User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2014/July

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

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2014

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2014, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

Page protection for Good Luck Flag

Hello, Ged UK!

Thank you so much for protecting this page pending the resolution of an edit war. I have been corresponding with my Wikipedia mentor, Mr. X, about this situation, and I'd like to share the most recent part of that correspondence with you. After reading it, I hope that you'll agree that unprotecting the page and inserting the consensus content will result in one of two possible positive outcomes: either the consensus content will remain without further reverts, or the IP will revert again, at which point he/she will be proved to be acting in bad faith and action can be initiated against him/her.

Yesterday morning:

IP 114.31.218.104 has again replaced the sourced content written by Koshihikari with the same unsourced content. And this happened after Koshihikari opened a discussion on the talk page for the article. What is the next step? Oh, by the way, I checked 114.31.218.104's user talk page and found a warning. Can one assume that he/she is aware of the warning? Thanks again for any and all assistance! Ailemadrah (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I would assume that the IP is aware of the warning, but the only way to know for sure is to see if they respond to it or delete it. You may also want to leave a message on their talk page inviting them to the article talk page using the Talkback function.
The next step would be for discussion leading to a consensus on the article talk page, while the article is locked. If you and Koshihikari agree on the content, and the IP doesn't join the discussion, then that will be the established consensus. At that point, you can request that the page be unprotected, or wait until the protection expires 10 days from now, and introduce the consensus content. If the IP then reverts the article, they are not only edit warring, but also editing tendentiously, and should be reported to WP:EW/N.- MrX 15:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday afternoon:

Thanks again, Mr. X! I've done both things you recommended: inviting the IP into the discussion using Talkback and adding my own comment to the talk page, agreeing with Koshihikari's content. So I guess we all have to wait now to see if the IP responds, correct? Ailemadrah (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That's right. Since the IP has consistently taken no longer than ½ day to revert, and usually reverts within a few hours, I would expect them to participate in the discussion in a similar time frame, assuming that they are editing in good faith and are here to improve the encyclopedia.- MrX 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This morning:

It's been over 24 hours and the IP has not responded. Would it be appropriate to now ask that the page be unprotected? I do believe that the IP is not editing in good faith, and I would not be at all surprised if his/her response is to revert again, at which point we would have proof of a tendentious edit. Ailemadrah (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You can try, but you might find admins reluctant to unprotect it so soon. You can ask the admin who protected it (Ged UK), or you can post a request at WP:RPP.- MrX 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So what is your opinion regarding the best next step? Ailemadrah (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd say wait a week to see if they reply. Whilst they do normally revert quickly, they might be away, for example. If after a week there's been nothing, then I'll change it to semiprotection. You should mention the discusssion on their talk page as well, if you haven't already. GedUK  11:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, Ged UK! I did leave a message on the IP's talk page on 26 June inviting him/her to join the discussion on the Good Luck Flag talk page, but there has been no response. Ailemadrah (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, Ged UK. The IP has reverted again, within hours of Koshihikari putting in the consensus sourced content. Mr. X told me that if this happened, it would be considered a tendentious edit that should be reported to WP:EW/N. Should Koshihikari or I make this report, or is it something that is handled by an admin like yourself? Ailemadrah (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it ought to be made by someone involved in it, as you know what yuo're talking about. An admin on the board will action it. I see that the IP has been blocked anyway, so there's probably no point now. If they come back and do it again, the block will be longer. Sorry for the delay, I've been very busy! --GedUK  11:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

2016 NHL Entry Draft

Can you please remove the protection that you applied to this article? NHL Entry Draft articles normally have a 24 month lead time before the event as this ensures that the event is properly covered. The issue that this article has is not whether it should be created, but when it should be created.

