User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2013/March

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

• Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors

• News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm

• Featured content: Slow week for featured content

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Madison Eagles

Hi. I noted in the page logs of Madison Eagles that you salted this page in January 2012 to prevent re-creation. This salting expired in July 2012. Now the page has been re-created yet again and yet again none of the issues presented in all three of the AfD's have been addressed, qualifying it for a G4 speedy deletion. May I ask that you speedy it again and salt it again, this time for 12 months? Thanks. 121.220.107.74 (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

G4 doesn't apply because this version is quite a bit different. This one has sources whihch the previous one didn't. Needs to go to AfD if you want it deleted. GedUK  12:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war in Malayalam cinema page

Hi, Edit war in Malayalam cinema page was mainly done by anonymous IPs who edited out versions with citations. These IPs operate in complete disregard to talk page discussions. The latest version existing contradicts with South Indian film industry which is given protection from such IPs, by allowing edits only by autoconfirmed users till February 27. Under permission by admin Spartaz, I corrected an edit at South Indian film industry done by such an anonymous IP which left a statement that contradicts the citations there. It has stayed there as anonymous IPs are not allowed to edit. Could you kindly restore the Malayalam cinema page to a version before the edit war started (Feb 18) or a latest version by an autoconfirmed user. Thanks Prathambhu (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I went through the article and the talk page. It seems that the User:Prathambhu was trying to push his POV despite the consensus reached by other editors in the talk page. This user wants to glorify his home city in all articles in wiki. He is also engaged in edit war in South Indian film industry:

• [1]
• [2]

So, please do not revert to any older version upon his claims. Let there be a consensus in the talk page first. Thanks, Samaleks (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This alone is enough to convince me that I was right to fully protect the article. There is clearly no consensus amongst users or IPs (who are treated equally). I'm also not favouring one side or the other by protecting on any particular version. Reach consensus on what should be in the article, and then it can be unprotected. If then IPs keep changing it, it can have semi-protection. Thanks. GedUK  14:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Please visit the talk page of to find the actual status of the discussion at Malayalam cinema talk page and how it compares what the above user Samaleks has written.

However the request I was making was different. The rampant edits were done by anonymous IP who do not take part in Malayalam cinema talk. Allowing it to continue seem to send out the message that such rampant edits by anonymous IPs ignoring talk page, actually work! Hence the request to revert to the latest version by a user who is taking part in discussion page. Thanks Prathambhu (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For making an edit, please reach consensus in the talk page first. I could see many users(Aarem, Torreslfchero, Salih, JK) in the talk page disagreeing with you. Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And here is the evidence of Prathambhu's POV pushing for Kochi : (From an admin and third party who interfered in the edit war on Kochi page earlier)After looking this over, Prathambhu is clearly editing in a tendentious manner that creates a strong POV in favor of Kochi. Since we are not here to create travel brochures, this is inappropriate editing.

So, this user is carrying on his warring tendencies for each and every thing to glorify Kochi. Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the history of Samaleks. He, along with one more user Aarem who operated under another name then, tried to do a very similar thing in Kochi 4 years ago. They insisted on adding a false statement that "Kochi was undergoing economic stagnation until 2003" in Kochi page. After the intervention by administrator Hiberniantears and ensued discussion in talk (click to see), they had to withdraw their misleading statements on ``economic stagnation" from Kochi page.

The user Samaleks, Aarem has taken every opportunity to insert demeaning false statements about Kochi at every opportunity. Salih was part of the edit war. No suprises why Samaleks want to remove information about Kochi with over a dozen news citations from Malayalam cinema page.

A visit to talk page of Malayalam cinema actually shows that his claim about user JK disagreeing with me is outright false. Again no surprises. Prathambhu (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My talk page isn't the place to address this. FOr the core issue around this article then you should use the talk page. I think that you're probably going to need an RfC, because this is clearly quite complex, and goes beyond one article. GedUK  12:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Admin, let me first thank you for taking interest in dispute resolution. Kindly help us to start a dispute resolution - under admin supervision - as soon as possible.

