User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2009/May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IPvandal

* 203.112.90.136 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log • Abuse Report) has been warned many times, blocked at least once, received yet another "last warning" a day or two ago, but just vandalized again. Bubba73 (talk), 2:20 am, Today (UTC?4)

No edits since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. They have been warned before, but they've only made one edit today and not edited since being warned for it. No evidence it's the same person. IP has mede constructive edits. A block would be inappropriate. --GedUK 3:37 am, Today (UTC?4)

The editor did edit after last warning. Got a "last warning" on April 29. Vandalised again on May 1. No constructive edits since the "last warning" I gave. Bubba73 (talk), 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the warning was days before, and the edit history strongly implied it was likely to be a different physical person to the one who was warned. Blocking is supposed to be preventative, not to punish. And as the IP hasn't edited again since today, I'd like to think my decision was vindicated. Please don't let that put you off reporting vandals to AIV though, it's a very important job, otherwise we'd be over-run! --GedUK  15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I accept your opinion. But it was only two days before. The IP has a long history of vandalism. Even if there are multiple users, if the IP address were completely blocked, bona fide editors could create an account and vandals would be blocked. Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted page- Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation

Hello, I would like to request restoration of the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation wikipedia page.

EEJF is a non-profit organization that has given millions of dollars to projects dedicated to the improvement of journalism across the nation for the past ten years. The foundation has also provided millions of dollars to colleges and universities throughout the state to build journalism facilities and encourage journalism education. It was founded in 1982 by Edith Kinney Gaylord, a member of the Gaylord family, responsible for publishing Oklahoma's largest newspaper, The Oklahoman. Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation’s mission is to invest in the future of journalism by building the ethics, skills and opportunities needed to advance principled, probing news and information. EEJF does so through contributions to media institutions and journalism schools nationwide, primarily in areas of youth education, professional development, long-term projects and special opportunities. Particular emphasis is placed on ethics and investigative reporting within each initiative. Please visit www.journalismfoundation.org for more information.

Please let me know what the next step is in getting our page restored. Thank you for your consideration.

Lisaloeb101 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Lisa Janssen Representative for EEJF

Hi there. The reason it was deleted was because there was no indication as to why it was notable. This means providing references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject and give it more thana passing reference. I can restore the page to your userspace so you can work on it there before putting it back in the mainspace. I'm happy to help you work in the article. Thanks. --GedUK  19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruthless (Ace Hood Album)

This article has now been deleted three times - once after an AfD and twice by you after that when the user recreated it. I notice that the user has just now created the talk page, with the same text as the deleted article here Talk:Ruthless_(Ace_Hood_album).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Icestorm has already deleted it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though. --GedUK  20:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari

Would you consider reprotecting? [1] Enigmamsg 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've given it two weeks protection. --GedUK  19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait

I'm working on those disambiguation pages. You don't need to be too fast in deleting them. Alefbe (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Create the articles first, not the disambiguation pages, otherwise there's nothing for them to point to. --GedUK  21:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It's just a matter of few minutes. Besides, it already has a blue link (it just needed the correct redirect). Alefbe (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It was red-linked when I deleted it, and I couldn't work out where it was supposed to disam to. --GedUK  21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

IP Content Warrior in Great power and Middle power articles

I have started a topic at the Admin notice board about the IP user that keeps on removing content from the Great power and Middle power articles. I was wondering if I could get you to comment about the situation so that we can get this situation resolved. Thanks. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Replied at the ANI thread. --GedUK  09:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Libelous claims

Against me have been made in the Human Rights Foundation entry by an unregistered user. The page is protected so I can't do much about it. I have already reported it to the email address provided in the libel page. It would be appreciated if these claims are removed immediately.Alekboyd (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What claims? --GedUK  06:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Here Human Rights Foundation#Promotion of violence by HRF staff.Alekboyd (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Which specific bit, as that all seems to be sourced? I've added the source for the Livingstone quote. --GedUK  12:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole thing is misleading and is a crude attempt at tarnishing the Human Rights Foundation. Firstly, Comment is Free is not the same as The Guardian, but a blog. Secondly, the person who makes the claims, Calvin Tucker, has a track record of involvement in violence and GBH and I can prove it. Thirdly, I did not drop my claim upon being presented with Livingstone defense, and I can prove it. Fourthly, Livingstone may have been Mayor of London, however his relations with IRA, Al-Qaradawi and Chavez forfeits any legitimacy that his claims may have had against things I have written about my country. So again, please remove immediately any and all associations between me and terrorism.Alekboyd (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that this has now been removed by another administrator. --GedUK  06:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A note regarding the WPVG Newsletter

Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009, and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.