In the state the article was in previously that would be considered enough to let the article stand based on the criteria that has been used for previous editions (2011-2014 specifically). In addition there were some transactions that had not yet been added to the main space. Please let me and the four or five other editors that normally contribute to these articles get back to doing what we normally do. Deadman137 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. You should speak to Coffee (talk · contribs) really, because this is related to their AfD close. All I was doing with the protection was enforcing that. Otherwise you can take it to DRV. GedUK  11:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The article has been to DRV already with a result of No consensus[1]. The AFD stands as a result....William 13:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. --GedUK  11:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
And somebody has started yet another DRV. It was redirected at AFD, and no consensus at DRV. Should it be at DRV again for the second time in less than 60 days?...William 12:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on DRV to be honest; I know it exists and I get involved every now and again, but I don't know the policies and practices. --GedUK  11:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Qassam rocket

Hi Ged UK, Thank you for adding semi-protection the article at Qassam rocket, I really appreciate it :) --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 09:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem! --GedUK  11:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you help me?

Hi dear pal! I am Tamravidhir. Though I have reached the veteran editor level, I yet don't consider myself to be veteran. I am still a novice, even if that means belittling myself. The problem which I am facing is that there is this article, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, which is an article on an Indian soap opera. Bade Achhe Lagte Hain is a Hindi phrase. It's difficult to make a direct translation, but the phrase vaguely means "looks too nice". The thing is that I have made major edits to this article. In fact its the article which has been most edited by me. I have added some useful information, kept in mind that "Michelangelo created David by cutting out what was not David" and kept the plot short and blah blah and blah. And what should be mentioned is that I have added extensive references to reliable sources such as articles published by national newspapers. And now there is a user known as TheRedPenOfDoom who has always dismissed the article saying that the references cannot be accepted "as per Wikipedia guidelines". He has even deleted information without reasons and he is the only user with whom I have had terrible experiences. The way he talks is atrocious. Sorry if I said something which I should not have said. Now, after many days he has come back and is again deleting info without reason and adding inappropriate tags saying the references to be primary. And I am pretty sure that this won't end by a healthy discussion. It will lead to something terrible. After which i would have to take a long break and come back later. I don't want that to happen. So I want a third opinion, your reviews. Please help me. I know that you are a WikiGnome. And I would like you to know what a user has written on his talk page:

"I saw what you did at Supriya Pathak. I asked you nicely but you took it on your ego and vented your frustration by blanking more sections of the page. If you really want to remove unsourced or poorly sourced info then why don't you give some time to other editors so that they can properly add sources.

You are clearly discouraging other editors who are still learning like me. You just want to be superior to others. First you want sources and when you are provided with them, you call them bad and unreliable. You should be encouraging people but it seems like you are on a mission to prove something.

Sorry for my this behavior but you kind of disappointed and demoralized me today. Sorry for bad English. LOL!

And this is true. I am not hatching a plot against the mentioned user, but just expressing my views and opinions and begging for help. help this poor user! Please I need a third opinion and your reviews! Please do edit and remove unwanted things from the article, if you want to. And if you are replying (Please do so. I know that you would, won't you?) then please leave a tb template on my talk page. thank you so much my messiah! --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Welll, I think they are primary resources! but still I need help! :/ --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. What I would rcommend you do is, on the article talk page, is list the sources that are disputed, and explain why you think they're reliable. Ask RPoD to explain why he thinks each of them isn't.
THe other place to discuss it is the reliable sources noticeboard; there's better experts there than I am. GedUK  11:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

last changes are not true

Hi, Ged UK! You’ve protected the article http://en.wikipedia.org.ext.prxs.ru/wiki/Oleksiy_Oliynyk?null but last changes are not true (Oleksiy Oliynyk is not Russian, he is completely Ukrainian).

Please, change the nationality of Oleksiy Oliynyk -- to only Ukrainian, prooflinks see below.

Explanation: As you know, Ukraine has a war against Russa by now. And Russa makes efforts to attack not only with its army, but in informational area as well, transforming everything Ukrainian into Russian or partly Russian.

Prooflinks

1) Oleksiy Oliynyk is Ukrainian citizen. Currently he is not Russian citizen. Prooflink: http://forum.mixfight.ru/showthread.php?t=3359&page=431; Translation from Russian, quote: Alexey Oleinik: "I have residence permit in Russia, waiting for citizenship ..."

