User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2011/August

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

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars" section of Sufism

Over the last 5 weeks or so, user Tanbircdq has repeatedly added names to this list, of people who are not Sufi scholars by any stretch of imagination. He has repeatedly added the same names even after it was pointed out that they are not Sufi scholars.

Would be grateful if you could look into this and do something to dissuade him.

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you start a thread on the article's talk page. Part of the problem I have is that I've no idea who is and isn't, and the list isn't sourced so I can't tell who shouldn't and shouldn't be on there from the sources. The list should be sourced, then that allows you to require that any future additions be sourced as well. It also improves the quality of the article as well. GedUK  11:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The list consists entirely of people with WP articles. Clicking on each person's article allows you to see whether someone is a Sufi scholar or not a scholar at all or a scholar in some other area. At a minimum, you would easily be able to assess the merits of my complaint, by looking at the deletions I made that Tanbircdq reverted (sometimes multiple times, always without explanation). If that sounds reasonable, but it takes too much time to find such instances, I can provide a list. Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
So there must be sources within those articles that mention they're Sufi scholars. That's what the list needs. GedUK  12:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I have assumed that if they were Sufi scholars their WP articles would say so. In most cases, their articles say that they are scholars in other areas (e.g. legal scholars), with no mention of Sufism as one of their areas of scholarship. The editor who has been reverting my deletions has never once offered any explanation for the reversions, never even claimed that they are indeed Sufi scholars or pointed to any sources.--Sarabseth (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The critical thing to remember is that, counter-intuitive as it may initially seem, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. We can't just assume they're a scholar of Sufism just because their article says so; their biography needs a source that says they are. If there's a source in the biography, just copy it to the list article. If there isn't, then they shouldn't be on the list. GedUK  11:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What I'm raising though are cases where there isn't even any statement in their article that they are scholars of Sufism (so the question of sources doesn't even arise). Is it reasonable to delete someone from the list if they have a reasonably long article and there's mention of scholarship in other areas but no mention that they are scholars of Sufism?

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. My point is that I can't enforce it as an administrator because the rest of it is unsourced as well. GedUK  16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Got it! Thanks very much! --Sarabseth (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Starcade

Well that was odd. Do you suppose that they tortured his password out of him? Anyway, I have revdel'd the edit as it was a potential BLP issue. Account is blocked as compromised, so he's not coming back anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, it was odd indeed. Thanks for the revdel, I should have done that myself. Yes, it seemed like it was compromised it it refered to Starcade in the third person, so I indef blocked him. GedUK  13:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ged and Elen. I was pointed to the statement on Starcade's page yesterday, and it appeared to me that Starcade's colleagues/coworkers/whatever told him to quit editing Wikipedia since his block prevented other people at his IP address from editing, and they told him to post a statement on their behalf on his talk page announcing this. If that's the case, might autoblocking be counterproductive, as no one from that IP will be able to edit? (I don't know that my theory is true; it's entirely possible it's either a compromised account or he's just making the whole thing up.) 28bytes (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Starcade edited from three IPs. One is currently autoblocked - it's a local government IP but not a library, so I'm guessing it's where he works. The IP that has edits from other users (belongs to sbcglobal.net) isn't autoblocked - Starcade hasn't used it for a couple of months, so I don't think the mediawiki software will block it (I'll stand to be corrected on that one though). Hopefully if it does autoblock other users, someone will contact myself or Ged.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I just changed the block before I saw Elen's reply, so I've reinstated it. I'll see if I can find a good template, otherwise I'll leave a note. GedUK  19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Saw the note... but won't an autoblock prevent that IP from contacting you on your talk page? 28bytes (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I may be out of line here and if I am I apologize. I had run ins with this user last week as Elen will know. Anyway I looked at the talk page of this user as I was wondering if the disruptive editing from last week had resumed after the original 1 week block. I then found the block had been increased to indef. Anyway I am not hear to dispute any admin decision or anything of that nature. Was just leaving some background info as to why I looked at the talk page. Just wanted to query the note you left Ged, won't the block on this users account prevent someone posting on your talk page? Surly if they can't edit wikipedia they can not edit your talk page. I am happy to be corrected but was letting you know anyway incase you overlooked it. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC))
Well, only from the last IP that was used. As I understand it, there was a range of IPs that were being used, so the others shouldn't be affected. The note did say they could email me, and indeed I have received one from Starcade. And not out of line at all. GedUK  07:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this? User:Bachusbreak [1]

