User talk:SGGH/Archive 2010/October

Semi-protection request

Hi, sorry to bother you, but would it be possible to semi-protect Red blood cell, as virtually every other edit to the article lately has been juvenile vandalism, and quite a bit of vandalism in general has been going on there since as far back as November 2009. Thanks in advance for any help! KaySL ^talk 19:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 protected for one month, why me rather than WP:RFPP? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! To be completely honest, I had a bit of a brain-fart and was in a hurry to boot, so I just checked ANI for any admin. My bad. KaySL ^talk 20:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, seems RFPP is backlogged anyway. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Hi, sorry to bother you, but would it be possible to semi-protect Red blood cell, as virtually every other edit to the article lately has been juvenile vandalism, and quite a bit of vandalism in general has been going on there since as far back as November 2009. Thanks in advance for any help! KaySL ^talk 19:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 protected for one month, why me rather than WP:RFPP? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! To be completely honest, I had a bit of a brain-fart and was in a hurry to boot, so I just checked ANI for any admin. My bad. KaySL ^talk 20:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, seems RFPP is backlogged anyway. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron

Hi, this IP [1] appears to be him as well. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any common article contributions between Sinbad and this IP, might have to flag it up with someone more familiar with the subject matter/the sock master. I only spotted the obvious one due to it's obviousness. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 03:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple Question

Are Judges considered Law Enforcement or part of Project Law? Big Roger (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Scope states no, they would be better covered under WP:LAW unless they have also had a law enforcement career or done something else notable under aforementioned scope. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking at Judge Roy Bean and wasn't sure. Big Roger (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

...

Where can find actors in this Wiki with your account,Account he,by example User:TOUBEY MAGUIRE

can finds ? @KnuxD (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any famous actors who have Wikipedia accounts, though I believe List of notable Wikipedians has some information. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiFlier

You felt it appropriate to leave the following message on my user page, and apparently similar comments on the discussion page.

I've left a more detailed post on the article talk board, but in brief: keep your debate to the content, and refrain from any comments on the users themselves or you risk being blocked under WP:NPA. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiFlier voiced his deduction that the other participants in the discussion are illiterate in Chinese. This is crucial to the substance of the discussion (which is after all about Chinese characters and their meaning) and is not an egregious or unwarranted personal attack.

Surprisingly, I cannot seem to find equivalent, even-handed comments regarding YellowMonkey who referred to WikiFlier with the openly threatening and egregiously offensive pronouncement "This Sinofascisttroll is getting tiresome." after previously sharing the view that "WF, you're a waste of time." Could you direct me to where you posted your comments on these pronouncements, and threats of enforcement action? Or are we to assume that personal abuse does not count when you agree with the abuser's viewpoint? WikiFlier (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this left on my userpage and not my talk page? Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? The latter makes you come across as a bit of a troll indeed, but if you actually read what I put on the talk page you will see that not only did I applaud your use of policy for most of the debate, but I advised all parties to tone down their conduct, and avoid breaching 3RR. But if you're just going to accuse me of collusion of favouritism then no, I won't bother in the future and I'll let you dig your own grave. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this left on my userpage and not my talk page? Apologies, I was not aware that these were separate pages available for each user. Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? WikiFlier (like some professional writers) prefers the third person style precisely because it is less personal and thus (hopefully) less emotional. Since the contributions are signed, there should be no confusion as to who is speaking. Note that newspapers typically refer to the writer as "we" in editorials, and legal documents identify the writer in the third person as "plaintiff", "moving party" etc. Thanks for your efforts in pouring oil on troubled waters. Cheers. WikiFlier (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

hello

you recently reverted my addition to International Cricket captain 2010 but they were just list of features how can this be a copyvio Rahul^{Text me} 18:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a direct cut-and-paste, and several of the points use unique wording, "Auto-simulation removes the need for clicking next over – sit back and relax as the cricket unfolds in front of your eyes" or "Removed salary/contract details for non English clubs and indicated 20 over only contracts" for example, or "Improved squads for exhibition/series game modes" which is an unquantified point and fairly unrevealing without some back up. Furthermore, I don't think they should be in the article anyway. It would be different if it was made up entirely of "factor X raised 10 points" or something. Copy-and-paste is generally something to be avoided anyway, Wikipedia should be uniquely worded. Also, people can go to the game's official website to obtain a list of updates and changes (according to, among other things, WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:MOS), and I'm certain that there is general consensus for such content not to be included in Wikipedia.

I'm happy to have someone else offer their view if you disagree with my changes/comments, and can retract them if it transpires people don't agree. In hindsight I probably shouldn't have templated you, but just left you a note. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right but ICC 09 also have the feature and update list directly copied from its website Rahul^{Text me} 02:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of that. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

AutoEd edits removing infobox alignment

Hi, please do not make edits like this. Making automated edits that have no impact to article presentation is generally frowned upon as they clutter peoples' watchlists for no benefit. But in this case the edit is clearly counterproductive. Before the infobox was formatted like:

| name                    = ext3
| full_name               = Third extended file system
| developer               = [[Stephen Tweedie]]
| introduction_os         = [[Linux kernel|Linux]] 2.4.15
| introduction_date       = November 2001

After your edits it looks like:

| name = ext3
| full_name = Third extended file system
| developer = [[Stephen Tweedie]]
| introduction_os = [[Linux kernel|Linux]] 2.4.15
| introduction_date = November 2001

