User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2009/November

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

Episcopal Charities

Hello. For the Episcopal Charities wiki page, why didn't you just ask for someone to add more information about why the organization is notable??? Just deleting it like that was harsh and uncalled for! Where is all the code for the page. I spent a long time developing that page! Please restore it and I will add notable information about the work EC has done and notable people it is connected to and works with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintSebastian (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If a page has been deleted... well, you're screwed. As far as I can see, there is no way to see what the coding was like once it's been deleted. Next time, make it on User:SaintSebastian/Episopal Charities (that's in your userspace, so no-one will delete it unless it violates a policy such as including personal attacks) and invite people to read it and review it to see if it's notable and well-written enough for Wikipedia. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, just checked a sudden thought I had. It's not even contained within your edit contributions. I'm sorry, but it looks like you've lost it for good unless you stashed it somewhere. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I can restore the page to your userspace for you to work on. I won't restore it to the mainspace yet, because someone else is liable to tag it and it get deleted again. GedUK  15:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Though it turns out it's already been done. I'm still not sure it's notable though. GedUK  15:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I a) didn't realise that admins had that power and b) didn't realise you were an admin. There's no mop in the top right corner of the page. Sorry for potentially confusing SaintSebastian. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but if i wasn't an admin, then i couldn't have deleted it ;) It does say on my userpage by the way. GedUK  10:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I just figured you started an AfD and I rarely bother going on user pages. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps I ought to find a good talkpage template. GedUK  11:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't there a mop in the corner? I've noticed that for a few other admins as well. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 11:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not automatic, it's a template/style sheet that needs to be added manually. GedUK  11:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Figured it was something that got added when one became an admin. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting old page

Hi there, Ged UK. Re. [1]: I originally registered for Wiki as User:PasswordUsername the better part of a year ago, then lost my password when I had hardware trouble, a pretty long I'd had saved on HD. (You'll note that the old account, User:PasswordUsername hasn't been active since Sept. 6th.) I have presented evidence as User:PasswordUsername to the recent ArbCom (see WP:EEML), a case concerning the conduct of some secret mailing list members who have organized themselves into an attack team against their opponents, leaving me concerned about any potentially useful information they may find about my identity. I would really appreciate it if I could get a deletion, since this does seem to be the problem. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Ged UK, this old userpage forms part of the evidence in the WP:EEML case in regard to vexatious gaming of ANI by User:Anti-Nationalist, so it may be advisable to seek approval of the Arbitration Committee if you decide to delete it. --Martintg (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ged, it does not really form part of the evidence. The only real relevant evidence is the link to the noticeboard. Would you mind deleting the page? I am planning to write about this to ArbCom anyway – would you, perhaps, be able to offer a word of advice on how to proceed? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I will ask the two clerks for their view on whether to delete. I don't imagine there would be a problem, as all of ArbCom would (I think) be able to see it anyway (admins can see deleted content), but I would rather get clarification first. As to how to proceed, I'm not sure what advice I can give beyond contacting ArbCom. GedUK  10:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Ged UK. I would appreciate it if you could let me know if you get a response from the two clerks – I was hoping I could get this corrected before going to ArbCom with the import of this case for the EEML case, but I will look over what I can do in the present case. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As the ArbCom case is still ongoing, I don't feel it would be advisable to delete the userpage. I have added it to my watchlist, and will keep an eye on it in terms of vandalism. Thanks. GedUK  08:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Illegal Musik page deleted

I'm recreating this page - please don't delete it again. I realise it may not be a notable label in the UK but it's New Zealand's top R&B label with top 10 artist and historic artists attached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakmode (talk • contribs) 02:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I can't actually find that page in my log, so I can't tell why it was deleted, or if I deleted it. However, the article needs to make sure it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. It doesn't matter if it's UK or NZ. GedUK  10:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually I've just found it, I didn't go back as far as May in my first sweep. It was deleted because another editor proposed it for deletion. This allows 7 days for any editor to bring the article up to standard, or it can be deleted.
I have restored the article to your userspace, at User:Sakmode/Illegal_Musik. You can work on it there before transferring it to the mainspae. The information that you've mentioned here wasn't mentioned in the original article, there were no links to reliable sources that talk about the label, and there was no indication that the label was/is notable. Make sure you address these criteria when you develop the page, or it's liable to be deleted again. Let me know if you need any help. GedUK  10:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Restore Integration Objects Page

Hi, I'm writing to request that you restore the page for Integration Object that you deleted yesterday. The page was created by someone who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia and its rules and regulations. I wanted to update and improve the page, but I see that you've deleted it.