—VG Newsletter Contributors
  • Notice delivery by –xeno talk 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Park Stadium

79.66.60.150 seems to be constantly reverting the Stanley Park Stadium article with unsoureed POV. If s/he dosn't either stop this or at least bring it to the discussion page, it will become increacingly difficult to keep working under the assumption that s/he is editing in goot faith. RicoRichmond (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already on my watchlist. I'll keep an eye on it, hopefully protection/blocks won't be necessary, but we'll see how it goes. --GedUK  15:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray 3RR

Can you do something about this editor. He keeps on vandalizing the Andy Murray page, and has broken the 3RR. Thanks. Alan16 talk 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i've been offline most of this weekend. As the page is now protected, i guess this is dealt with? --GedUK  15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Vadama

122.*.*.* is back with his POV-pushing calling this community "a bunch of rogues" (See [2]) and adding unverifiable information from 203.*.*.* ([3]). I request you to have a look into this. This sort of caste-based vilification and addition of unverifiable hateful content is surely serious. There are caste-welfare organisations all around and as Wikipedia results appear at the top of Google searches, addition of such libelious nonsense isn't in good taste.

The same editor is also involved in adding POV nonsense to Chola Dynasty ([4]), Raja Raja Chola I([5]),Kulothunga Chola ([6], [7]).

IP 122.*.*.* is also involved in POV-pushing in Mudaliar article ([8], [9], [10],[11]).

The main edit pattern of this particular editor (User:Vyaghradhataki) who presently uses the 122.*.*.* and 203.*.*.* is to abuse and vilify the Vijayanagar Empire and the Iyer, Vadama and Mudaliar communities. Of course, he could also have indulged in vandalism elsewhere but these are the articles I watch regularly. I also suspect that User:Srirangam99 (who was previously involved in attacking Kannadiga editors and the Vijayanagar Empire in Chola dynasty article) has something to do with these vandals.

I do not log in regularly these days as I work away from home. I could log in whenever I come home every weekend or alternate weekends or so. I am planning to raise an RFCU for the same but I do not have time to monitor its proceedings. In the meantime, I think it will be better if Vadama too is indefinitely semi-protected as Iyer has been. I will also look into Vanniar, Mukkulathor, Nadar, Pallar, Paravar, Paraiyar and Arunthatiyar articles if there has been any intereference by the aforesaid user. Thanks-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 04:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected for 2 weeks. A range block would probably be better, but you'll have to ask at AN for that, as I don't know how to do them without blocking half a continent. --GedUK  15:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

New Romanticism

I requested semi-protection, not full protection. This is not so much a content dispute as willful disruption, if you'd review the talk page, it's quite clear the anon editors are not working towards a consensus but simply the implementation of their own view. I'd appreciate suggestions on how to go forwards, because I can see no way of building a consensus on this issue. The fans of certain bands simply will not allow the bands to be described as New Romantic in spite of the vast number of sources which describe them as such. Regards, Hiding T 14:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you only asked for semi-protection, but at the moment there's at least one editor (though at the moment unconfirmed but that's only a matter of time) so semi-protection would not be particularly effective, and I suspect that if it were semied, the IPs would just create accounts and then edit. I would suggest, if the RfC doesn't generate anything helpful, or perhaps even while you wait for it, that you try WP:MUSIC as there are lots of helpful editors around there. Mediation might help as well as a next step. I will keep a close eye on it and review the protection after the week, and if necessary put it back on or semi protect as necessary. --GedUK  19:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll try WP:MUSIC. Ta. Hiding T 21:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Most consecutive starts by a quarterback (NFL)

A pretty vibrant discussion has taken place on the article for Most Consecutive Starts by a quarterback (NFL). As you may be aware, the current record holder is Brett Favre. He has started every single game since 1992, up through and including the last game of last season. At the end of last season he retired. However, official NFL statistics (and common sense) indicate that the record is considered active until he misses his first game (since at any time he could come back and continue his active streak). Generally, this is not an issue that has too much importantance, but Favre has signaled a willingness to return to football next season (thus never missing a game which would keep the record in tact). He has even removed himself from the "retired" list. I have cited official records (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gs_active.htm) which prove my that the NFL considers this record "Active" and therefore the record should be listed as "Present", but people with differing opinions (but no citations) keep changing the article and requested that you lock it yesterday (which you did). I request that you modify the page to reflect that Favre's record is "1992-Present" and lock the page until the first day of the regular season (September 14, 2009) since the record would be considered active until, at the earliest, that date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanrworrell (talk • contribs) 08:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I know almost nothing about NFL records etc (we only play 'proper' football over here!) but to me, if the record only covers regular season games, and he isn't confirmed to play next season, then that's the end of his streak. However, I don't know about the ins and outs of NFL retired lists etc.
However, that being said, the article isn't fully protected, only semi-protected. When your account autoconfirms (3 days of activity) then you will be able to edit it. Even so, it would be better to get a consensus on the talk page first. You may want to ask members of the WikiProject American Football for their opinions as well. --GedUK  12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

THX!

