This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.
New message on the discussion of a page you protected...
I left a new message on the discussion page for Bugs Bunny. I was hoping you'd correct the problem on the page, since you protected it from an edit war. Thanks. :)
~~LDEJRuff~~ 14:43, 28 June, 2011 (EDT)
Commented on the talk page. GedUK 08:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your protection of White Hispanic and Latino Americans, which has been under siege for a year or so. Now you (just above), User:SamEV (see his/her talk page history) and I are receiving unpleasant and perhaps even threatening notes on our talk pages. As with the article, these notes are from the same person but always use a different IP address. Dozens of IP addresses have been used by this person. Perhaps you know how to get this all hunted down by the proper WP parties and the problem ultimately fixed. Thanks again. Hmains (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you provide me with a list of IP addresses that this person(s) has used, then I can see whether a rangeblock might be effective. GedUK 11:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this enough information? I went back 6 months and found the 27 IP addresses all start with 75.254.*, 75.199.*, 75.240.*, 75.222.*, 75.227.*. And 75.223.* and 75.119 were each used once. In the 3rd and 4th nodes, any number is used. Also user:SamEV has stated in some of his revert notes that these are a sockpuppets of banned user:M5891, but I know nothing of this myself. Hmains (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find out. GedUK 19:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently they're too diverse for a feasible range block I'm afraid, so we'll just have to ignore them. If it becomes a big problem for you, your talk page can be semi-protected if necessary. Let me know and I'll do it. GedUK 20:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It's ok. This user is just solely devoted to inserting his/her changes into the White Hispanic and Latino Americans article, having gotten started back in 2009 when the user, user:M5891, got banned for sockpuppetery. It is just this article that may need very long term protection from IP editing. Thanks for all. Hmains (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Vertebral artery dissection
Thanks for actioning the protection request on vertebral artery dissection. Unfortunately, the current version is the wrong one. Could I ask you to have a peek at the discussion on the talkpage? JFW | T@lk 12:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I had reverted to the last stable version. It may be worth pointing out that same editors are participating in discussions on the talk page, and others are simply drive-by reverting. DigitalC (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, most of that discussion is over my head. As far as I can tell, there is no stable version yet though, so whichever one I leave it on will see the other group of people here. GedUK 19:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Primeval
Do we need to have the Primeval page protected as the "Original Run" title should be to present!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55tompty55 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there consensus for that on the project talk page? GedUK 19:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You are the editor who semi protected the article Persian people but I have few questions for you.
First off, you seem to a neutral editor with no political interest in this article and this is good.
The article has had numerous serious issues before it was semi protected and it had been tagged since June 2009.
This article fall significantly short of being reliably sourced, critical claims are left outsourced, several of the citations are to random websites. This issues were never resolved in the talk page but the tags were removed by a single user who had no right to do so whatsoever 18:18, 9 January 201. User: Khodabandeh14. His justified his actions by the short sentence : "I don't see any issues in this article"
I am now asking you to repost the tags or at least open up the semi protection so I can repost them. Also is there any way to request that the claims made in the article be reviewed by neutral third parties? A sort of 'fact check' jury? I'm new to wikipedia. There is not even once reliable thirld party publications that supports the claims that Persians are an 'supranational' and ethnolingustical group that Include Tadjiks and Hazaras. But thare are numerous sources such as the CIA factbook that claims that persians are a distinct ethnic group.
I’m concerned that the guidelines of Wikipedia are not being upheld and the only thing that determines the contents of articles are numbers of editors and contributors.
There's a number of ways of getting the article reviewed, but the talk page is the first step. If that dobt meesn't work, then you can go down the dispute resolution techniques. I know nothing about the subject really, and it was two years ago I protected it for an edit war. Hope this helps! GedUK 20:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
---
Hey obviously the article has been protected for about 6 month and not two years. You can check the history page of it if you doubt it. Is it okay that I retag the article again and dispute the neutrality when I become and regular contributor?
