User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2011/May

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

unprotect request Shahid Malik

You have semi-protected ‘shahid malik’ at the request of shakehandsman who has an obvious axe to grind. As far as I can see there has been no vandalism but legitimate editing.

I myself left the below message for shakehandsman:

“Having quickly read through the issues I edited your contribution. The main two charges against Malik that hit the headlines are rightly included - these issues were reported on every TV channel and every newspaper at the time. The issue you focus on was minor and not worthy of the weight you attach. It was never on the TV, it involves £140 odd pounds and according to the website of the Parliamentary Commissioner it is clear that he did not think it was even worthy of taking to the Parliamentary Committee. I will look into this further. I’m no wiki expert but ordinary readers would think it very strange that there is no analysis of his defeat. He's only on wiki because he became an MP and how he lost is obviously relevant. I would rather be interested genuinely in why you persist in the way you do - surely you can see, as stated by others, that on occasions there is no balance in your work. I hope this is helpful”

If you look since mid-January he has been completely obsessed with malik. Indeed your semi-protection has allowed him to edit freely. NB He has also put in some libellous and defamatory pieces today – in a BLP this is very serious.

I ask you to unprotect it so that all editors can legitimately engage. Wikipedia is there for all irrespective of registration they say.

He is incredibly manipulative and in a bid to circumvent Wikipedia rules he wrote the following on materialscinetists discussion page:

" Thanks for helping with this. In case you aren't aware the problematic editing of this artice goes back a long way and I've uncovered numerous sockpuppets. It seems they've resorted to IP editing now so I've requested page protection as the editor making these edits is clearly very determined indeed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Looks like they're back again. Can you deal with this please as I don't want to have any 3RR issues. Thanks."

Under the circumstances I would appreciate you unprotecting. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.152.170 (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't protect it, DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did. GedUK  15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Cunard

I have replied on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Bay - page protection

Thank for your responding promptly to my request for page protection for Michael Bay and making that protection indefinite (at least for now). The article still needs a lot of real work so helping us to keep the vandalism down is appreciated. The Red Queen (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. GedUK  11:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

REFF-Burn - Reducing Emission from Fossil Fuel Burning

Hi Ged UK,

Thank you for your moderation on the REFF-Burn - Reducing Emission from Fossil Fuel Burning. Apologize if it's not very well standardized for the website, as I'm very much new in here. If time permits, can you please inform me on how to sort the copyright materials and to get the article to Wikipedia.

Regards and have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishardana (talk • contribs) 02:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rishardana (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. When you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, let me know where I can find it.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on here.

Please make sure yuo include my name (Ged_UK) in the correspondance so that the people who receive the email will know who to notify. Once the confirmation has been recieved, I can restore the article.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

Additionally, I make no promise that the article won't be deleted under the notability guidelines, so I'd advise you to check through and make sure that you can add independent reliable 3rd party sources that explain why the topic is notable.

Hope this helps, if you've any further queries, feel free to ask. GedUK  12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to bring back a page Rohan Shravan

Hi Ged UK,

I know you've deleted the following page with the reason A7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohan_Shravan&action=edit&redlink=1

Please reconsider now to bring back that page. That person is the CEO of the industry which is producing upcoming tablets. Refer, http://www.crunchgear.com/tag/notion-ink-adam/

Consider this as my humble request.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babu som (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The tablet, and possibly the company, might be notable, but there's not enough in that link to show that he is. Additionally, it read like a resume and existed solely to advertise him. If you can find more sources that talk about him in some depth, rather than just mentioning his name in passing like that crunchgear one, let me know and I'll have another look at it. GedUK  11:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Request to protect House of Anubis

Hi, I was wondering if you could protect the House of Anubis article again because people constantly keep updating uncited information about season two on it and also on is episodes' list article. Thanks for your time! --Avatarfanx2 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  07:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Thanks! --Avatarfanx2 (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet 94.64.35.23

