User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2013/May

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

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Request to undelete the article on the European Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions EUROSAI

Dear Ged,

you have recently deleted my article on the European Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions EUROSAI giving the reason that "Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".

Supreme Audit Institutions (like for example the National Audit Office in the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Audit_Office_(United_Kingdom)) are important public bodies supporting the parliament and the public in executing external control and audit of public spending.

The public money each of the Supreme Audit Institutions audits in their country is a huge sum, as it is usually the whole of the state budget.

Therefore, I think EUROSAI deserves to be mentioned in the English-language Wikipedia, as it associates public bodies of importance for the right functioning of a transparent and democratic public finance sector.

EUROSAI already has articles in the German-language Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUROSAI and in the Polish-language Wikipedia http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europejska_Organizacja_Najwy%C5%BCszych_Organ%C3%B3w_Kontroli

Apart from that the English-language Wikipedia contains articles on INTOSAI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_of_Supreme_Audit_Institutions (which is the global organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (and has seven daughter-organizations in differents parts of the world, EUROSAI being one of them).

Therefore, I think it is most relevant to publish an article on EUROSAI also in the English-language Wikipedia. I would be grateful for undeleting the article as the organization. If you find the article should be improved please give me a hint, and I will do it.

Best regards, Aleksandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandra SAI PL (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! What we would consider to be important or notable in the wider world isn't necessarily the same as what wikipedia considers it to be. Wikiepdia's criteria are laid out at WP:notability; essentially it needs links to reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject. The article as it was didn't make a credible claim to importance. If you look at the National Audit Office (United Kingdom) article, you can see how that uses sources to establish notability. It's not about size of budget, or who it reports to that matters; it's are sources discussing it. Discussions don't have to be criticism, but they do need to be independent.
I'm quite happy to restore the article to your userspace for you to work on, and when you're ready you can move it back to the mainspace., let me know and I'll do it and tell you where I've put it. GedUK  12:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ged,

Thanks for your reply and for your comments. I will work on the article to make it coherent with Wikipedia's criteria. You wrote you had restored the article to my userspace: however, I cannot find it? Could you help me find it?

Best regards, Aleksandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandra SAI PL (talk • contribs) 13:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I said I could do it, if you wanted ;) I've restored it now to User:Aleksandra SAI PL/European Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions EUROSAI. PLease note that EUROSAI already exists and redirects to International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions, which I didn't realise before. GedUK  11:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ged! There is a possible block evasion/sock puppet but it is two different IP's rather than a registerd user that are making similar edits of an already indefinitely blocked user who is also a sock puppet of another user. Do I go to SPI for this? Thanks. Banana Fingers (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! GedUK  11:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning

G'day. Not at all happy about your warning about 3RR on my talkpage, as any editor is exempt from 3RR when dealing with Evlekis and his socks in an area he is topic banned from. My rollbacking on that article is completely justified under normal rollbacker policy. A simple click or two would have shown that it was Evlekis, and you would have seen that he has used at least 29 IP accounts since 6 May to continue evading his ex-Yugoslavia topic ban and indefinite block. Nothing about that in your message, so I assume you did not check. We love you guys, and we know you are busy, but... Feel free to delete the warning. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the notice. GedUK  11:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please semi-protect the page Mariah Carey's single "Heartbreaker"?

Hi, can you please semi-protect Mariah Carey's single "Heartbreaker", because that unknown user may reverting genres without permission. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.183 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be done now. Let me know if you need something else. GedUK  13:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

disambiguation pages and IP editor

Hi, I saw your edit at Peter Hansen House disambiguation page, which I just restored. And that you had posted to an IP editor about that person's incorrect speedy deletion. The IP editor seems to be disruptive, hitting a lot of dab pages having NRHP listings that I developed a long time ago, and which have served well.