There had been edir warring between User:Bachusbreak and User:Aigest. The person User:ZjarriRrethues has warned User:Bachusbreak, but he just deleted that warning. [2]. I hope Aigest is an experienced user in that topic as the user page suggest. Can you interfere? Shriram (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Bachusbreak has already been blocked as a sockpuppet, so that seems to be resolved for now, though he'll probably come back with another account! GedUK  19:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and for clarity, people are perfectly entitled to remove warnings, and if they do it's taken that they have read and understood them. GedUK  07:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Just a quick FYI. I nominated List of ministers of the ULC as a featured list candidate. Please join the discussion! Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, though I only did a minor link change two years ago! GedUK  19:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Isenberg School of Management protection request

The Isenberg School of Management page was vandalized again by User:Teapotgeorge shortly after posting yesterday. A conflict of interest banner was posted stating: “Your article is written like an advertisement.” Not so. Our addition was entirely descriptive. We are doing nothing more, nothing less than briefly describing the Isenberg School’s principal components. If you cannot give us some sort of protection, can you recommend how we might best proceed in securing purely descriptive posts about the Isenberg School? Tsselle (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Tsselle

Really and truly, it is written like an advert. It goes into way too much detail about the content of the courses.=. For example:
  • Isenberg’s Part-Time MBA offers a complete online curriculum and a blended option,
  • Isenberg Honors RAP has similar features and benefits to the Fellows RAP,,
  • The Full-Time MBA is a two-year residency program. Its first-year curriculum focuses on core business disciplines; its second year emphasizes elective courses and student practicums.
Does an encyclopedia article really need to be a rehash of the prospectus? Clearly not. This isn't on the level of deleting for spam, but it really is overly promotional, even if it's not intended to be. The only protection that could be added would be full protection, (as both of you are confirmed users, semi protection wouldn't work), which would mean that only administrators could edit the article. This is clearly only an extreme and rare use protection. GedUK  07:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C.

Hey man can you also protect the Chelsea F.C. wiki page. Thank you --Shihan07 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  21:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network

Recently, you have just protected this page because Jj98 and Ctesjbuvf were having an edit war. I completely understand why you did that and I thank you as well. However, could you please find a way for you to just block those two from editing that page and starting another edit war? I'm sure other people would like to edit the article as well. If another edit war does occur and you do not see it, I will gladly take care of it. Thanks! Easy4me (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If they start edit warring again, and both were warned, you need to report them to WP:3RRN if they exceed 3 reverts in a day, or are consistently going up to 3 reverts a day (either or both of them). There's no technical way to stop an editor(s) editing a specific page; they would usually just get blocked for a short period. If they repeatedly get blocked, they'll either end up getting blocked from Wikipedia totally, or an admin can introduce a topic ban, which would stop them editing that article. A topic ban isn't a technical action as the software doesn't allow it, but is enforced by the threat of blocks.
As I recall, User:Jj98 apologised after I warned him, so hopefully he won't do it again. User:Ctesjbuvf hasn't edited any article since. Hope this helps. GedUK  06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Alberto Aquilani

Hi. As the admin who protected Alberto Aquilani, would you be wiling to remove the number currently displayed in the clubnumber field in the infobox? This appears to be incorrect and isn't attributed to the squad list on the official Liverpool website. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've unprotected it now as well. Now there's a consensus, pending the announcement of his number, we can take action against individuals who don't provide a reliable source of the new number. GedUK  21:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to the upkeep of the article including your continued monitoring of it post-protection. A footballer's squad number is a very minor thing in the big scheme of things but with luck it will help newer editors understand the importance of obtaining good sources for posting new information. And I fully admit to prematurely mounting my white charger when even the player's club's own website turned out to be a less than reliable source... danno 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to comment?

Hi, I saw that you'd recently edited the Anya Ayoung Chee Article. There's currently an RFC on it, and I was wondering if you would like to express any views? I believe that I've made a case for it's inclusion by showing that it doesn't violate any of the Wikipedia policies that I've seen, and especially none of the policies of WP:BLP. From what I can see there have been efforts to include the information in various forms for well over a year that have been blocked for various reasons, but in the current form I see no reason to disallow it.

If you don't want to comment, please forgive me and feel free to remove this section. (I'm new around here and hoping to encourage a few more view points to be expressed by anyone who may be likely to take an interest.) Thanks in advance. 186.45.113.90 (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

please reinstate semi-protection to Futurama (season 6)

IP vandals have once again started to revert the episode list to broadcast order, even though the consensus is to use the correct production order. Can you reinstate the semiprotection in order to stop these vandals? Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only happened once since protection came off, let's just give it a little more time. I'm away for a few days now, so if necessary, please re-request at WP:RPP. GedUK  05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Futurama_%28season_6%29&action=historysubmit&diff=444232720&oldid=444147340 It just happened again. Please reinstate protection. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is done now, yes? GedUK  14:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

