User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2013/February

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

The Signpost: 04 February 2013


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted for being silly. You protected Shiva with pending changes, but placed a semi-protected lock on the page instead, which even a dumb bot (DumbBOT), who later removed it, knew was wrong. Arctic Kangaroo 15:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks for fixing. GedUK  15:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

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)

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. GedUK  12:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I understand... some wizardly experiment perhaps Face-smile.svg... 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)
I've extended it another month. GedUK  12:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
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)

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 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 : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:747E:4239:7B1F:42AC (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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. GedUK  12:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013