Can you please restore it so that I can update the content and properly cite the content?

Thank you in advance.

Lcfenwick (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I can restore it to your userpage for you to work on if you prefer, then it won;t get renominated. it'll be at User:Lcfenwick/Integration. GedUK  13:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Sounds great, thank you!

Lcfenwick (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ged UK. I've updated the Integration Objects page and I'm wondering if you can restore it onto the main space for me - you can review it at User:Lcfenwick/Integration. Please let me know if you have any further issues with its content, etc. Thanks again for your help. 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've glanced over this, and it seems vastly impoved! You can move the article to the mainspace yourself, just use the 'move' tag at the top of the article page. I can't guarantee that the article will be kept, but it's certainly enough not to be speedy deleted. GedUK  19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Lcfenwick (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at CalumH93's talk page.
Message added 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CalumH93 (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting new editor feedback, page protection

Hi, I did as you suggested on the Kobi Arad article, adding a fair amount of explanation and suggestion.[2] Could you have another look? Thanks. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Where can I report the user He has been adding his pov in to a series of articles I can't report him for 3rr as he adds he does not exceed 3 reverts where can I report him for vandalism ? [3]--NotedGrant Talk 12:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You reported him in the right place, there was just too much of a gap. I couldn't see where it was copyvioed from, or do you think it's original research? Either way, make sure you give him a final warning. Then if he does it again, take back to AIV, or let me know. GedUK  12:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Final warnings given to both the IPs 1 2 I dont know if it's copy vio or not (an IP added that copy vio notice) but it is pov pushing and vandalism I warned (4im) both IPs used but to no avail --NotedGrant Talk 12:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the last warning was 3 days ago. Warn them again today. Sorry, it beaurecratic like that. GedUK  12:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out :D --NotedGrant Talk 12:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem :) GedUK  13:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:TwoKnives/Project Reset.Org

Thanks for userfying the above-captioned material for User:TwoKnives; it's acts of kindness like this that make new users feel better about their initial WP experience. I just wanted to say that I moved the page from TwoKnives/Project Reset.Org to User:TwoKnives/Project Reset.Org -- I think you might have erred slightly by leaving it in articlespace, where it cropped up as I was patrolling recent pages. Mind you, I've been wrong before, and this particular situation has never come up for me as of yet, but I'm fairly sure it should go to a sub-page of the user's page. If I have erred, please accept my apologies and if you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're quite right. I was obviously have a bad few minutes! Thanks for tidying up! GedUK  08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin Coaching

Oh, good god, no! O.O(!) I was merely asking about it. I'm really not sure if I have what takes to be an admin, ever, let alone right now with less than four thousand edits to my name. Secondly, my mainspace edits have dropped sharply since I got Twinkle, whereas my talk page edits have shot right up thanks to the ease of warning vandals. Before, I'd revert a few, but largely leave it to others if I wanted to do something else. Nowadays, I can't seem to find the time to actually improve the articles, so I don't think I'd make a good admin, much as I'd like the power to block anyone who annoys me added ability to some good for Wikipedia. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, I didn't say you were ready now, just maybe you would be in the future. But anyway, the offer stands, should you wish to, but certainly don't feel under pressure! And if you're getting away from article work, then turn off twinkle for a bitk, and get back to it! There's no pressure to revert vandalism all the time if you'd rather do something else! :) GedUK  15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That's the thing. I actually prefer vandal fighting in some ways. Besides, J.delanoy needs some competition! :P Anyway, I think I may consider it one day, but I seriously doubt if I'm the sort of person who'd ever work as an admin. I'm a snarky, smarmy git sometimes no, most of the time oh, fine, all of the time. I can also be pretty bitey on occasions. See this thread for details of my latest adventures into "Why I shouldn't be an admin". The show's now in it's third season... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Then stick to vandal fighting! Everyone contributes in the way that suits them best! GedUK  18:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi, Ged thank's for the welcome you see the problem is I support Manchester United :). I also wish to know that is their anyway that I can upload a picture. I know how, however it says something about autoconfirmation please tell me what that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki id2 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't hold it against you! Autoconfirmed just means that you have to wait 3 days from when you created your account to be able to upload pictures or edit protected pages. Please make sure that you read all about copyright before you upload a picture though, as they can get easily deleted. GedUK  18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

your opinion requested

I'm writing to you because I see you have closed AFDs before so you must know what the standards are.