About the Peter Hansen House dab, that is valid despite both entries not linking to a current article. Both entries are valid per MOS:DABRL (if i recall the section correctly), and disambiguation is actually between valid topics. New editors arrive and state dogmatically that "disambig is between actual articles", but that has been considered before and I could dig out the discussions. The dab page serves a need, now. And if you or someone really wants to dispute it, another option is that the articles can simply be started. Do let's discuss though, okay? And let's avoid any kind of war started by the IP editor. I'll watch here for reply. --doncram 13:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I've no problem with your revert; that wrinkle of DABRL I'd obviously forgotten/didn't know. Now you've explained it, I can understand it, though it is counter intuitive. Maybe we need to create a banner/notice about similar situations. Anyway, in future I'll be more careful.
Now, related, I deleted Bradshaw House, which was probably also an error on my part. I'll restore that too. GedUK  13:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Ive restored George Bradshaw House too. GedUK  13:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But George Bradshaw House is not there, it is a new redirect. Could you restore it (again?) please? It is counter-intuitive, i wonder if some hidden message is needed like about the long comments within short pages. Or a template on the Talk page? Or, i or others should just start some of those articles so the dab pages don't seem odd to others. I can do that, can work on Bradshaw House, George Bradshaw House, and Peter Hansen House. It will take me a few days though.
Actually, much of what the IP editor was doing was okay/good maintenance. I am trying to recapture that, after first Undo'ing most o the edits. Thanks again. --doncram 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Eerr, George Bradshaw House was only ever a redirect. I've restored it entirely, it's only had one edit, the creation. I would suggest raising the template/message/banner etc issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation for their opinion. Yeah, I don't think the IP was being malicious at all, but didn't know the intricacies. I mean, I'm supposed to be an experienced editor, and I didn't know those intricacies! GedUK  21:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, ok, i see about that being a redirect. Yes, about intricacies. And one issue not being terribly intricate, involving subjective judgment about whether geographical order (in the U.S. by state then city) is good or not. I happen to think that order works well for dab page lists of U.S. places, and that it is better to keep a stable order that is clear, rather than promoting items having current articles vs. redlink ones, which changes. Hmm, maybe that is an intricate argument, too. It was discussed a lot several times over. Anyhow, thanks! --doncram 21:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection of World's largest airlines

Hi,

You protected World's largest airlines, saying it was due to unsourced comment. In fact, there had been a recent string of edits by an IP which addressed a long-standing and valid objection to the structure of the article which had been on the talk page for two years and in a template in the lede. These edits were exactly consistent with the cited source. WorldTraveller101 undid those edits flagging them as vandalism. (This editor has consistently demonstrated that he doesn't understand what vandalism is and has repeatedly inappropriately warned IPs for vandalism.) Since the anonymous editors have been most helpful on this article recently from a look at the page history, might you reconsider the protection? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm undecided about this. I can see your point, but what the article needs is some proper consensus about what should and shouldn't be in there. I can remove the protection, but the problem won't go away until you all agree what should be in there. GedUK  11:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree re the article being in far from the best shape and needing discussion (though I only edited it for the first time fairly recently); I just don't see anonymous editors as contributing disproportionately to the issues with the article or vandalising. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but if I remove the protection early, and if I don't then when the protection expires, is that the same problems will start over again. But I think you're probably right, and I'll unprotect it now and we'll see how it goes. It may be that full protection is the only way to get the discussion going. GedUK  12:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that it's full protection, not semi-protection, that that article might need, though it's not there yet. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Xbox 360

Hi could you remove the protection on xbox 360 please 86.168.53.89 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd need more than just a request from an IP on an article with a protection history that long. It's a vandalism and advertising target. If you want something changing, make an edit request on the talk page. GedUK  11:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013


Prince Abdi

H Ged, I see that you placed a protection on the Prince Abdi article a month ago. The vandalism has started up again. I wonder if you could protect it again. Thanks. Span (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Span (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Roccorowe

Thank you. We need to see if there are any more sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

About my page (No To compulsory Military Service movement)

Hello, Ged UK .. Please I would like to know why did you deleted my page? Please let me know and forgive me if I make anything wrong in my page but I really tired to write all information on it! and I wrote about a real things not fake. So please let me know. Naderwagdy1 (talk) 1:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. It wasn't deleted because people thought it was fake, but there's a couple of big issues. Firstly it was felt to be very spammy, or promotional. That can be fixed through changing the writing style. Beut even if you do that, it'll still struggle because there's nothing there that explains why it's notable.
What Wikipedia needs is references to what other news agencies/websites/journalists are saying about it. You provided links to further reading which talk about the importance of no complusory national service, but they didn't talk in depth about this movement.
Have a read of notability guidelines and the reliable sources guidance to see what Wikipedia needs. I hope this helps. GedUK  13:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you....

