This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ged UK. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
James Paul Gee
Regarding your denial of speedy deletion for James Paul Gee, can you tell me what part of "James Gee (b. April 15, 1948) is a researcher who has worked in psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, bilingual education, and literacy. Gee is currently a professor at Arizona State University and a faculty affiliate of the Games, Learning, and Society group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison" asserts notability? (Now the article says he holds a named chair, but it didn't at the time of your disposition.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Three published books asserts notability to me. In itself, probably not enough for WP:PROF, but that's not what speedies are about. --GedUK07:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video games Newsletter released its first issue a year ago. The newsletter is meant to help connect editors, keep them up-to-date with the activities of the VG project, and improve the knowledge of our members. We've compiled a list of questions to help gauge the effectiveness of the newsletter's first year.
Answers will be accepted for a three week period following the deliver of the March 2009 issue on Wednesday, April 1, 2009. Just to clarify, this is not an April Fools' Day gag, and we would really appreciate honest criticism. Information obtained from this poll is intend to alter the newsletter for the better. So don't feel you should hold back or give answers similar to everyone else.
The VG Barnstar is an award given to Wikipedians recognized for efforts and contributions to improve and develop video game related articles.
The VG Barnstar is one of many Wikipedia Barnstars designed to be given to editors that have helped further the overall quality of Wikipedia. It was created in February 2006 by Jacoplane—see past discussion for details—and has been given to numerous editors since. Sometimes editors with multiple Barnstars use an alternative way to display them: ribbons.
Barnstars are designed to be given by anyone, so don't be shy as everyone enjoys appreciation. If you have noticed or have been impressed with the work of an editor, feel free to let them know by placing {{subst:Barnstar VG|"message" ~~~~}} on their talk page. The template uses a parameter to include a message expressing the reasons behind the award.
Hi, you protected the page because there was a lot of vandalism with people saying that Shearer was the manager before it was confirmed. It has now been confirmed, and therefore the protection can be removed. Thanks. Alan16talk21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What's the source? I can't see a confirmed announcement, and it seems unlikely the club would announce it at 10pm. --GedUK21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Could you set the protection of I Do Not Hook Up to expire on April 14? It's going to be released as a single in the US and elsewhere then, will certainly be created by someone under some title at the time, and would need another AfD with the release anyway (it wasn't confirmed as a single at the time of the last one). You protection conflicted with Camaron, by the way, who protected it till April 17 fifteen seconds before you. Amalthea16:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. "Brindabella Business Park" is on my watchlist, so I saw that you deleted it.
I have searched my watchlist, but can find no evidence of any warning that this was about to happen. And, because you have deleted the page, I am now unable to review its edit history.
I don't understand how a page on my watchlist can go through the PROD process without me receiving any notification of any of the events in the process. Is that possible?
Or is it just the case that I would have received something, but I didn't notice it?
Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. The PRODder should have informed you via your talk page as a matter of courtesy really, so my apologies on their behalf. It was PRODded on the 27 March, and that would have come up on your watchlist. 5 days later, if the PROD hasn't been removed or the concerns addressed, it can be deleted. If you want to work on the article, I can restore it to your userspace, so you can work on the concerns before resubmitting it to the main encylcopedia. --GedUK11:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
So, I gather you're saying something would have come up on my watchlist, but I missed it? (Mea culpa.)
Presumably I can't find it now because the page has been deleted?
"so my apologies on their behalf" - Thank you.
"If you want to work on the article, I can restore it to your userspace, so you can work on the concerns before resubmitting it to the main encylcopedia"
- Yes please I'd appreciate you doing that so I can be reminded of what it did say.
- (Or perhaps more relevantly, what it didn't say ... )
- How can I identify/find what the concerns were?
- If there had been some discussion, where would I look to find it?
Hi there. I have restored the article to your userspace at User:Pdfpdf/Brindabella. Yes, the info that came up on the watchlist has gone now it's been deleted. All it would have shown was the editsummary of the user, which was simply 'prod' which was perhaps not as full as it could have been.
The main issue with the article is that there is nothing says quite why this is notable. The green criteria are good, but more, 3rd party news reports about it would really be good. Hope this helps. --GedUK10:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow! The politest thing I can say about it is: "It's a bit thin, isn't it."
P.S. This has been an interesting "lesson learned" for me. Despite my "inclusionist" leanings, it has emphasised to me that I should pay more attention to my first impressions! A "redirect" about a street that has been turned into an article about ONE building on the street is, at best, on "shakey ground".