Thank you for speedy deleting "Alan Caso (Dora the Explorer)". I knew it was a hoax (because I nominated it!). Dalekusa (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

SpongeBob

Hi. In the article SpongeBob SquarePants, have a section not encyclopedic: broadcasting. In wikipedia of spanish, I agreggate as nick a [es.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bucho] the section Transmisión, and delete BetoCG cause not encyclopedic. As you blocked the page, delete the section what already talk. Please, for to avoid WP:N. --Buchardo (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really not sure what you're asking me to do. Broadcasting is a pretty standard section on en-wiki. --GedUK  20:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
And also the section DVD is relevant and encyclopedic? So me walk in the wiki of spanish. --Buchardo (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete the sections DVD release and Broadcasting by not encyclopedics. Is what I speak english, by what not to understand. Sorry, please. Bucho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.154.91.191 (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think DVD and Broadcasting are valid sections I think. If you think they should be removed, suggest it on the article talk page. It's not an admin issue. --GedUK  18:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Vulgargrad

Why was this page deleted? The band has appeared numerous on national tv in australia and also had their music features on various soundtracks. I don't think they're not notable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.185.91 (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing in the article that said that. Do you have any sources for that? If so, I could restore it for you. --GedUK  18:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

G3 Blatant hoax maybe should be rethought

Hello Ged. I think American Association of Sporting Events for Rabbits might debatably be a proper speedy deletion candidate under A7 (db-group), as the article does not have a very clear assertion of importance (and a search for this particular alleged American association turns up zero Google hits), but it does not appear to be a blatant hoax at all, given that there are apparently all sorts of rabbit jumping leagues around the world and competitions held. The creator posted a {{helpme}} on his talk page, protesting the deletion, which turned up on my watchlist as I had answered a previous question of his.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha! It is not a hoax, but it is a proper G12 as a blatant copyvio of this page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Case closed? --GedUK  19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you'll do whatever you see fit. Personally, I think articles deleted under G3 that weren't at all vandalism should always be recast. A vandalism charge where it is not the case can leave a very hurt feelings in its wake and drive away a possibly good future editor. I would undelete the article with an edit summary such as "undeleting to note this was not vandalism, not a hoax" and then redelete, citing to A7 and G12, coupled with dropping a polite note on the creator's talk page about the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've left a message on their talk page offering to userfy it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --GedUK  07:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Ged UK! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Heh, OK, you win the best thankspam award! My pleasure supporting you, i know you'll do great :) --GedUK  11:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/London 22...

...is up and running. Cheers, WilliamH (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Added :) --GedUK  15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hindutash Unprotection

Surely, the sweeping statements made shamelessly by --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) cannot be permitted to be taken at its face value. My entire edit was supported with references and quotations paragraph . In fact there is hardly any original research. My version is there for every body to see. Res ipsa loquitur. After blatantly misusing his position as an Administrator at the behest of User:Fowler&fowler, he cannot be permitted to say, “I am open to the protection being reviewed and overturned by other admins..” I again repeat. Please refer to my message to User:Ottava Rima in the talk page of the said Administrator. She had questioned this particular Administrator’s action and was intimidated by User:Fowler&fowler. He should have unprotected the Article and left it to genuine and honest administrators to deal with the issue. I want my NPOV version of Hindutash[12] which is informative and full of references and corroborations to be protected from the vandalism of inter alia User:Fowler&fowler. Please do the needful so that the credibility of Wikipedia is not suspect.Hindutashravi (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Regent's Park to review the protection, or if they are happy that I review it. Watch this space. --GedUK  17:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I hate to keep the article protected but I don't see much point in unprotecting and letting Hindutashravi loose on the article if he's just going to push his pov again. Here's my best suggestion: Hindutashravi, please let us know - on the article talk page - what exactly you intend to add to the article. We'll review your suggested changes (I'll ask Fowler&fowler to weigh in as well) and let's see what happens. If you could be direct and to the point and use a tad fewer latin phrases, that'd be helpful. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. --GedUK  21:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Hope you were able to understand what I told you. I said that the sweeping statements made shamelessly by --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) cannot be permitted to be taken at its face value. I did not ask you to ask Regent's Park to review the protection. It is the version of User:Fowler&fowler which is blatantly POV. Take the POV statement of Fowler&fowler in the article , “The eastern Kunlun range, which is in the southern region of the Hotan prefecture of Xinjiang, is cut by two other passes: the Sanju Pass,…..”. This is his original research with out any basis whatsoever, and has no references or corroboration . It is simply a modification with mala fide intentions of my statement in the article that “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan” and is crossed by two other passes: …” which is neither a POV statement nor original research but is directly extracted from the Gazetteer of Kashmir which lists Hindutash as a place in Kashmir as early as 1890. What nonsense is --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) stating!