...for your closing of the RFPP request for Melody Perkins; much appreciated, as always. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. GedUK  12:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

prince abdi

Please delete my article if you have contributed.

It is false information about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeabdi (talk • contribs) 08:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. The problem is that we can't be certain that you are who you claim to be. You've been told on your talk page what yuo need to do. You need to follow the procedure at WP:BLP#Legal issues, and make a request via OTRS. Please e-mail info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a link to the article and details of the problem. Thanks. GedUK  12:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Himansh Kohli and HHL

In Himansh Kohli article - new references have been provided. Previously (ie any version before 16th May 2013) it might have been deleted for some other reason but as of now it bears no similarity to any previous version and doe not qualify to get deleted.This article deserves to be in wikipedia. User bonadea had asked for deletion of this article but bonadea did recive a response - "Hello Bonadea. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Himansh Kohli, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's a bit expanded on last time, and the sources are different. I'm not testing them for GNG, but it's different enough that it needs to go to AfD again." HHL article has been reverted without any need - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humse_Hai_Liife&diff=555622531&oldid=555621920. Please help these 2 artciles from unnecessary vandalism.Lionbase1234 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I see that Graeme Bartlett has userfied one article into your userspace for you to work on. I've told Bonadea that they should not have retagged the article once I'd declined the speedy, but I can't overrule Graeme's deletion of the article. I felt it was sufficiently different from the AfD version, he didn't.
I don't really have an opinion on Humse Hai Liife as it's not a show I know. This seems to be more of a content issue, and those should be raised and resolved on the article talk page. Regards, GedUK  12:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi. As far as HHL shows is concerned at present I have sorted out the issue. But what concerns me is when would the article Himansh Kohli appear back? I have improved it and at present the artcile is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lionbase1234/Himansh_Kohli. Lionbase1234 (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Whenever you move it back; just use the move tab at the top of the page and remove all the User:Lionbase1234/ part. However, I'd strongly suggest you ask Graeme Bartlett for his opinion first. GedUK  11:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Have already asked her. and also mentioned reasons as to why the article needs to appear in wiki. can you also tell?Lionbase1234 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, the problem with the article is that the sources are really very weak; they don't go into much detail about him at all. There are specific problems as well
  1. The first source, doesn't say anything about wanting to make a hero film, only that he left the show.
  2. The second source doesn't mention him at all
  3. The third source also doesn't mention him at all
  4. The fourth source does at least mention him, but it's very, very brief, and only says that he's appearing in something. Nothing about him really.
What it needs is an interview with him or a profile piece. It doesn't have to be in English, and it doesn't have to be online.
I hope this helps. GedUK  15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Justifications made byme beofre - References I had provided as to Which films is he making his debut with, which serial he has already played the male protogonist, Provided with Imdb link as well. Why an actor who has acted for more than 1.5 years in prime time television serial - be denied a page in wikipedia? The lead actress of teh same serial has a wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Jain. Then why not of Himansh Kohli??? Its a relevant article as he is Indian TV actor at present and aslo making debut opposite a well established south actress Rakul Preet Singh.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-01/tv/31958583_1_raghav-show-shooting - This link I gave only to say he left the show in between to join films. 2nd reference was to say that its Divya Khosla Kumar's debut as a director.Also that mentions she is producer's wife.3rd reference says the film's shoot began in October 2012 from 31st. 4th reference shows he was radio jockey. Only online interview I could find was http://rangmunchtv.blogspot.in/2011/11/i-me-myself-himansh-kohli.html and in youtube there are many interviews of his.Till July 2013 we will have only this much reference online and from July 2013, since he will be promoted in various newspapers through various articles and interviews we will get more.But till then this needs to appear.Lionbase1234 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC) additionally there are http://www.tellychakkar.com/tag/himansh-kohli where stories related to him appear and also http://www.metromasti.com/tv/gossip/Channel-V-Humse-Hai-Life-love-blossom-in-Sia-and-Raghavs-life/14415.