Unless you suggest otherwise, I will be leaving it as a "redirect". Many thanks for your assistance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. It's nice to have someone come to my talk page after i delete something and not kick-off! Re the redirect, to be honest I'm not sure; i don't know the area at all, so I'm not sure if Brindabella is a likely search term. If you want a wider community opinion, take it to Redirects for discussion. --GedUK11:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolute pleasure! Any time you want someone to NOT give you a hard time, don't hesitate to drop me a line ;-)
Yes, Brindabella is a likely search term, but for other reasons. The Business Park is just a sub-area of the airport, so anyone looking for it will be satifisfied ending up at the airport, and anyone focussing on "Brindabella" for other reasons won't be interested, so everything should be "tickety-boo"(Oh dear. I've just found another page that needs creating - but not today ... ) "just fine". Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the page back into article space then (below the redirect), since you don't want to work on it, both for future reference should someone decide to work on it, and to reconnect the commented-out copy of the article with the contribution history, for GFDL reasons. The mage move log might have been enough, but's it's cleaner that way. Hope no one minds. Cheers, Amalthea22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
why delete Ronald Campbell, IV page
I personally am Ronald Campbell, IV, and worked with someone to place my page onto wikipedia. I am uphauled at this. If you would like to discuss this with me further please email ronald.campbell.4 at gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.38.132 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. The article was deleted because it made no assertions as to why this person is notable, which is one of wikipedia's core policies. Essentially we need reliable third party sources (ie written by someone else) that says why he is a notable pastor. Thanks. --GedUK08:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The article was proposed for deletion for 5 days. The contention of the person proposing the deletion was that this person was notable only for one event, thus failing the People notable only for one event biography guidelines. As the proposal wasn't contested in 5 days, i deleted the article. --GedUK19:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well show me where the deletion page is where this was voted on. I can't find it so naturally I'm inclined to believe you were responsible for deleting it without consultation. LOTRrulesTalkContribs22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As Ged indicated, it was deleted under the proposed deletion process and there was no objection during the five days it was tagged, so it was deleted. There is no discussion page for it. Per Wikipedia:PROD#After deletion you can ask Ged to restore it or, if he declines, make a request at deletion review. However, note that I'd expect the article to be deleted in a deletion discussion if it were restored; being a good student is commendable, but in my opinion not enough for encyclopaedic notability (not even if he was in the news for it) Also, FWIW, you should "naturally" be inclined to AGF. --Amalthea23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to restore this article for the reasons listed above. If you want the article restored, please use the deletion review process. Thanks. --GedUK07:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. I thought about adding my experience of him, but it was nowhere near the same level, so I didn't bother. There was hardly a lack of evidence anyway. --GedUK07:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hay, How are you?
Sometimes... I fill like a Moderator. I just look at my edit count and I help block over 50 people and reverted lots of vandalism. Do you get tired of "blocking them" for me? I see that you are also a member of WikiProject LGBT studies. Well.. endways, I just wanted to tell you that your doing a great JOB... I hope you have a great day/night. --Michael (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very kind :) No, i don't get tired of blocking vandals, I think it's one of the easiest 'jobs' an admin has when it's clear cut. --GedUK06:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome... Yesterday.. I had to semi-protect my user page, Because, it keep getting vandalized. I'm think about doing the same to my talk page. Don’t know yet.--Michael (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Semi-protection on talkpages is tricky because it means genuine IPs won't be able to talk to you. It is possible though, in extreme circumstances. Personally, I generally leave vandals' work behind on my talkpage as something of a badge of honour that i have annoyed them by stopping their games. The archive bot tidies them away after a few days anyway. --GedUK07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Bhai Trilochan Singh Panesar
Our article "Bhai Trilochan Singh Panesar" has been deleted citing the reason that the person does not deserve to be there.
This article is about one of the most selfless human beings I have known who has devoted his whole life for the upliftment of the poor and the downtrodden.
It will be highly appreciated if the article is put back
Thanks
Premjit Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.90.207 (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Firstly, it wasn't deleted 'because he didn't deserve to be there', it was deleted because it wasn't adequately sourced. There really needs to be more than one article written about him to show substantial 3rd party coverage. Additionally, the scope of the article went far beyond what was actually included in the source. If you can provide me with those, I can restore the article for you. Thanks. --GedUK07:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Bank for Internationl Ideas
I would like to know why you have deleted my article - this ia a New system for economic development to help the people of the world - i have contacted the Wikipedia Information Team to shine more light on this dispute - their are many other articles on wikipedia that in my opinion are adverstiment and are not encyclopedia worthy.
The question is simply, why is this new Bank notable? What is it about it that makes it important. The notability of the four articles you've mentioned is clear. To demonstrate notability, you need to make it clear why other people think it's important; not why the organisation itself thinks it's important. Without listing 3rd party sources and just saying why the organisation thinks it is important is simply advertising. I can restore the article to your userspace for you to work on beffore submitting it to the main encylopedia. Hope this helps. --GedUK10:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
To address your point why other people think it is important - I have enclosed information that speaks of the importance of the Bank for International Ideas - this person is the
Associate Vice President,for Sustainable Economies Centers of Innovation at the United States Institute of Peace.
the following is his comments:
Thanks for sharing a very interesting concept, which combines the intellectual core of sustainable economic development and innovative use of IT. You are absolutely correct in identifying a critical gap in a number of economic development initiatives in recent years --- namely the lack of a coordinated effort to foster and sustain creativity.
