User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2011/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ged UK. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Temporary semi-protection for Shaw
Hi. You may remember you semi-protected this article temporarily a few weeks ago. As I feared would happen the persistent vandal has just waited until the block has expired and repeated the same edit. This fits with the pattern I described in the protection request: they normally wait several weeks between edits so are likely to miss a short protection period. Can I suggest a much longer protection this time? They have also repeatedly vandalised the talk page, usually by blanking all comment on their persistent edit. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK 11:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think one month will be too little again, but let's see. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Probably, but I'm reluctant to put pending changes on for longer; they're still rather contentious. GedUK 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think one month will be too little again, but let's see. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
- 2010 in review: Review of the year
- In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux
- Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year
- Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Paul Konchesky
Apologies for accidentally reverting your edit. I was engaged in reverting the previous edits myself and somehow ended up overlooking that the very latest edit was yours and reverted that by mistake. Dubmill (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's OK, easily done :) GedUK 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
What are your arguments for that article to keep? It was previously correctly redirected to the North Caucasus, however somebody decided to reintroduce additional article for one and the same region. There are no disambiguation between those two terms and, the least, that redirection should be restored. That article is not necessary and was unreferenced since 2006. The author was so lazy to google it around even though it does not take even a second to find at least one reference in that regard. However even that reference points also to the region of North Caucasus. I do not see the purpose of introducing that article other than possible extra definition for orientation that could be included in the article about the North Caucasus. I respectfully request to consider my proposition. Best regards. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't find the article you said it was duplicating. Why not redirect it to North Caucasus? GedUK 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was muddling that up with a different article. Speedy deletion doesn't cover this sort of thing. It needs to be WP:PRODded or taken to WP:AFD. GedUK 13:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Page protection
Hello,
On Nov. 30 you placed a temporary page protection on the Monster High article due to recent vandalism. After the week was up things were pretty quiet, but in the last day it's kicked back in. I don't know what the best approach for dealing with this might be - more protection? Who's the best person to speak to about that? As it is I check in daily but the same rumored things keep being added, and the same sections keep getting deleted.
So I thought you might be able to offer some advice. For what it's worth, the article is getting thousands of views a day, and I strongly believe that the quality of the content would be improved by never allowing anon edits, since they almost universally are from the younger end of the spectrum of fans.
Thanks for your time. -- Lhall (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there. Sorry for the delay in replying, but you posted this on a talk subpage, and I've only just noticed it. I see that it's been reprotected again. What usually happens is that protection will be extended each time, until eventually it's permanent. The best way (as I'm not on a lot at the moment) is to request protection at WP:RPP. Hope this helps! GedUK 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to create an article about Locationary, which is a website. I'm not sure if I should, since it says that you deleted an article titled "Locationary". Why'd you delete that article?
- It was deleted because there was no indication that the website was notable. It needs thrid party sources (newspapers, journals, books, articles etc) that show other people think it's notable. GedUK 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This is actual name of college. Khwaja_Fareed_Government_College_Rahimyar_Khan. I spent some time in this college, like 2 months. So I know its actual name is as i said, Khwaja Farid Government College Rahimyar Khan. Both the articles are mirror images, so i requested the previous one deleting request. Thanking your anticipation. (Dr.faizanali (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC))
Sorry, i forgot to left redirecting page for that article. I am new wikian, so my fault, accept it! Actual page name should be Khwaja Fareed Government College Rahimyar Khan. I produced its mirror image with name correction. That is why I requested for page deletion. It redirects from Rahim Yar Khan article. I spent three months in this college, so I know what is its real name. No official website for this college, but you could google its real name as well. Thanking your anticipation. (Dr.faizanali (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC))
- That's OK, I couldn't work out which the wrong version was. I've redirected it to Khwaja Fareed Government College Rahimyar Khan as requested. GedUK 12:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2010
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2010, the project has:
|
Content
|
|
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 January 2011
- News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news
- In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project
- WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways
- Features and admins: Featured topic of the year
- Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Unprotect on Černová tragedy
Hi Ged. I was recently looking around at indef. fully protected articles and seeing if there are any that might be eligible for unprotection. I realize that Černová tragedy has a colorful history, but I wanted to get your thoughts on unprotection. I don't have any edits to contribute, but I figure not all editors that want to contribute may know how to request edits to protected pages or request unprotection. Additionally, perhaps further issues on this page could be addressed by semi-protection + blocks of socks? You know more of the history than I which is why I put this here and not over at WP:RFPP. Hope you're doing well!--GnoworTC 06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's highly unusual for me to put on indef full protection. No need for it now I think. Semi-protected have lowered to semi, and am watching. GedUK 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
my article's deletion (Twin Sister (Band)
...On the band Twin Sister. What gives?