Before that, let me also request you to kindly visit | Malayalam cinema talk page on this dispute to get a first hand appraisal of this issue. If the talk page discussion itself could give a clear indication to the possible resolution, hopefully it could be achieved sooner. Thanks, Sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not a dispute resolution specialist. You should have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests and identify the best route. I would have thought that a Request for Comment would be the best method, which you would start on the article talk page. GedUK  12:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the suggestion for Request for Comment. Let me accept this with one apprehension - this dispute has a group 4 or 5 editors and possible sockpuppets pitted against one or probably two editors. My experience in the Malayalam cinema talk page so far with the above group indicates an attempt to "win" the dispute based on their numerical supremacy. Under a Request for Comment, I will not and cannot summon other users/sock puppets to give "comments" favoring my view. But most likely the above group will, as exhibited already. So if I have a choice, I would prefer a dispute resolution mechanism involving administrator supervision over Request for Comment. Please let me know whether such a DR mechanism is available and, if yes, kindly provide the link to it. Thanks, Sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, As suggested by you I just placed a Request for comment in the Malayalam cinema talk page towards initiating a dispute resolution. Thanks, Sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Regardless of the fact that there is no consensus yet on the Request for comment, I request your kind intervention as an administrator in this. This is because such an intervention does not require to know any details of the dispute.

The existing claim on the Malayalam cinema page cannot be verified against even a single previously published information from any reliable source as required by Wikipedia's core sourcing policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. In fact, the present version contradicts the published information that widely exists in reliable sources over the last 7 years.

Some editors who inserted the present claim has also seriously violated the Wikipedia's core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth which says "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles". Aforementioned editors have not only removed sources' views, but removed the sources themselves from the article by editing out the citations.

As the existing version is against the core policy of wikipedia, in letter and spirit, it is hoped that this matter can be set correct in your capacity as an administrator. Thanks, Sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hope this will help you in getting more energy to perform more admin works (in less amount of time) in the future. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Omnomnom :D Thanks! Interesting username btw, I still remember him fondly at LFC, though a lot of fans won't forgive him for leaving, even though he was rubbish by then. GedUK  12:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but I hate this username nowadays. I was huge fan of Torres (not now though) and liverpool (which still is my favorite club - no matter what happens to them). But since last year, I have almost stopped watching football games and have move my life towards films and cricket. Btw, are you Man Utd fan? Torreslfchero (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good lord no! I'm a Liverpool fan :) Why don't you change your username then? Wikipedia:Username change. GedUK  12:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are also liverpool fan. Anyway, I'm also thinking of changing the username but I'm quite clueless about the new username. If I find suitbale username which shows my work here then I will change it right way. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about my new username? T4B (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! GedUK  13:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI regarding protection of Progressive Utilization Theory

Hey, Ged. Per User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2013/February#Extending protection, I understand that you were asked to extend the page protection of Progressive Utilization Theory until consensus has been reached. In the event that you are asked to extend the protection again, I wanted you to be aware of a related discussion in ANI. I'm not asking you to do it, but I think we need a ruling and statement from an administrator on whether a consensus has been reached. My opinion is that there is a consensus for a particular version, but that the user who asked you to protect the article is preventing this consensus from being implemented. Cheers! Location (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and find time to have a proper look at this later, but you'lll likely to get admins better experienced in this area than me if it stays at ANI, and the SPI board certainly has specialists that patrol it. GedUK  12:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ged. No action required on your part. I wanted to keep you posted regarding that there is some discussion in ANI to request the implementation of 1RR as a way to move forward with this. Thanks! Location (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

OK cool. 1RR may be necessary I guess. ANI is the bst venue now I suppose. GedUK  11:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

• From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger

• News and notes: Finance committee updates

• Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes

• Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns

• WikiProject report: Setting a precedent

• Technology report: Article Feedback reversal

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Progressive Utilization Theory (update on dispute)

Unfortunately, there was no success in achieving consensus at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory, and I no longer see any likelihood of success. In the end, a proposal was put forward for mediation, but the other side rejected that. Protection is due to be lifted automatically in a few hours, and I suppose there will be a rather frustrating outcome thereafter. But that's not your fault, so I just wanted to update you on the subject and say thanks again for the extension. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

THanks for the update./ GedUK  12:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Ged UK, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 14:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! GedUK  12:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Request unprotection of Linux