The Institute is definitely interested in innovative proposals like yours.
But that's just a letter saying "Thanks for your idea, it's very interesting"; the 'Bank' doesn't even exist yet, does it? --GedUK06:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Your ER
Your ER has been open past 30 days (the time limit), do you wish to keep it open any longer? If not, I need to archive it.--Truco02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's fine now, thanks. Sorry, i thought there was a bot set-up to archive old ones, so i've not paid attention to it since my RfA. Archive away! :) --GedUK07:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The warnings in March and April were for spamming, this was just simple vandalism. There are also constructive edits to take into account. I'm happy with 31 hours, but if another admin wants to up it, i'll have no problem with that. --GedUK19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Your latest comment at WT:RFA
I think you misread the thread that Avii started... he is offering $200 if we cease the endless threads about DougTech's !vote. He is not saying that DougTech should stop, but rather that the DougTech bashing should... which makes your "STOP!!!" pose somewhat out of place when it appears to be on that thread.---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I understood, I just put it in a less than clear place on the page. I've moved it to somewhere more sensible. And I promise now I will not comment on Doug's position again, in the desparate hope that it goes away. Some hope, i suspect, but still! --GedUK15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You have been an admin for not even a month now, but you have made an impact. Thanks to your work at RFPP, it happens more seldomly that requests are going unanswered for half a day. And, thanks to you, I do not have to spend as much time there and can thus help out more at CSD. Keep up the good work! :-) SoWhy21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you :) RFPP are simple to do on the whole, and far less controversial. I haven't done much on CSD recently, i've been focussing more on PROD deletions as they seem to back up a long way. And also i'm editing via my laptop and the connection can be a bit slow, so CSDs get awkward as I find hal the time someone else has deleted it in the time i looked at it. --GedUK13:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Goans in Field Hockey
Hi
Thank you for suggesting that an entry targeted for deletion should be kept. You noted
on Feb 19th 2009, that it was worth keeping if it can be verified that I did play for the national team. Yes I did and I really do exist. Not sure I wish to go through an exercise of providing source info just to prove it to some administrator (no criticism).
One only needed to contact the Canadian Field Hockey Association to confirm this.
Thanks again.Pdesouza (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh... Actually, I left my response immediately after yours. I was already typing my response when we editconflicted on it. Anyhoo, it looks like the report has gone stale, as the user STILL has not re-violated the warning, so it looks like we could just go ahead and remove the AIV notice... --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to clear out that massive backlog of broken redirects. I don't know how it took only four admins to make a RedirectCleanupBot, but it worked! --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Err thanks! Not sure what I did, but I'll take your word for it! I'm deleteing CSDs and PRODs atm, which list was it on? --GedUK20:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear GED UK. I would like to express my deep unsatisfaction that you have blocked me for "vandalism." It is the user THAT'S IT I'VE HAD ENOUGH that has been vandalising Wikipedia, not me. The user stated above deleted the page Rhydfelen and the page Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen and re-directed them to Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg. I aprecciate that the school name has been changed, but may I point out that Wikipedia includes pages on names that no longer exist, i.e. the millenium dome and the Liberal party pages. May I also point out that the list of school names in Wales still includes Rhydfelen, and nothen THAT'S IT I'VE HAD ENOUGH is also guilty of it. All I ask is that the page Rhydfelen be kept individual from Garth Olwg. I never have eddited the Garth Olwg page. It would surely make sense that the two pages existed, working together.