Truthtellers78 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You can tag it wehn you autocofirm, but I would suggest that using the talk page first is a better step. GedUK 11:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
RFPP note
Gday, long time no see. Anyway, a user whose request you declined posted again here. I took a quick look. The vandalism is slow as per your decline, and the range is very big. (Range 31.147.0.0/16 (up to 65536 users would be blocked) according to the calculator). Just wondering whether we should look into this as the user does seem to be quite determined to continue the nationality war over there. Thanks for your time, --Taelus (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey stranger! Well, someone else has protected it now. The is a perfect candidate for pending changes, but we sadly don't have that tool anymore. I think all we can do is see if it continues. Serbia/Croatia stuff is a minefield I try to avoid. GedUK 18:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the protection
Thank you for your time in speedily locking the article Infosys [[1]] for a period of 1 week. Hope it hinders further vandalism. Cheers. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 16:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Still exists, though to apply it to articles requires consensus to be established on said article's talk page, this is per the result of the RfC on Pending Changes. Just thought I'd let you know. :) Regards, —James(Talk • Contribs) • 12:23pm • 02:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but getting consensus takes so long that the effect of PC is lost as a short term fix. GedUK 06:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Bgwhite's talk page. Message added 07:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I don't have time to look into this at the moment, I'm just clearing RPP while I'm on my lunchbreak. I'm sure an admin will see that post soon though, ANI is obviously well patrolled by admins. If there's been no response when I get home tonight, I'll have a looksee. GedUK 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and sorry to disturb your lunch break. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC))
No problem. Drop me a reminder through in 5 hours if you need me to look at it, or I'm liable to forget. GedUK 12:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know it got picked up and issue for the moment is resolved. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC))
Thanks for letting me know. GedUK 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
After seeing my talk page, I also left you a little bit of an administrator review just to give you my view. You can respond at my talk page if you wish to discuss a bit about the review instead of responding at your review page (you may wish to add a level 3 header when editing my talk page to keep it separate). CHAK 001(Improvements? Please let me know!) 17:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
As a football fan, and a person (well, admin) an admin (well, person) who can differentiate between transfer gossip and the truth, I request you to have a look at Thibaut Courtois and the article's talk page. Regards. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, admins are people too! ;) I'll try and have a look at this tomorrow, but I won't be back online till lunchtime. SoWhy might be able to help as well. GedUK 21:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look (and hopefully comment). Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Nah, it's not worth the pain. Let him whine on about nothing of consequence if he thinks it's important. Just ignore him. GedUK 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sergio Aguero
Thanks for the protection. We have the same problem on Sergio Agüero as well, now. It was calmer before, but the last hours it has been crazy. Do you think it should be protected too? I just ran out of 3RR's so I can't do anything about it (although I've talked to the editors on their talk pages, but none of them have responded). --OpenFuture (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you semi-protected MPC-HC due to repeated vandalism. The same user (changing IP-adresses) makes trouble on Nvidia PureVideo. Could you semi-protect that page, too? --Regression Tester (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Just in case you don't know, the best place to ask is at Requests for Page Protection, it'll often get picked up faster that way. GedUK 12:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, and thank you for the link!--Regression Tester (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Regression Retard is the vandal, he keeps reverting what is facts confirmed by Anandtech, a well respect site which is always in contact with Nvidia. Nvidia already confirmed it with Anandtech, I'll revert back all the wrong stuff posted by Regression Retard. You can read it yourself here.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4380/discrete-htpc-gpus-shootout/11
"They indicated that the new VPU was a faster version, also capable of decoding 4K x 2K videos. This means that the existing dual stream acceleration for 1080p videos has now been bumped up to quad stream acceleration."
If it's wrong to post what has been confirmed by Nvidia, then Wikipedia should just shut itself down for being an embarassment and supporting vandals like Regression Retard.
"on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" This is a big lie, I can't edit to add what is facts confirmed by the company Nvidia themselves.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.59.4 (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I never denied that "the new VPU was a faster version", on the contrary I believe this is the most important change for VP5, but I think the speed change in H.264 decoding is much more important than the improvement for MPEG-1 / MPEG-2. Concerning "quad stream acceleration", please explain what it means on Talk:Nvidia PureVideo, as said, you can simultaneously decode several streams with earlier hardware, so without additional explanation this is clearly misleading.--Regression Tester (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You are a vandal, that's all you are. You are not Nvidia, they know their own products capabilities and they explained it to Anandtech what it can do, you're just a vandal who cannot accept the fact you're wrong and posting unverified, false info. The VDPAU documentation is WRONG and outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.99.205 (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
A bit stickier, but still ok. Do I look alright on the process? BusterD (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Perfectly good close. It's one of those things that you see crop up at AfD all the time: "so-and-so doesn't meet WP:ACTOR, or WP:ATHLETE or WP:PROF, or any of the tens of other subject specific notability criteria", whilst forgetting to check to see whether they do meet the GNG. If they meet the GNG, then the subject specific ones don't really matter. That's the case here. GedUK 18:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a rare case when any page creator nominates his or her own FA for deletion, so I entered the arena seriously. Another new administrator I queried about this closing cautioned me against non-admin closes in any case "where the office is getting involved". Can't argue with that logic. And of course I have my own opinion on the subject myself, but I tried to let the discussion guide my closing rationale, only using arguments stressed in the discussion. I feel comfortable enough in my third keep I won't trouble you further. I've been at home this week and enjoyed trying daily involvement in the deletion process. I think I now understand it better than I used to do. This "plunge" today was a dip in those deeper waters. BusterD (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to 'practice' with AfDs, I'd recommend just watching some of the more interesting ones, make your own closing decision offline, then compare yours to the closing admin's opinion. GedUK 12:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page. Message added 16:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I appreciate your effort to protect the page from edit warring, but given that the person who requested page protection is a) involved in the content dispute and b) requested protection three minutes after repeating the contentious edit, I think it's fairly obvious that the request was made in bad faith as an attempt to keep his edits in for that much longer. This doesn't make any of your actions less valid - it's not that you happened to protect The Wrong Version, but rather that you were used as a tool in a content dispute - but is there a venue where I should bring this up? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of that, but I couldn't be certain which the better version was; as far as I can see the protected version is causing damage. Now, where to bring up the subject depends on what you want discussing. If it's their behaviour, then there's Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. If it's something requiring admin eyes, then either Admin's noticeboard, or the more dramarama Admin's noticeboard:Incidents if you think there's admin specific action required. GedUK 18:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Is it a Wikiquette issue, though? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I ended up taking it to WQA as the lowest-intensity option, although I'm still not sure that's the venue for it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Previous issue | Next issue 
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Just in case you don't know, the best place to ask is at Requests for Page Protection, it'll often get picked up faster that way. GedUK 12:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