Hello. Over a year and a half ago, on 31 August 2011, you protected the article Linux due to persistent vandalism. I'm sure by now the vandal has moved on. I would like to request that the article be unprotected. Thank you. 24.22.75.14 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to Pending Changes. The protection log goes back to 2006, so it's always been an article that attracts vandals or other unhelpful edits. However, edit traffic is quite low, so PC should work OK. GedUK  12:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

• News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee

• WikiProject report: Making music

• Interview: Meeting in the middle: Wikipedia and libraries

• Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm

• Arbitration report: Richard case closes

• Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Make that a Westmalle; thx for the templating, btw. Lectonar (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the beer! GedUK  12:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

RFPP

...I had seen the same problems, and asked User:Snottywong about that....see User talk:Scottywong#RFPP and snotbot. Obviously, all we need is some patience. Lectonar (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, perhaps that's it then. Thanks for pointing it out :) GedUK  13:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Dispute in Malayalam cinema page

Hi, as per your suggestion, a Wikipedia:Requests for comment was made by me on the dispute about the hub of Malayalam cinema industry. The talk discussion had been going on for more than a month already. No consensus has emerged. Kindly let me know what is the next level mechanism for a resolution. A mechanism under supervision of wikipedia administrators is preferred because not all editors involved in this dispute may be well intended. Thanks, Sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember if you've posted this on the dispute resolution noticeboard. If not, then you probably should. If you have, then the last step in cases like this is usually Mediation. GedUK  12:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you. I will post it at dispute resolution noticeboard. Wikipedia seem to advocate on Wikipedia:Mediation if all the editors involved are acting in good faith. In this case it is difficult to assume so because one or two editors involved has overruled Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Kindly have a look at the Request for Comments in Talk:Malayalam cinema page. My humble feeling is that there is little scope to mediate with such people. I would rather leave it to administrators to examine the merits of the case and judge. Thank you, Sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your decline of WP:SD for Teletoon Canada Inc.

One of the WP:CSD was WP:A7, which does not mention redirecting as an alternative (unlike the other one, WP:A10). Therefore, I would like to ask you whether you think that criterion doesn't apply here, and if so, why. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A7 has a lower threshold for assessing notability than the general notbaility guideline. Whilst notbaility isn't inheritable when meeting the GNG, for A7 it is reasonable to assume that the parent company of a notable channel (or other notable company) is notable enough to pass A7 and its article remain.

Once that's done, then it's a question of A10, which I agreed with you on, but the redirect seemed plausible as this article doesn't have the brackets, and is an official company name, so it seems it's a reasonable search term. Hope that clarifies. GedUK  13:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well, but I would ask that next time you post this explanation either in an edit summary or at the nominator's talk page right after acting upon the nomination so that the nominator doesn't need to ask you about it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. GedUK  14:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I thought we believed that all owners of licensed broadcasters were presumed to be notable: they own more than just one channel (and if the similar joint venture A+E Networks has an article too). Additionally, I was not given any sufficient notification about this decision, nor was I given time to personally contest. A10 says that "does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material", it expands on the existing article by being more about the parent company itself, and all of its properties. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for the first sentence; notification is only recommended, not required; the article did none of the things you quoted from WP:A10. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, firstly, it re-organized information on from the main article. Secondly, it actually did mention the Bell/Astral merger and planned sale in relation to all of the networks. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It didn't re-organize anything and that information was already included at Teletoon (Canada). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be technical about it, the speedy deletion was declined, as I did not delete the page. All the content still exists in the history. You're quite welcome to undo my edit and restore the page. If you do restore it, then I don't believe that another speedy deletion request would be appropriate; deletion would need to be a community decision via AfD. GedUK  10:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Royal Marines training

Hey why did you delete the Royal Marines recruit training page? What was copywrited on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.214.120 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The entire article was a copy of content posted on the forum. The content most likely belongs to that forum, OR the original Royal Marines page that it was most likely copied from; therefore Crown copyright. The page Royal Marines selection and training does exist, however, and is probably a good place to redirect this page to, which I will do. Hope this helps. GedUK  10:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

• WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh

• Featured content: One and a half soursops

• Arbitration report: Two open cases

• News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews

• Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?

• Recent research: "Ignore all rules" in deletions; anonymity and groupthink; how readers react when shown talk pages

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)