WP:BOTPOL#Assisted editing guidelines states that "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." Unless you can point to a consensus for automated whitespace "cleanups", please refrain from making any more such edits and revert your changes to templates like above. -- intgr [talk] 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, your assumption of good faith was well received. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Chechen Parliament attack

Your edit was unexplained and undiscussed. there are 2 editors who are in favour of the addition, wikipedia doesnt work on the whim of a few but by WP:Consensus.Lihaas (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained it on the talk page one minute after I did it, you would be best advised to read that. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, done so and replied. It seems everything was removed when the info did cover your due caveats.

btw- there was a source that gave credit to splti off from Umarov's group, but as you say kavkaz center is nto RS, then neither would a russian-governmetn source be.Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm replying to you now in about four places, so I'll just reply here. What you said above I don't understand, but anyway. Direct attribution in the text would be best, but so long as you are saying that, whenever Kavkaz is used as a citation the text specifically says "Kavkaz believes/has stated/released from their website" then that's fine. Most statements on controversial matters should be sourced like that, so it is perfectly acceptable to do the same from a Russian government comment. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, thats the way i used it.

Anyways, ill add then the new source on jerzy's comment, and add the russian "investigation" perhaps into a new section?Lihaas (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine, it's always best to attribute everything. Because every source has an inherent POV, the most neutral way to proceed is to admit every POV the source might have. Then Wikipedia can metaphorically wash it's hands and say "I'm just reporting everything, I'm not saying anything controversial myself". It's a useful trick when you're writing these things, I find. Thanks, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look and see your okay, i presumed we agreed and left a resolved tag at the ANI; but just in case..Lihaas (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be fine. Thanks S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems our man has reverted edits we discussed and put his own pov in [2] (removals:[3][4][5] (that too without discussing))Lihaas (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be having a positive dialogue going at the moment, have you raised the idea of keeping the attribution fairly specific throughout the article with him? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)

Hey there SGGH, I was just poking around at some of the articles that I wrote a few years back, and I was wondering if you could by chance take a look at FBI Buffalo Field Office for me; I did some improvements on it with some new information that I was able to dig up, and I was wondering if I should put it up for GA and a second opinion would be extremely useful ;). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries I will do tomorrow. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Baghdad

Hi SGGH, Please see the discussion page of Battle of Baghdad (1534) Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

user cehck

I was wondering if youve accounted these users ([6] and [7]) before? They seem to always pop up ont he same Irish Republican sites/talk facilities and on every occasion support each other, likewise on their talk pages. It seems either sockpuppetry or the more dangerous but less accoutnable "tag-team" reverts. They first came to me soem 1-2 years ago either the RIRA/CIRA article and removed a properly cited IMC report, though there was another more experienced editor than me who set them straight. then again they come on List of terrorist incidents, 2010 and revert what they dont like (ie- Republican pov).(Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)).

I've seen O Fenian before, but not the other user I don't believe. What's the problem? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems he just posted a message on my talk page (you can see it), alleging that the page is under 1RR restriction even though there is no mention whatsoever on that page, (seems like digging deep for any excuse, and old habit) and the addition i made was reverted here even though it was double-cited. I dont want to revert because last time some admin went on his word to block even though the terrorist incidents page had no such stuff. Can you look into this?

He also had numerous blocks before. Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a little confusing as he seems to be reverting a couple of editors, changing your edit though there are intermedary edits. Also, you can see the editing retrictions on all The Troubles related articles here. His message on your talk page links to it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

But that page was not listed as under arbitration nor was there any message there whatsoever, it seems he retorts to that old arguement on any page he sees fit. If you see my addition, it was sourced to RS by any stretch of the imagination. Isnt there something to do to restrain his pov-pushing agsinst both the grain of consensus and RS?Lihaas (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the topic of the troubles which is under AE, which would probably include that page given the Irish terrorist group connections. I'm still trying to work out whether it was you he was reverting or whether you just got caught up in the cross-fire. I'll just ask him. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It is quite straightforward. If you are adding information about the Continuity Irish Republican Army to any article, that edit is covered by the Troubles restrictions. Obviously if you are adding information about Muslim terror groups to the same article, that edit is not covered by the Troubles restrictions. Does that sound simple enough?

Now to the meat of the edit in question. Lihass reverted (while not an obvious revert, it was to include information previously added) to add back the Continuity Army Council as being designated in the UK. In case you are not aware, the Continuity Army Council are the leadership of the Continuity Irish Republican Army and that link is a redirect to that article. As the Continuity Irish Republican Army are already on the list as being designated in the EU, UK and USA it is needless, and potentially misleading for readers, to include them under another name. Simply because someone chooses to list them under another alias does not mean we need to list them under both names, it is basic common sense. O Fenian (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Did you leave a simple explanation with Lihaas when you reverted him in addition to merely slapping the AE notice on his talk page? I suspect you must have done somewhere, because obviously simply putting the AE notice there would not be very illuminating. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have hoped this would have been enough. He could always have asked if he did not understand it. O Fenian (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. He should have asked you straight away before he came to me, but this all seems straight forward enough and he shall have his answer when he comes online later on. Thanks! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:71.0.213.123

FYI, with this edit, this IP resumed removing "Roman" from "Roman Catholic", for which you recently blocked him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Only warning given, it has been six days since the block - no doubt they will rope themselves into a block momentarily. Thanks Ken, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)