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plouton2/Archive. Note particularly the contribs of the last 3 blocked IPs - spurious (and semi-coherent) accusations of vandalism on User TPs relating to Greek-related pov seem to be a defining characteristic of this sockmaster. RashersTierney (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've lowered it to a semi. Not sure there's quite enough to block the IP on DUCK grounds, but a checkuser might be helpful. GedUK  12:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Hi! thanks for the protecting the page. For Rajinikanth, I was expecting the protection which was made in pages like Shah Rukh Khan, Amitabh Bachchan and other bollywood actors. What is the criteria for that. Pls let me knw. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 12:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean in terms of indefinite? The admin has to weigh up the level, frequency and type of vandalism, the protection history, whether it's a BLP, and whether action against a single or small number of users or IPs would better solve the problem. The other articles you list there presumably had some high level of vandalism that the protecting admin thought was serious to indef. On first glance at them, I think both are excessive. Hope this helps! GedUK  21:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

?:/..

Who 's that Plouton anyway?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.89.1 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Chevy Vega article

I put the complaint in on 842U and BikerBiker as making major changes to the article against consensus from the Automobile project discussion a few months ago. I made a few changes today as per that discussion without deleting anything..only changing section titles suggested by 842U, and changing the form of the Reception section as suggested by 842U without deleting content, and minor tweaks to the lead sections suggested in the discussion. The current discussion does not support a re-write, only changes to the lead and Reception sections, which are the only sections that have been attempted by 842U and BikerBiker to completely change to begin with. You could have waited for a response in the discussion from other BikerBiker who caused the Lock, based on my complaint. This is non-constructive rehashing of two Users who clearly could not have their way at restructuring these sections of the article with biased, non-neutral contributions, and are in fear of not getting their way again, with BikerBiker's request of the longer lock. Look at my edits of the two sections. I'm almost certain they would have gained approval by the other participants as only form was changed, not the content (which isn't needed).

The article should be rated B (not C) with a review pending for A rating, as it meets all criteria. This would be more constructive for the article at this point in time, and is long overdue. It was recommended by an administrator (who also worked with me on the lead) for a GA review long before the Automobile Projects discussion several months ago.

A rating states the article is well-organized and essentially complete (it is) having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like or elsewhere. (it was) Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. Very useful to readers. (It is) A fairly complete treatment of the subject. (It's complete) A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. (An expert would find nothing wanting) Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article (done) and style issues may need addressing. Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, (it is) It should be of a length suitable for the subject,(length was actually trimmed and three sections were split) appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources.(it is) It should be well illustrated, (it is) with no copyright problems.(none) Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate.

B rating states A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. (not needed) Expert knowledge may be needed. (not needed) The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. (not needed) Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.(it's very complete and would satisfy experts) (Barnstarbob (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Let it drop Bob, and let's have somebody completely neutral do a quality rating. Your WP:OWN behaviour means you are in no position to give an objective review. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC
Stop interfering every time I make a post. You obviously need to control all aspects of the site including talk pages. It's my goal to have it rated. It wasn't your goal. You're WP:OWN edits lead to the block from my complaint. againt you. I've followed the discussions and User suggestions and have not changed User contributions at will. You have. Your goal has become clear, and at this point, it's not beneficial to the article or the site. There is much time I've wasted and could have been improving other articles Right, that's what we should be doing...actually improving articles that need improving, not turning good articles into biased web blogs.
Ged UK-How do I go about getting this article reviewed for an A rating, which should have been done after the Project Automobile discussion, several months ago? An administrator suggested a GA review way back before the Projects Discussion and this current conflict. Thanks.(Barnstarbob (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC))
The article was protected to allow the RfC to reach its conclusions without the article constantly changing
To request a review by the relevant wikiproject, you'd add it to the project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment, though this article is already listed there.
To list it for GA status, you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. GedUK  11:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

rattle golden samba for lucas Leiva.