In 1927, the Colonial "Indian" Government, according to a report in the Times, March 6, 1963 “decided that a claim of the Mir of Kashmir that his dominions were bound on the north by the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges was insupportable”. The issue which is evident from the aforesaid report in The Times is that even in 1927, the Government of Kashmir was reiterating that the northern border of Kashmir was on the northern watershed of the Kuenlun ranges and beyond. The “Indian Government” meaning the English had no locus standi to decide for the people of India and in particular the people of Kashmir where the northern border of their state was. I am given to understand that even the notorious Times Atlas as recent as 1900 was depicting[13] the northern border of Kashmir in the Hindutash area on the crests of the Kuen Lun range. Nothing has changed subsequently to place the pass as allegedly in "China".

I am not going to discuss the article with Regent's Park. His unscrupulousness can be seen from the fact that he is yet to even reply to the following simple questions which I asked him. 1. Did you check the Gazetteer of Kashmir? 2. Did you see an entry on Hindutash (spelt Hindutak therein) or not at page 364?

I do not intend to get the permission of those who indulge in vandalism like Regent's Park and Fowler&fowler and their Coterie to make changes in the article. I am not going to permit Regent's Park and Fowler&fowler to state that the Hindutash[14] pass in Kashmir is allegedly in so- called “Xinjiang”, which is the only thing they want to state and with out any basis whatsoever when the stance of even the Chinese is that till date the northern border of Kashmir is yet to be demarcated or delineated .Obviously, --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) and User:Fowler&fowler are doing it for them! Hindutashravi (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Phase two of the war on schumin

We are entering into phase 2 of the war on Schumin. The Wikipedia Reform Trust is resolved to force user:Schuminweb to recognise me in an edit summary. We are issuing amnesty's to all innocent parties in the hope that they may persuade user:Schuminweb to come around to a reasonable settlement. You can help us achieve this. All he has to do is recognise me in an edit summary. Easy, innit! 86.40.214.4 (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My plain demand

I recognise that you are allowing me to post on your talk page and this will be THE LAST MESSAGE YOU WILL RECEIVE FROM ME. It is a general message to any who may be reading:

Reverting, blocking, ignoring me hasn't deterred me over the last two years. Its not going to deter me as long as I live. I will not get bored. I want one simple thing which will not affect the encyclopedia in anyway. I DO NOT VANDALISE WIKIPEDIA PAGES. I am demanding for user:Schuminweb to recognise me in an edit summary. It is not unreasonable if you were familiar with the context.

Please take your self righteousness elsewhere if you are not prepared to help.86.45.196.74 (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan New Health Speedy Deletion

Excuse me,

But why would you not check time of authoring? I am not promoting company. I am starting stubs of small Genetic technology companies in Japan for purpose of discussing relative research goals in main topic articles.


In future, please extend courtesy of inquiry.

Thank You, Shizue Koshiba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKoshiba (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The article wasn't deleted as spam, but because there was no indication that the company is notable. The sources appeared to be about techniques and research rather than the company itself. GedUK  07:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, this company is one of few in Japan to start marketing phenotype selection (designer baby) service. It is similar to the American company —The Fertility Institutes. The cited sources have information on agricultural gene research. This area is a common background for many companies in japan which are now entering pediatric and other medical biotechnology fields. My aim in the Wikipedia articles is to compare and contrast several of these companies by straightforward summaries of past accomplishments and future stated projects. There are several differing approaches these companies are taking and there seems to be a notable lack of information on English Wikipedia currently regarding such matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKoshiba (talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that, but the question is, why is this company notable? What coverage has there been of the company in reliable sources? Comparisons of companies should not be carried out by editors, but by independent people, and then we report what they said. Otherwise it is original research which isn't allowed. GedUK  07:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand now better. There is no real analysis that I intend to carry out—merely a juxtaposition of several companies via both their own publicly available material as well as third party sources. There are definitely some Japanese language industry publications which discuss these companies marketing strategies in this regard. I hope that will suffice. Thank you for clarifying. DrKoshiba (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they sound like they will do enough to stop a speedy deletion at least. GedUK  18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Majority Action