2) Oleksiy Oliynykhas has completely Ukrainian origin. Prooflink: http://www.penza-press.ru/lenta-novostey/57626-1 Translation from Russian, quote: Alexey Oleinik: "I am Ukrainian, I was born in this country, lived there for 30 years. I have my parents, my brothers, my sisters, my friends, my teammates, my disciples there. My grandfathers were born and lived there". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukr Sektor (talk • contribs) 12:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to raise it on the article talk page. GedUK  11:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Ged UK! I just only asked you to correct the information in the article from wrong to right (see my post below).
You answered me: "You need to raise it on the article talk page. GedUK 11:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)"
May be far more simplier is to correct the information in the article from wrong to right? Or to allow me to correct this information?
Something wrong with my prooflinks?
The point is, I'm not enough of an expert on the subject to make such a change, especially when the source is in a language I don't speak or read. The only way this can be sorted is by consensus on the article talk page, or the edit war will just start all over again. --GedUK  11:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Request to userfy page

Hi Ged UK, you just now deleted an article Kulbir Jhinjer. Can you please userfy it to userspace of User:Ilovethewikis. He is a new user and will take sometime to learn wikipedia ways. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done It's now at User:Ilovethewikis/Kulbir Jhinjer. GedUK  12:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Happy Corner

Hi. You deleted this as G4, and that was appealed at WP:REFUND#Happy Corner, saying that this was a new article being translated from the Chinese. I have compared the 2009 version, and I think this is different enough to be given another go. If it went to DRV they would almost certainly say "Relist", so I have told the article author that I will myself re-nominate it at AfD, but give him a week first to clean it up and add refs. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. GedUK  07:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

WWE Raw

Extend PC protection? --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was offline over the weekend. Now it's expired I'm reluctant to reinstate it judging by the edits it's received since. Relist at RfPP or let me know if it picks up again. GedUK  07:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Joy Luck Club (film)

Phew! We (the IP user and I) finally resolved the BLP dispute. In fact, the IP user gave out the reliable source indicating the actress's death. I was able to search her acting credentials. Perhaps lower time protection, or disable protection? --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. GedUK  07:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Jab843's talk page.
Message added 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jab843 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ernesto Kreplak

Hello. A pair of weeks ago you had protected the article Ernesto Kreplak for a week, as some users were removing info from it. The discussion venues I had opened (the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard) were not used by those who want to remove portions of the article; but now Lugrac has simply waited for the protection to expire and continue the edit warring. That user had already been informed of the discussion, but just ignored it. --Cambalachero (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  12:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Alan Guth and Laura Mersini-Houghton‎

Hi there. Since you protected Alan Guth and Laura Mersini-Houghton‎, things have been quiet and we've been working toward consensus on changes (see Talk:Alan_Guth#Opening_section_-_priority_claims). However, a decision was now made by at Wikipedia:AN/I#Disruptive_editing_and_conduct_by_Holybeef to indefinitely block Holybeef. Given that, there seems to (a) be a consensus of the remaining editors, and (b) much less continued reason for protection. However, the anonymous editors who inspired the page protection - and who have not contributed coherently to the talk pages since the articles were protected - may still return. So may I suggest that you review the situation on the two articles and consider downgrading to semi-protection? Thanks. SCZenz (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  12:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ernesto Kreplak may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{dispute|expiry=30th August 2014

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BracketBot! GedUK  12:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Lee Zeldin

Thank you for responding to my request re page protection for Lee Zeldin. My concern is that the other editor in the dispute appears to have a history of logging out and continuing to make edits as an IP (or as IP's). He/she initially engaged in article Talk to discuss the issues, but has declined to do so since then. (They appear to have edited as an IP on User Talk: CFredkin as well.) I had hoped that by enabling partial-protection on the article, that behavior would be ended. However, by enabling full-protection on the article, with their preferred edits on the page, they might take that as a sign that their behavior is being condoned. Would you consider changing full-protection to partial-protection? Or at least consider encouraging them to stop logging out and instead engage in Talk? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Smug, ignorant Nazi twat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.107.38 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2014/July&oldid=1143018702"