See Bárány (surname) Looks to me like a redlinked telephone book. Deletion is not right but what about all those red links. Should I also add John Bárány, Anne Bárány, Mary Bárány, Eric Bárány, etc.? (of course, not!) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I'd say contact the user who created all the redlinks and ask if they intend to make articles for them. However, he's been indef blocked, so I'd just delete the redlinks. GedUK  18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Logo image

Hey Ged like you have a liverpool logo can you tell me how to get a manchester united logo. (Wiki id2 (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Hi there! Have a look at Wikipedia:Userboxes for a huge list of all sorts, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports for sports, and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football for the football ones. There's a couple of Man U ones. GedUK  08:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy delete

My question is, if you have better things to do, why don't you do them instead of writing that you have better things to do? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing further, if you don't want to do the deletion, don't. Give up your administrator rank and keep your comments to yourself. No one is forcing you to be an admin or to watch what does and doesn't need to be deleted. It's your choice, so please don't complain about it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's my choice, I do it for the love of the project. The better things I was referring to were deleting pages created by users who don't know any better, rather than deleting disam pages that appeared to only have been created to make a point. Anyway, I apologise for my tone, trawling though 100+ CSD pages got me grumpy. GedUK  08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The user at the centre of this activity is quite aggressive himself. Another user created a disambiguation link at the top of the article, which is the correct thing to do. The editor then deleted the link saying that it was not appropriate. The other editor then protested on the first editor's talk page. The editor then insulted the first user and explained why he thought the link was unnecessary at greater length, all of which was against policy. I have had the opportunity to deal with this editor in the past and until admins become involved, he refuses to back down on his position. I'm sorry if this caused you inconvenience, but the process for lodging a complain is more difficult than doing what I did. I you help make the complaint process easier, and you'll have less work. Thanks again for all your hard work. I was a bit grumpy yesterday as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That's alright. I could see that there was a lot of stuff happeneing there, but I didn't have the time to look at it properly, so I threw out the snippy edit summary. It didn't really cause me inconvenience. If yuo do need me to look at stuff, let me know. GedUK  15:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that you take everything that Walter writes above with a giant pinch of salt. He has been extremely aggressive and offensive on my talk page and his complaints about my behaviour are utter hypocrisy - everything he criticises about me is actually more applicable to himself. He goes into attack mode over even the slightest change to any article that he is assuming ownership over. I am only one of a number of victims of his ongoing and unacceptable bullying and intimidation. His "grumpy" comments to you are unfortunately typical of his way of reacting to anything he doesn't agree with and also typical of his aggression and incivility towards various other editors. And, for the record, I never "insulted" the other editor I discussed The Reverend article link issue with and the matter was resolved amicably. This is yet another example of the false accusations that Walter is fond of inventing in order to attack others. He is the most offensive, hypocritical and aggressive editor I have encountered on Wikipedia. I should not be expected to accept or tolerate being intimidated by him. I asked him to stop but he just continues to do so. Afterwriting (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the John Steinbeck sprotect

This makes writing and watching his bio a pleasure again! Steinbeck fans everywhere owe you. Even students preparing to crib from the bio for book report owe you. SBHarris 04:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's alright! GedUK  08:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IPvandal 98.177.155.42