List_of_Puerto_Rican_military_personnel

I think you pulled a wheelie in unprotecting without any comment and addressing. It would have been decent of you to ask the protecting admin first for his views. I ask you reverse, ask the admin, and then unprotected, or at the very least explain your action in view of the discussion. Its the decent thing to do.--Cerejota (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on Tony's talk page. GedUK  06:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh

semi protection required for this page , please add semi protection for this page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.226.58 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been any vandalism since the protection expired, only someone correctly removing the template, then putting it back again. GedUK  06:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Stacey Dash

Hello! You locked Stacey Dash on 15 May so I can't edit it. It has been 3mo. Please unlock it. 173.79.71.217 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I restored the protection following the end of the pending changes trial. Please ask Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who set the original protection. GedUK  06:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Dancube Network

If TestFreaks is viable for a Wikipedia article, why wasn't Dancube Network? I'm not arguing, I'm simply curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielCarville (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mainly because that has links to other sites/reviews/ etc on third party websites/magazines. That's how wikipedia works out notability, are other people talking about this site/product/person/event. If you can provide some independent sources that talk about your website; ie some reviews etc, i'll be haoppy to restore it. GedUK  13:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

City of Manchester Stadium

Hi again! You just said that "pages are not protected pre-emptively." Would that mean a move unprotection of the article above? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Put it this way, I wouldn't have protected it, though I totally understand why they did. It's just a convention that we protect in response to actual event rather than expected ones. You'd need to take that up with the admin in question. GedUK  13:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Nay, that is not what I meant. I meant that some admins follow the rules and only protect pages if needed (because they are at WP:RPP) although some admins use their own discretion on whether they should protect a page! Sorry for being sarcastic! Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I know it wasn't what you meant, I'm just trying to avoid getting possibly dragged into something I don't want to ;) GedUK  13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The community does set policies (rather, agreements) but there is no check of whether they are followed. Also, the admin who protected that page may have known policy, but may not have remembered it at that particular time. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 07:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea fc page protect

Hey bro can you protect these page 2011–12 Chelsea F.C. season, Chelsea F.C. Reserves and Academy and Chelsea L.F.C.. Many unknown IP's are editing these pages with many errors & without following amy wikipedia rules. Thanks --Shihan07 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done the 2011-12 one, but the other two are nowhere near bad enough to protect. GedUK  18:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man for your effort, i always keep this page clean but some making a habit of messing these page up.--Shihan07 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Juan Mata

Please have a look (and maybe protect) this page. Vandalism is going out of control! Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection isn't going to be much help, and it's not bad enough for full protection yet. If it kicks off, report at RPP. as I'm going off line. You might need to request a short burst of full protection, but any admin can make their own call depending on how it is. GedUK  12:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Sri Lanka article

I have some important edits to do excluding the disputed civil war and lead sections of this article. The article lacks inline citations and some important details in other sections. You may see in the article's history that I've been making some major, undisputed additions in those sections, during last few days. I don't think fully protecting it for 2 weeks gonna do any good because editors involved in the dispute are experienced and long time contributors. Moreover, disputed island nation/country sort of facts are not significant regarding to the country as a whole. Is there any method to allow editing other sections, protecting only those sections of concern? Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, no, the software doesn't allow that. The only way to do it is to use the {{editprotected}} template. If it's a lot of edits you want to make, you might be better doing them in a userpage of your own and then asking an admin (via the template) to copy them over. GedUK  11:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection for Champions League page

Please see Talk:2011–12_UEFA_Champions_League_qualifying_phase_and_play-off_round#Unlocking_for_today.27s_matches, I've requested it be unlocked so that the matches that just ended can be entered in. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've answered the edit request, which I think should address this. Let me know if there's anything else. GedUK  11:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Shaw

Our friend has done their usual edit here – protection again please. Perhaps the time has come for permanent semi-protection? This person is clearly going to keep coming back, and semi-protection doesn't really affect anyone else as it's not a page that other IPs are likely to want to edit. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given it a year. Maybe they'll have grown up by then, or pending changes will be implemented. Hell's more likely to freeze over, but ever the optimist! ;) GedUK  19:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. GedUK  14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Doctor_of_Education

Twinkle apparently added the wrong template. Could you perhaps fix it to use the correct template? LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it added the right template, but I contrived to put on the wrong protection. It was only supposed to be semi-protected, not fully. GedUK  11:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Luis Suárez (Uruguayan footballer) proposed

I requested a page move, based on the attempted move last week and your note after that on the talk page. I think this was the right way to do it, but if not, let me know. Anything else that needs to be add to the Suarez page? Does the World Cup handball incident need more discussion? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Have commented there. I'll have a read of it later today if I get a chance. GedUK  11:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2011/August&oldid=1141781586"