User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2008/December

The WPVG Newsletter (November 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi there! I've been going through the New Pages log, particularly the back end of it. I've come across an article (Sacrifice (band)) that you've added a tag to that hasn't been patrolled. I was wondering if you could make sure that you mark an article as patrolled before you tag it as then it won't show up on the list, which will save people patrolling an article that has already been looked at by an experienced editor like yourself.

Please accept my apologies if you are doing this and the software is lagging behind, or if you're just tagging articles that you're coming across from a different source that doesn't allow you to patrol them. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC) --Ged UK (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I was just wondering how I would mark an article as patrolled. I'm using Twinkle right now. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 21:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! new Page patrolling is a task that a few of us undertake, where we check that new pages meet the general WP criteria. The list of 'new pages' (going back a month!) can be found at special:newpages. When you click on a yellow article on the list, it means that no-one else has patrolled it yet, and at the bottom of the article, you'll see a link that says 'Mark page as patrolled' and the link will turn white on the new page list. That means that then nobody else needs to look at it because it's been done. Hope that makes sense! Cheers! --Ged UK (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way that I could do that via the Special:RecentChanges page, or with Twinkle? Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, no. Sorry! It might be worth suggesting/discussing somewhere, maybe the recent changes patrol talk page, or the twinkle talk page? --Ged UK (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks anyway! Genius101^Guestbook 22:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, from now on I'll be sure to mark the pages I've checked. De728631 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rudin–Shapiro sequence

Hi. I see you recently added a <confusing> tag to the Rudin–Shapiro sequence. If you can explain just what it is that you find confusing in the article (either here or at the article's talk page) then I will try to address your concerns. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, as a non-mathematician, it's simply that I cannot grasp what the whole thing is about (and yes, I could probably go through most of the maths articles on here with the same problem)! I guess, basically, it comes down to the article not making clear what the point of it is, what it can be used for. What are '+1s' and '-1s'? Is there any history to be told about it's development? I would love to see WP articles on things like maths and sciences be much clearer for the layman, though I realise that this is not always possible! If you take the tag off, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but thought it might help! Happy to discuss further. --Ged UK (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I can see that some more context would be helpful. I will try to put a History section together. I don't think there is a particular "point" to this sequence - it is just a sequence that has some properties that some mathematicians find interesting. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I realise there's often no 'point' to maths beyond the joy of the maths itself (my partner is a maths teacher, so I have some understanding of the enjoyment!), but for example has it influenced something else, did some other theory come out of it etc? Anyway, hope that gives you some ideas. --Ged UK (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Syeah Skate

Just to let you know this article has been recreated. As far as I can see it's substantially the same. I can re tag it for a CSD if you want, not sure if you're allowed to delete things without them being tagged! --Ged UK (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Already gone. Admins don't have to wait for someone to tag an article before deleting it if it qualifies. Thanks for dropping by. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for showing intrest, my experience with wiki editors thus far has not been pleasant. I included text to show the significance of the group, mainly the unprecedented success of an informal entity. I mean we're basically a brand with no central authority, non-profit, its all word of mouth. Anyway the editor who deleted it told me that the references I gave him are not reliable. But how am I suppose to reference something when it hasn't been duely referenced on the web yet? This is why I wanted to create the wiki page. Syeah Skate is all over the internet but on 'unreliable' sources apparently. I don't understand, as I told "Stifle" if Wikipedia only accepts reliable online sources then that sort of makes Wikipedia redundant doesn't it? Are the thousands and thousands of comments on the Vimeo video not enough? the Thousands of hits the Myspace and www.syeahskate.com gets not enough but a tiny citation in the Times would be? Furthermore there are plenty of reviews I can site from online community and media sites, the rollerblading equivalents of The Times lets say but again I was told these are unreliable. I haven't checked out the Band and Group guidelines you suggested yet but I definitely will! I really feel that this group deserves to be noted in Wikipedia. Granted there is very little available about Aggresive inline skating (Rollerblading) on Wikipedia... considering that there are over 45 million participants in this sport I think there should be, if nothing else matters consider that simple fact (and I am a member of Syeah Skate). If you have time watch our DVD! :) [1] Antihero1982 (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I don't quite understand your logic with saying that only accepting 3rd party course makes wikipedia redundant. The point of wikipedia is to pull together information from a wide ranges of sources and put them in one place. What wikipedia is NOT about is what we call Original research. The reliable sources guidelines might help clarify this for you.

Sources definitely don't have to be online sources. Lots of articles on WP are sourced from books or newspapers. Sources from online skating media sites (or offline paper/magazines) I would have thought would probably be OK. Online communities would be OK but only to support stuff from the more stable media, if that makes sense. I don't do a lot of work on sport articles, and when I do only on football, which is well-sourced. The Wikipedia:New contributors' help page might be a good place to start to ask for advice on reliable sources related to this subject. There is also a wikiproject devoted to sport, Wikipedia:SPORT who also may be able to give advice.

Don't give up! You can always draft your article in your personal userspace. Yours is at User:Antihero1982. Then you can keep the text, work on it and get advice before resubmitting it to the mainspace.

There's also the Adopt-a-user scheme which you might want to join. I'll help as best I can too.

Hope this helps! --Ged UK (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Péter Gulácsi

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Péter Gulácsi, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Péter Gulácsi is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Péter Gulácsi, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cagney

I'm flattered you'd think my opinion worth asking! Am not a veteran editor by any means. I just thought the Cagney article was very good, well illusrated and informative, certainly when compared with all too many performer biographies. I actually thought it was worth an "A", but I don't feel qualified to judge. But certainly it deserved B parity in the NY project, as in the bio project.

Speaking of judging, I'd appreciate your thoughts on Van Johnson, which has been expanded considerably since his recent death. Any thoughts on what to add there to bring up from "start" would certainly be welcome. Ditto for Spencer Tracy and William Holden. Note that the latter was tagged as unreferenced, and Tracy's is definitely in need of expansion. Sad given the stature of these actors. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Good god, Tracy's article definitely needs some work! I'll add it to my list (Margaret Rutherford is next). I'll try to find some time to go over those other two for you! --Ged UK (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing I should mention: I'm particularly interested in your opinion of the amount of space being ly given to Van Johnson's alleged sexual orientation, the sourcing for that and so on. Always good to get a second opinion. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Babel's Height

Hi,you said that Liverpool FC site is the only usable one,now look how reliable is on Alert Riera [2] the most reliable no? Karim Abdul Rashid (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Karim Abdul RashidKarim Abdul Rashid (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not wrong though, they just don't have the information. WP policy is quite clear; avoid primary sources wherever possible. See WP:PRIMARY. --Ged UK (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Flynn

Ryan Flynn has made a competative game for Wrexham, in their League. They play in the fitht tier of English football, so I'm not sure if that makes him notable or not, do you know? Fry2000

Yes. Conference is notable. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. --Ged UK (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Steven Gerrard

He was arrested yesterday, i'm just going to add a source from the BBC. --Ged UK (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Havent heard anything about it so when i saw a unsourced adding by a IP. nr i guessd it was vandalism since hes a majore target for vandalism. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 11:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand, it was the right thing to do, just thought i'd mention it so you, or someone else didn't take it out again. It's sourced now. --Ged UK (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)