I see that you declined the speedy on this. I'm going to do an AFD, but I'm just curious why you felt it was worth saving. --Mblumber (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because I declined the speedy doesn't mean i necessarily think it should be kept. I just felt that it had done enough to assert notability which is what is required to get through A7. Whether it has enough potential etc is for a community decision, for example at AfD. GedUK  19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lengthened your semi on Great Power

Hello Ged UK. Per a request at WP:ANI#Serious IP vandalism., I semied Middle power, and then someone asked if Great power could be extended to match. There is a 'clockwork' IP vandal who returns to do his thing every time the semi expires on either of these articles. Let me know if you disagree, or just change it back if so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine. Thanks for letting me know. GedUK  09:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

4images wiki page deleted (non notable software)

Dear Ged, I have seen that recently you deleted 4images page because it was flagged with PROD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4images

I was using wikipedia to find the comparison between different image galleries, and I have read this article in the past and I found it useful. But I understand that being only one more image gallery (a good one in my opinion) probably don't deserve its own page, but then I would like to recommend to follow all 'what links here' and change the links to the deleted wikipedia page, to the home page of the software.

For example here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photo_gallery_software

where 4images is the first one in the list.

Also, Why 4images is the only one image gallery from the above mentioned wikipedia entry removed? I had the impression that it is a good software and widely use, at least as much an many of the others. I don't have any special interest in this photo gallery or any other (I have only use coppermine and 4images, and they are alike).

My concern is that only one page among all the photo gallery in wikipedia has been deleted. And some of the other pages could probably also being flagged as PROD like 4images was. So I wonder if the initial PROD was done by a competitor or was only done by someone that found that by chance and didn't care or forgot to do a systematic cleaning in similar topics.

Regards Pablomarin (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The 4images article was correctly PRODded in my opinion. There was no indication the software was notable (no third party sources for example). Most of the software in that list probably isn't notable either. The whole list is probably OR. GedUK  18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Deletion of Aurelio Nuño Morales

Are you sure, that he was not important? Did you recognize, that the request for deletion was pure vandalism of the blocked User:Trevor Marron? --Gamsbart (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

His es:Poliforum León is important enough, that it has an own article in the Spanish wikipedia. --Gamsbart (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There was no indication that he was important himself. He worked with notable award winning people, and on award winning projects, but that doesn't make him notable. GedUK  20:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And User:Trevor Marron has never been blocked. GedUK  20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, he is the leading figure of Despacho Nuño, Mac Gregor y de Buen Arquitectos S. C., a Mexican architecture firm, that was multiple awarded. So he did not work with notable award winning people, but he won these awards, too.;-) --Gamsbart (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
But you are right, User:Trevor Marron was not blocked, but speedy deleted. "...(Speedy deleted per CSD G3, pure vandalism or blatant and obvious misinformation.)" --Gamsbart (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
But the company won the awards, not him. However, I'm prepared to restore the article, however I will nominate it for deletion so that the community can come to a decision. GedUK  21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
ok. that's a good idea. thank you. --Gamsbart (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dean Caldwell

Hi - I'm confused over your declining of Dean Caldwell for a speedy delete. "Not a valid criteria" - did I do it incorrectly? Thanks,  florrie  01:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Florrie. Speedy criteria are quite specific, see WP:CSD. Essentially, if the article asserts he is important/notable, then that is enough for it to pass a CSD. In this case, as he had a weblink to a player profile, that would probably be enough to pass A7. However, he probably does fail WP:ATHLETE, as you pointed out. However, that isn't a speedy deletion criteria. They're rather specific and bureaucratic i'm afraid. PROD them if you think they're going to be uncontroversial. GedUK  15:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Latvia vs russia 2003

Hi,

I am confused over your decision to refuse Latvia vs russia 2003 csd. the article had no content and absolutely no reference what so ever... how does that fit the criteria for notability if there is no source to indicate any notability for the match in question or reliability of the very little content that was given which was out of context as well. I found you decision a little weird and after I saw that others agreed with my point in afd discussion I decided to ask for a little clarification so I don't make the same mistake again. Thank you --Rmzadeh (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at the AfD. GedUK  15:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2009/May&oldid=1089754750"