Please see Lucas' twitter page if you don't agree that he received the award. "Thanks Kop" is his message,placed on Sunday 15th May. It is a serious award,voted for and awarded by many Liverpool fans. It has also been featured on the www.lfc.tv website this week. see below http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/video/Features/Duo-win-Golden--26217.php3

If the club can recognise it then i'm sure the player would like wiki to recognise it too.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher maguire (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I know he won it, and I'm certainly not disputing that he should have won it (he's been our best player this season), I just don't think it's a notable career achievement. Club player of the year, yes. Offical fan-club, maybe. A general fan award from an online awarded by an indeterminable number of Koppites? Not really. GedUK  11:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

Thanks for that. I despair at Barnstarbob's actions, who clearly has learned nothing from his recent block, nor the advice he has been given by several admins. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

no problem! GedUK  13:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I request that you unprotect Chevrolet Vega. The RfC that was going on has been closed, with a clear consensus amongst editors that the article could benefit from significant changes. There is a high degree of likelihood that, once unprotected, the article will experience "enthusiastic" editing both from Barnstarbob and, potentially, from other editors. However, Barnstarbob's recent behavior shows that extending the protection will not reduce the likelihood of edit warring once the protection has been lifted. To my way of thinking, we might as well "bite the bullet" and lift the protection now, then let the dust settle where it will. Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done I'm watching the article and will protect it again and/or block users who edit war. GedUK  12:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks! And I fully expect you to beat me roughly about the head and shoulders, or at least slap me with a trout, should I introduce any edits that even hint at edit warring. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Senkaku Islands dispute

Do you know the phrase "a plague on both your houses". As you may know, it comes from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet? This idiomatic phrase expresses a kind of frustrated curse on both sides of an argument. In the play, Mercutio's words are spoken just before he dies in Act III, scene 1.

IMO, this English expression captures the reasoning which informed Nihonjoe's decision to lock Senkaku Islands here and Senkaku Islands dispute here. My guess is that the reasoning which informs your judgment here mirrors the thinking of Nihonjoe. He offers a succinct, indisputable analysis: "It's a POV-magnet, and edit wars happen frequently."

Despite the ways in which you and Nihonjoe are both very correct, could it also be valid that you both misconstrue the problem at hand. A temporary bandaid is a mismatch which rewards an edit warring strategy rather than suppressing it. Compare Lvhis's explanation: I don't mind if that page got locked, but do mind it was locked without that tag.

Please reconsider this context:

A. diff 20:32, 2 May 2011 Tenmei (58,335 bytes) (in the absence of talk page responses to reasonable questions, the POV headnote is unjustified -- contradiction without support is unpersuasive per WP:DR -- see talk)
REVERTED by Lvhis here, not addressing specific argument nor explicit questions
B. diff 20:53, 24 May 2011 Tenmei (58,335 bytes) (Per WP:NPOV dispute, ""simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" -- specifics & engagement with questions is essential)
REVERTED by Lvhis here without acknowledging explicit issues and concerns

Do you know the game of musical chairs? Please re-examine this sequence of edits from a slightly different perspective -- as illustrative of something like the familiar children's game.

In effect, your disinterested administrative judgment turns the effort to encourage collaborative editing into a game of musical chairs. In response to an questions consistent with WP:Burden, Lvhis explained: If the POV-Title was still on there, I would have been happy to discuss this with you. Now, I am not interested in. Because this article and its title now are looked like without dispute on them."

Compare Talk:Senkaku Islands#Edit request from Lvhis, 24 February 2011

In the development of talk page threads at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, a number of inter-related strategies have become manifest, e.g.

  • repetitively proposing POV-tag without acknowledging previous threads which address variants of the same subjects
  • persistently reciting a mantra of POV complaints without acknowledging the existence of responses or the existence of archived threads which address similar claims.
  • insistently reiterating a bifurcated "false dilemma" overview which construes both contributors and issues as "favouring one side over the other" while marginalizing any other parsing analysis.

Locking the article (or unlocking it) becomes a red herring which distracts attention from our processes for discerning the threshold requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.