I thought this was a site for fostering understanding, i.e. if something about the article did not adhere to standards, then why not leave the article for editing among the wiki Commons, and not a verbal Holocaust based on ignorance to subject matter, which I write in such a manor because the article was deleted in its entirety? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.45.61 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 January 2011
- There was no indication that the band was notable. We don't have articles on every band ever, just the ones that independent sources think are notable. This usually means that they've been written about, online or on paper; band or album review (positive or negative), interviews etc. Have a read of the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines to see the sort of thing we need. GedUK 21:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've also just noticed that Twin Sister (band) (lower case b) was deleted in the summer as well. GedUK 21:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Scott Williams, I'm the singer in the band Clagg. I was just trying to check out the Clagg page, only to discover that it had been deleted. I would very much like to know the reasoning behind the deletion.. Scott Williams (Scooter D Williams (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC))
- Hi there. It's quite rare for an article that's as old as that one was to be speedily deleted, but there was nothing in there that indicated that the band was notable. Whilst they've released albums, there was nothing to show it was on a notable label; there were no reviews of the band or their music. That's the sort of stuff that needs to be added in.
- I can restore it to your userspace for you to work on if you wish. Let me know, and I'll restore it for you. GedUK 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2011
- WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket
- Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons
- Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case
- Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news
Notification
Did you read this before you posted your message at the talk page. The person behind that IP is attacking Pashtuns and Pashtun editors in the Afghanistan related articles, he told one Pashtun editor (Ketabtoon):"You can be lucky I don´t get you and if I get you I guess me and some other people would cut you first in pieces than would your family become a lesson, just because of your Gulbuddini-Taliban behave. But don´t worry, sooner or later, we will catch you".[1] Someone like that should be banned on spot but I think you didn't notice what he wrote.--210.2.177.245 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's the only edit that IP has made. There's no point in banning an IP that is hopped on and off of. GedUK 08:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 January 2011
- News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more
- Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news
At RfPP, you said you were watching this article, it has now been changed twice since my request two days ago. Please reconsider locking this down until the 3O finishes.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- The protection tag for Flag of Tibet says "until differences are resolved", but it expires 07:34, 26 January 2011. I would ask you for a protection extension until rgpk (talk · contribs), the editor that addressed the 3O (who has stated he is not finished) has made their fix. rgpk stated: "I'm going to use the diff between the current protected version and Quigley's most recent version as the best indicator of what the two alternative texts are but this is a complicated situation so please bear with me as I figure things out. Thanks, in advance, for your patience. Regards. --rgpk" And thank you for your forbearance.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've extended it another week. I'll drop RegentsPark (talk · contribs) (who is rgpk) to let them know, but as they're an admin too, they can edit through the protection as necessary. GedUK 14:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The protection tag for Flag of Tibet says "until differences are resolved", but it expires 07:34, 26 January 2011. I would ask you for a protection extension until rgpk (talk · contribs), the editor that addressed the 3O (who has stated he is not finished) has made their fix. rgpk stated: "I'm going to use the diff between the current protected version and Quigley's most recent version as the best indicator of what the two alternative texts are but this is a complicated situation so please bear with me as I figure things out. Thanks, in advance, for your patience. Regards. --rgpk" And thank you for your forbearance.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- OK - thank you for taking the time to share your thought process. Cheers.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. GedUK 13:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Cricket World Cup
Hi Ged. I see you protected the 2011 Cricket World Cup article, but I'm at a loss to see why it needs such a high level of protection, compared say to the article on the current state in Egypt. Maybe the cricket protection should be revisted, or toned down a notch? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was an edit war that was continuing despite the attempts on the talk page to resolve it. I protected it to help the conversation reach an agreement. GedUK 14:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Zadie Smith and On Beauty
Hi, could you please have a look at Zadie Smith? There is an IP editor, a SPA, who has been putting links up there as well as On Beauty, which is now protected. More of the story is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2#On_Beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_Beauty
Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK 12:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)