Lionbase1234 (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. If you read the notability guidance, you'll see that what Wikipedia needs:
  1. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material
  2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  3. "Sources" for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.
  4. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
  5. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.
There's no problem with your sources on nos. 2-5 as far as I can see, but it's number 1 and my highlighting that it struggles with. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, and that's the big

issue with your sources. The Abigail Jain article has at least one substantial source, the Kohli one doesn't.

THe tellychakkar source and the metromasti sources you liksted here are more of the same. THey show what he's done, what characters he's played, but there's nothing about him, stuff that tells us why he's important. That's what Wikipedia wants.
I hope this helps! GedUK  13:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Why he is important is because he is established TV actor and Humse Hai Liife was very successful serial. Due to his popularity, having over 50000 fans in facebook officially, he got break into movies that too produced by Tseries - Bhushan Kumar and directed by Bhushan's wife. Already I have told that every TV actor has a wiki page like Shritama Mukherjee, who made her debut after Himansh Kohli or when Abigail Jain has a wiki page, who was his female lead in the serial, then how can Himansh Kohli be said to be not important???Lionbase1234 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Also the metromasti and telly chakkar was to just to give an idea that his career moves were being followed by the media.Important references are the four which above I have already justified.

"http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-01/tv/31958583_1_raghav-show-shooting - This link I gave only to say he left the show in between to join films. 2nd reference was to say that its Divya Khosla Kumar's debut as a director.Also that mentions she is producer's wife.3rd reference says the film's shoot began in October 2012 from 31st. 4th reference shows he was radio jockey. Only online interview I could find was http://rangmunchtv.blogspot.in/2011/11/i-me-myself-himansh-kohli.html and in youtube there are many interviews of his.Till July 2013 we will have only this much reference online and from July 2013, since he will be promoted in various newspapers through various articles and interviews we will get more.But till then this needs to appear mainly cause he is famous as television actor of Humse Hai Liife fame."Lionbase1234 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The ONLY reason wikipedia thinks someone is important and needs their own article is because there's lots of sources that talk about the subject in depth. That's it. Those other articles Bhushan Kumar and Shritama Mukherjee both have lots of sources some of which cover the subject in depth, at least 3 or 4 paragraphs each. That's how wikipedia decides what's notable. NOT how many fans they have or that they're in a big show. GedUK  12:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Simplest reason is he played the lead protagonist in the TV serial for a year -12 months and the show ran for 1.5 years and the female lead has a wiki page for herself - Abigail Jain.Lionbase1234 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how I can make this any clearer; the only reasons Wikipedia will have an article about anything, is because reliable sources write about it. Neing in a popular show, having lots of facebook fans or twitter followers, someone else in the show has an article is IRRELEVANT. THere MUST be reliable sources that discuss him in depth. If they don't exist, he can't have an article. GedUK  08:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So Fresh: The No. 1 Hits Article Protection

Hi Ged UK. Thanks for protecting this article again. However, I am asking that you please consider protecting the page for longer than a month as I am worried that the IP who keeps vandalising this page will simply do so again once the protection expires. I am suggesting that you protect the page for at least 3 months. JayJ47 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A fortnight, then a month, then 3, then 6, then a year, then indef. It usually escalates like that. GedUK  08:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks JayJ47 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries. GedUK  11:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Why You deleted a Spam Free Link

Hi Ged UK, On [Richard Petri] page, I inserted a external Link. It is spam free and It is about biography of Petri. What is wrong with the Page Julius Richard Petri - The man who invented Petri Dish ? Can you give me a reason, How it is violating the Wikimedia policy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshkamboj (talk • contribs) 09:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

All of your edits are to add links to the same website. It's clear to me that yuo're only here to generate traffic for that site. That's why I've blocked you. GedUK  11:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2013/May&oldid=1089754375"