{{AIV|nv}} A string of edits to the sandbox and their 'own' talk page isn't really vandalism. GedUK  13:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not just either of these. This user is misbehaving on a number of counts:
  • removing the sandbox header
  • ignoring comments made on his/her talk page
  • deleting said ignored comments
  • using the user talk page for a purpose unrelated to communication with the user
  • using "fair use" images in user space
Please see the history. -- Smjg (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The sandbox header removals isn't an issue really. They are perfectly entitled to ignore and delete messages on their talk page. They shouldn't be using the talk page for the Wii sports article, but I'd hesitate to call it vandalism. I'll keep an eye on them. GedUK  14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, so sandbox blanking isn't a big issue in itself, but when somebody is doing it repeatedly after having been told not to, it becomes more of an anomaly. But ... "They are perfectly entitled to ignore and delete messages on their talk page." Since when? Last time I knew, we had this principle: if you delete a message sent to you (at least if it's one of the warning messages), it's taken to mean that you've accepted the instruction, and therefore ignoring and deleting such messages is a form of abuse. -- Smjg (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
therefore ignoring and deleting such messages is a form of abuse Huh? Let's do this on my talk page, rather than cluttering up AIV. Ta. GedUK  14:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked him today. GedUK  14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I intended to continue the discussion sooner. And I noticed that more users have expressed concern over this IP's behaviour.
But this whole discussion has left me a little confused about user talk page policy. FWIW, I've just taken a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. So, effectively, a user may delete warning messages from his/her talk page as long as he/she had read them, but choosing to disregard them is a breach of the policy the warning was about, rather than a breach of talk page policy. Correct? Still, as you've probably realised, I'm not convinced that the user even read the warnings.
But now that 98.177.155.42 seems to have gone through a few behaviour patterns and has since been blocked, I guess the best we can do is wait and see what happens in 65 hours' time. -- Smjg (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
If a user/IP deletes a warning, or indeed any message, it's generally accepted that that means they've read it. It doesn't, of course, follow that that means they're going to alter their behaviour as a result. If a user is warned for vandalism 4 times, and does it a 5th, then they can be blocked, regardless of whether the messages are still on their talk page.
I suspect that the warnings were read, but they were ignored. If they weren't read, then that's the user's problem, there's not much else we can do (we can't email IPs, for example).
Hope this helps! GedUK  08:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Avercast

I am trying to write an article for Avercast. This is my first time writing an article.Please allow me to continue. I am still getting familiar with Wikipedia's rules. I will take more time to be familiar with the rules of posting an article. Let me know if I may still proceed to post an article about Avercast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SupperE12 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I've restored the article to your userspace, so you can work on it there. It's now at User:SupperE12/Avercast.
Have a look at the general notability and verifiability guidelines that should help show what you need. Also please have a look at WP:CORP which is some guidelines on what articles about companies need to have in them.
If you have any questions, please let me know! GedUK  21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Really?

Templating a seriously regular contributor and using a Usenet post as a defense against A7 deletion? Not your usual calibre of contribution...  Frank  |  talk  14:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the templating is more than I ever used to do; I almost never told someone that I'd declined their speedy. I do need to work on the text somewhat, or possibly abandon using the template notifications. The Usenet post; well, as I said, it's borderline. If the contributor didn't have their own article, then I'd have deleted it, as it is, there is an creditable assertion of notability in the article, just.
I'll take the last comment as a compliment, in a round-about sort of way ;) GedUK  14:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Understood, Ged, thanks for the message. I'll take it to AfD later today. GlassCobra 14:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ged - you took it entirely in the right way. As for the template, maybe alternate versions for n00bs vs. Cobras? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  14:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's a possibility. I'll have to host the script myself I think, if i want to make those sorts of changes, or possibly just develop my own templates I can use. Or maybe just write stuff. Radical thought, I know! GedUK  15:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Genetic Testing Laboratories, Inc.

I'm puzzled. First, I was not the original tagger of this page, I only replaced a tag removed by the creator (as far as I remember). So there's little need to give me boilerplate text about reviewing speedy delete criteria. But most puzzling is the fact that you actually deleted the page after declining the speedy. Huh? Hairhorn (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry about the template, you're right, you did only replace the removed one. That's obviously something it couldn't pick up. I've only been using the script a few days, and frankly it's caused a few problems. Secondly, I didn't actually mean to keep the article in the first place, so I deleted it almost immediately afterwards. I'd forgotten that it would have sent a message out, so once again, sorry about that. I think I may ditch this script as more effort than it's worth. Sorry again! GedUK  08:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha... whoops! No trouble, sir. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Harland Mordecai

Hello Ged. Yes, the article described someone who has a beard called 'Harland Mordecai' :) It was close to {{db-bio}} and a funny kind of {{db-vandalism}} as well. Thanks for letting me know. Best. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a junk article, could have gone under either of those with no real problem! GedUK  10:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Diligence