In other words, is there a better way forward?

Please consider unlocking the article. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I protected the article because of an edit war. When the article is unlocked, people seem unable to fully build consensus on the talk page. The talk page is simply used to state a position then go and enact it in the article. Protecting the article will allow/force all participants to actually build the consensus on the talk page. I'm not going to unprotect it until the dispute is resolved. GedUK  20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Generation Love

Thank You for the protection; can you forward the article to someone in the songs Wiki porject or evne the Wikiproject for country music? I have been trying to edit the article to my best knowledge but another user refuses to discuss his changes with me.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/billboardbiz/photos/pdf/country_update_0502.pdf Correct me if I'm wrong, but page 8 says that Generation Love is a Hot Shot Debut right? And the date is May 02, 2011. Not May 14, 2011? Please help me correct the other user. Thank youOther dictionaries are better (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Johan Elmander

Can you have a look at the above article? Sisman Yanko and I are having a small battle over the transfer of the player to the Turkish club Galatasary. Galatasary have published that they are signing the player on a free transfer and have reported this to the Turkish stock exchange. However, Bolton deny knowing anything about this and report that the player hasn't signed anything although they expect him to. I have included all these facts in the body of the article but Sisman Yanko is reverting and only including that Galatasary are signing the player. European clubs are well known for announcing that they expect to sign a player when they in fact haven't (e.g. Cesc Fabregas from Arsenal to Barcdelona) and until Bolton or Elmander confirm the signing I feel that my edit is the better one. I have tried to advise Sisman Yanko on this page, but all they have done is add vandalism warnings to my page and I am now close to violating the Wikipedia:3RR. Nice. Quentin X (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been done while I was offline, is this done? GedUK  18:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sisman Yanko did report me for violation of the 3RR, although I feel this was incorrect and there is still no result. I think we have come to an understanding on the article itself. Quentin X (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Other user started again today. Has deleted cited comments where there is no proof player has signed for Galatasary other than the club saying he has. Player has been coy on where he is going. Can you have a word? Quentin X (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi! I find that you had earlier semi-protected User:Sodabottle's userpage for a week. However, from this edit it appears it has been vandalized again. I am not sure if I can ask for semi-protection on someone else's userpage but I just wanted to bring it to your notice.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 06:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  15:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy of article lacking claim as to notability

Hi. As to the declined speedy on Elizabeth Carey, the entirety of what the article claims is that she was born on a certain date, was Canadian, was a home-maker, and was a social activist. None of that is, in the article, indicated to be notable, and none is in a normal reading read to be notable. The article is bereft of refs. It does have one EL. Much of it is based on "unpublished history". Even if the EL counted as an RS ref, it doesn't support any claim to notability made in the article. IMHO, the article therefore meets the A7 criteria, as it is: "An article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. ...[that does not have] any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." There is simply nothing notable in being a homemaker or social activist, and that is all that the article itself claims. You can respond here -- tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I viewed the EL provided as an indication of importance. She probably isn't notable, but that's a different threshold. GedUK  11:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 UEFA Champions League Final

Please explain the reason for protecting this page - ie, evidence of any 'vandalism'. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I, and other editors, were trying to update the article with accurate, verifiable facts. This was removed with false claims re. WP:RECENTISM - which is an essay.
There is no disputing that RS exist to verify the score right now.
Is there some objection to editors wishing to add verifiable facts to Wikipedia?  Chzz  ►  20:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry; forget that. For some reason, it was telling me it was fully-protected. Sorry,  Chzz  ►  20:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
No idea why it did that; but it was during trying to update the scores - and the changes being reverted. I've raised that on the talk, see Talk:2011 UEFA Champions League Final#Score updates removed - I'd be interested to hear your views.
Again, sincere apologies for my misunderstanding, thinking you'd (full) protected the article.  Chzz  ►  20:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries :) GedUK  11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2011/May&oldid=1089754534"