User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2011/March
 | 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. |
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
- News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news
- Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times
- WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases
- Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news
The Signpost: 7 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news
- Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Page deletion: THINGS OUTSIDE THE SKIN
The page for the band was deleted and I have no idea why. It was just a resource for the bands 20 year long history. I'd really like to see this restored. Please contact me so we can resolve this.
All the best, Chvad SB — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.o.t.s. (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. There was no indication that the band was notable by wikipeida's notability standards. They don't seem to have been signed to a notable label, don't seem to have charted etc. GedUK 13:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Tarique Mustafa
There's a new submission for a page that you previously deleted-> Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tarique_Mustafa
Can you please take a look at it? I have also requested couple of other people to take a look at it. Meanwhile, I have marked it "Under Review". If you feel it should not be accepted, can you please reject the page or let me know and I will do it. Otherwise I will go ahead with the usual review process and give feedback to the author accordingly.
regards
--abhishek singh (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been offline. Is this dealt with now? GedUK 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
- Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news
You had protected this article on Jan 19, after R.K. Gupta made a nuisance of himself repeatedly adding self-promotional references to his own books and website. He's started doing this again; I just reverted the last occurrence. Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I went back and checked. The last 3 occurrences were on March 4, Feb 18 and Jan 19. So protecting the page for a week or two probably doesn't serve any useful purpose. There's nothing else that can be done, is there? --Sarabseth (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- He did it again on March 9, making it twice in 5 days. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK 13:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- He did it again on March 9, making it twice in 5 days. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks!--Sarabseth (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Protection of article Indian Army
Thanks for removing the semi protection of Indian Army article.Not enough vandalism to justify the protection.Suri 100 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Sonia Gandhi
The articleSonia Gandhi is temporary semi-protected.But I am not understanding why it is protected?.There is almost no vandalism in the article edit history page to justify protection . So I suggest this page be unprotected.You can reply to my talk page if you like to .Thanks! Suri 100 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- There hasn't been any vandalism beacuase the page is protected. Sonia Gandhi is too high profile, and there's been a long history of vandalism and protection for me to be comfortable with removing it in this instance. GedUK 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 March 2011
- WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine
- Features and admins: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases
- Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief
Deletion request
Why did you revert my deletion request? JK Sõrve/JK Sõrve is a totally different club from FC Kuressaare. This kind of redirect is wrong. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because you didn't explain what was wrong with them. I understand now. They need to go to WP:RFD for discussion. GedUK 09:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Solistes de Musique Ancienne and other CSD declines
Hi again... I am guessing you are using an automatic script for CSDs, one that doesn't recognize the difference between a CSD nomination and edits that replace a CSD tag that was already there, because I didn't nominate any of the following pages, all of which you notified me about: Solistes de Musique Ancienne, IUCAB, World Organization of Students and Youth, and The Genetic Testing Laboratories, Inc., which we discussed previously. (You have sent me a few correct declines, however). I appreciate that you don't use the standard template that tells me to "review the CSD criteria" or whatever, but you should know your declines are getting lost in space. I don't use automated tools so I can't tell you if there is one out there that doesn't have this issue. But perhaps a quick read-over of the history before sending out templates? I know that sounds tedious. Anyway, cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. Sorry about that. It is a script that does it. I'll endevour to improve this going forward! GedUK 12:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
TeaParty
Dear Ged UK,
Since you deleted the article I wrote on TeaPartyBookClubs - rather than edit it or replace it with an article that conformed to Wikipedia's guidelines - I do hope you'll be good enough to replace it or one like it when you read about the organization in the press.
I'd also add that the point of the article was not to advertise, but to continue building on a public record of being different than the mainstream of the Tea Party movement. You may not appreciate that, because perhaps you are not associated with a movement daily labeled a bunch of racist rednecks, but if you think about it sometime when you're not busy policing for advertising, it may occur to you that it's not such a bad thing. I take it for granted that you are aware leaders of the Tea Party in the US have faced threats, harassment, and intimidation for their work, but maybe you don't know these things. In any case, you've certainly interfered in the free exchange of information, without doing to anything to guide it in a better direction. I had the impression Wikipedia stood for something else.
Regards, N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normanrobert (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is a slight error on my part. I shouldn't have deleted it as spam, but as non-notable. There was nothing in there that indicated any notability. I can restore it to your userspace for you to work on if you wish. GedUK 12:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?