issues would be to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; lots of experts there. I sadly don't do enough article writing anymore, some of the more mundane admin tasks I do take up most of my wikitime, so I'm a bit rusty! GedUK  21:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
Message added 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WuhWuzDat 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback 2: Talkback Harder

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Amalthea's talk page.
Message added 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)