User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2012/April
 | 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. |
Aria2 page deletion.
I was looking into the article on metalink file format which brought me to the Aria2 page which you had deleted. I can not see the deleted article as expected.
The Aria2 project exists on sourceforge.net. I would like, I believe, to create a simple page describing the most basic features of Aria2 and then provide an external link to the SourceForge project. I am not a frequent contributor to wikipedia so I would like to avoid violating their guidelines.
Could you point me to the deleted page so I can see what I need to avoid when creating the Aria2 page?
Thank you for your attention, Robinmholt (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there. I deleted it because it was a copyright violation of http://aria2.sourceforge.net
- If you want to recreate the page, please make sure that you read WP:FIRST before you start, which will give you some useful tips on what to do and what not to do. The critical thing to realise is just because it's on Sourceforge, doesn't make it notable by Wikipedia's standards. That's achieves by third party-independent sources talking about the product. That could be articles, reviews etc. Not forum posts though. Please read reliable sources guidelines for more on this.
- If you've any questions, let me know. Regards GedUK 07:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
Am very glad you're posting and contributing your help there. I assume you made this[1] edit. However it was stricken because it was totally unsigned. It was just a floating comment. Please remember to sign everything. Unsigned anonymous stuff like that is usually stricken.—Djathinkimacowboy 16:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear, how embarassing! I've readded it and signed it! Thanks for letting me know! GedUK 12:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Dja and Ged, still having this talk page on my watchlist from last year or so, I noticed this. Dja, I think that unsigned comments are not usually stricken, but rather signed with an {{unsigned}} template. You can just add the string {{subst:unsigned|Ged UK}} or, with a date parameter, {{subst:unsigned|Ged UK|12:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)}} to the message. Usually a bot takes care of this, but it's easy to do it if the bot overlooked it. Nice to know. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2012
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2011, the project has:
|
Content
|
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2012
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2011, the project has:
|
Content
|
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 April 2012
- News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
- WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut
- Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week
- Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases
The Signpost: 16 April 2012
- Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Discussion report: The future of pending changes
- WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
- Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
The Signpost: 23 April 2012
- Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"
- WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files
- Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content
- Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review
- Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?
Deletion of Hugues De La Plaza
Hi, I have searched and searched and eventually found the log files of December 2009 when the page for Hugues De La Plaza was deleted but I still cannot find the discussion about it or any evidence for when it was moved. Was there no discussion for it? I am not the writer of the page, in fact I just now created an account to ask about this page. It is a case I heard of and was AMAZED when I looked him up to find that there was no wiki page and that it was deleted because it was not noteworthy. If I am in Ireland and I hear about it in the media, then perhaps it is in fact noteworthy as it is such a controversial case. Especially since it is a few years old and I only just saw a programme about it so it is obviously an active story even now. Is there any way this page might be undeleted? Perhaps its too late for that... but even his name googled brings up plenty of sites and news info about him. Surely a wiki page is justified?
Anyway as I said I am very new to wikipedia so I hope you are the right person to email about. I got to here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugues_de_la_Plaza I was pretty careful to not just spew anywhere. Hope you can help or at least show me why it was deleted and if there is a reason it remains so. Thanks TJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrificjoy (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Semi-protection of a user's talk page
I've removed the semi-protection you placed on User talk:EEMIV per invalid protection reasoning. User talk page are not considered part of the userspace and are subject to different rules. Semi-protecting a user talk page would leave IPs contributors and newly registered users with no immediate mean of contacting the user, and is generally only applied for brief periods of times when absolutely necessary, not indefinitively. Snowolf How can I help? 02:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bill being re-assessed for GA
Hey Ged!
I'm wondering if you can look at Talk:The Bill and see if there's anything you can do to help The Bill retain it's GA status? I must admit once citation issues are sorted out I don't see why the article can't retain the status. Any help would be appreciated!--5 albert square (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)