I don't think the Diligence article needs rewriting, because there never was a proper article on it. I just left the maintenance tags others set. The page content isn't even a stub and never warranted a separate article split from the current disamb page, but at best some of it could maybe serve as a preface for it. Or maybe it would just belong to Wiktionary/Wikiquote. So I stand by my move request Don Cuan (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been added to since your message. Compared to the other 6 heavenly virtues, it's seriously short, and those 6 ought to be the level that this one is at, though probably shorter. I'm not qualified to write it, but I'll see if I can find some people on here who are. GedUK  10:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Watan Group

Hi, I created Watan Group as part of WP:NEWT,oops/sorry you sent it to AfD here. Since then I've added more references to the article, but after two weeks there's only one vote. Could you take another look? Smartse (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Don't apologise for NEWT, I've generally no problem with it. I nominated this at AfD because I declined the speedy on it, but wasn't really sure that it would generally pass WP:N. I've relisted the AfD. It's certainly improved now, and I suspect that it will pass, which I would have no problem with. GedUK  10:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a relief, based on some of the comments on the talk page you'd think that someone had started world war 3! Oh well, hopefully it might lead to some changes one day... Smartse (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
WereSpelChequers and I talked about this at the last wikimeet in London, so we're generally on the same page. GedUK  18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} -WayKurat (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dr. David Foreman

{{tb}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs) 27 November 2009

AfD nomination of Waka Flocka Flame

An article that you have been involved in editing, Waka Flocka Flame, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waka Flocka Flame. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, all I did was decline the speedy! GedUK  17:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I figured it was better to bring it to your attention than not; it has an unusually long edit history for its week-long existence but I'm finding it hard to say that anyone except the creator made "significant" edits. If there's anyone you feel should be notified, or any comment you care to make, please feel free to take a hand, but it's certainly all right with me for you to let it lie here. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I don't mind. I've no comment to make on it really. GedUK  17:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} Taqi Haider (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WWE TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs

You said the page was semi-protected, but you never actually put the protection on (the logs show this). The vandalism from IPs has only increased since you said you protected it. TJ Spyke 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:PeterSymonds protected it on the 25th for a day. Sorry, i can't find it on RPP, so I can't remember what I said. I've protected it for a week. There's also a few '(c)' dotted about on that page (and maybe other wrestling ones). Wikipedia doesn't use copyright symbols. GedUK  21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The "(c)" aren't copyright symbols, they designate who the champion is going into the match. I suppose a note should be put in explaining that. TJ Spyke 21:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, that would be helpful, you could confuse a stupid person! GedUK  21:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Ah,... there is no need to discuss this: there is a vandal who goes around and changes articles to crazy spelling and inventing crazy lies as in [4] - it is a nationalist vandal, who wanted to cleanse German names from wikipedia (ask: user:Markussep and others editing articles about South Tyrol about the veracity of this). some of his changes (all reverted for vandalism by now) have been like these: he changed the o in local names to ȫ or o to ö and so on... he edits now mostly under the IP range 151.15. (i.e. [5], [6], [7], [8]) and sometimes under IPs from the range 79.54. (i.e. [9])but gets reverted on sight. I nominated the redirect creations of this vandals main account User:Kellyempire09 because they redirects in question are ultra stupid fakeries - it is like creating the following redirects for USA: ÜSA, ÜSÄ, USÄ, ÜSSAE, and so on... the spelling he uses is wrong and he does it to make editors who clean up after him waste time. So please don't waste my time, by putting 3x times a notice about speedy deletions on my talk page (I know all about it, I have been here over 3 years now), delete the entries in question and next time trust me when I put an explanation under the speedy deletion request: [10]. thanks, and if you see any other of this spelling vandalism acts - delete/revert on sight! --noclador (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I know what to look for. GedUK  10:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks Ged and sorry for the tone of my comment here yesterday - reading it now it sounds exasperated and impolite to you; which is not my intention; thanks for the diligence and thanks for helping to look out for further vandalism. cheers, --noclador (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's alright, it can get very frustrating when you have to explain everything over and again on the more subtle vandalism like this is. GedUK  14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2009/November&oldid=1091509252"