The name of the school is Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg, that should be the name of the article. The controversy about the name should be a section within that article. See WP:NAME for guidance on naming conventions. The two articles you cited are both names for things that no longer exist. Whilst the Dome is physically still there, it is a sustantially different thing, the school isn't. --GedUK13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Er, no, I didn't say that. There shouldn't be two or more articles on the same school that has changed it name. The second and third names should point to the first, and the naming issue be included within the article. That's it. --GedUK13:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It would have to work like this if you seperated it into 2 articles. Rhydfelen would be all about the old school site and the article would end in 2006. Garth Olwg would only be about the new school site and would start in 2006! You would loose even more connection between the old schools history that way. What you are suggesting is having an article on Rhydfelen at the new school site running alongside the Garth Olwg article. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for explaining it all.The user That's it I've had enough deleted information about the controversy, i.e. council meeting, would that be vandalism? --Ghostbustters (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I have actually expanded the section and made the article more neutral to try and make you happy. This [[3]] is what I deleted because it was like a notice board post and better suited to the talk page. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
(editconflict) I have no intention of setting a rule on what should or shouldn't be in the article, i'm just saying how I think it should be. What you should do is come to an agreement on the talk page of the article. If you can't come to an agreement, you should consider WP:Mediation where editors experienced at finding common ground can help you. For now, try and find some common ground. If you both keep accusing each other of vandalism, you'll not get anywhere. Admins like me are here to enforce the consensus if necessary, we really aren't here to try and make it. That's for editors who know the subject. --GedUK13:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay then, how about I re-write the part about the "controversy"? I was there after all. If you don't like it, you can take it down, only please don't accuse me of vandalism.--Ghostbustters (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You should take these suggestions to the article's talk page so other editors can get involved. They won't find it here. --GedUK13:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
After I did some minor editing and tagging to the Ari Sitas entry (I am not the creator) I noticed the delete log where you'd removed a previous version of the article. I couldn't care much one way or the other if it gets deleted again, so feel free to act on this reincarnated article as you see fit. In my opinion, he's notable enough, but the wikipedia article is terrible. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks. This version does enough to avoid the speedy I think, but I've nominated it at AfD. Feel free to get involved as you wish. Thanks again. --GedUK14:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Restore
Hi Ged UK, can you restore the talk page of Cassandra Whitehead? There is a newly created Cassandra Jean article on Wiki. If the old talk page is restored, I'll move it to Cassandra Jean talk page. ApprenticeFantalkcontribs15:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
What is the rationale for requesting that the redirect located at David Abercrombie be listed on AfD? This redirect qualifies for speedy deletion, as the original article was moved without discussion, to the detriment of Wikipedia. Stack (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No, sorry, I meant that the main article should be sent to AfD if you don't think it's notable. The redirect seems reasonable to me. --GedUK17:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
There are notable references that have not been cited on the Robert D. Liquori page that have not been added to be in compliance but will be added soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrminimal (talk • contribs)
There was nothing within the article that indicated why he might be notable. What are the sources you have available? Note that Youtube isn't generally a reliable source. --GedUK10:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
RFA thanks
My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
you deleted my entry that I began this morning and clearly tagged as under construction. I presume you have some rationale for this other than the one you gave because if that is the reason then I respectfully request that maybe you read something on contemporary photography. Maybe then you'd realize why she is important and significant. For example try starting with this book:
I still can't see anything in the article that says why she is important, and that link doesn't mention her name, so I'm not quite sure how I was supposed to work out why she is important. However, I'm happy to restore the article to your userspace so you can work on it there. I will put it at User:Polaroidforever/Elina Brotherus, then you work on it there till it's ready to move over to the mainspace. --GedUK11:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Articles for Deletion
Hi, as an administrator I hope you'll be able to answer a question for me. If someone nominates an article for deletion, the template can't be deleted. I know that. But is there something that can be done if it is a completely nonsensical nomination? Thanks. Alan16talk20:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You can remove a speedy-deletion templates if you didn't create the article. You can remove a PROD from any article, though you should explain why on the talkpage. You can't remove AfD templates; well you can, but the discussion will continue regardless. If it a nonsensical nomination, the admin should pick it up when they come to delete. Repeated nonsense nomiations could be considered vandalism, and can be nominated at WP:AIV. --GedUK20:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting Canada-China Agriculture and Food Development Exchange Center. If you have a moment, could you also look at File:CCAgLogo.gif? This is a fair use image that was uploaded as part of that article but is now orphaned, and will never be used for anything. I am fairly certain it was deleted before (along with the article when the article was deleted through AfD), but I can't tell from the log. Anyway, is it possible to delete this right off the bat, or do we have to wait 7 days like usual? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, sorry, but i'm rubbish on images, i barely touched them as an editor, and even less as an admin! Therefore, I'm not touching it! Try asking at the image desk, or just wait the 7 days. It's doing no harm. --GedUK21:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Sawhorse (Band) Wiki Page
I would like to have the Sawhorse (Band) page added to Wiki.
Here is my current code:
I would like to have the Sawhorse (Band) page added to Wiki.
Here is my current code:
Sawhorse is a Baltimore, Maryland based band formed in 2006, originated in Edgewater, Maryland, United States. The name Sawhorse has no particular meaning or reference to anything. Two of the members where in a local Home Depot and saw the word "sawhorse" spray painted on the side of a stack of 2"x4"s.
Drummer, Jacob Samuel Seaton planted the seeds of Sawhorse when he began searching for musicians to perform with his solo-project This Is Family. After playing with multiple musicians, Sawhorse's final line-up scrapped the solo songs and began writing as a band. Within the first year, 6 songs were written and were first recorded with Benjamin Jacob Rosenbach (3831 Studios) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania under the album tittle "The Northern Woods of Canada". Almost a year later Sawhorse re-recorded the album with Alex Champagne (Scenic Route Recordings) and Mike York (The Crawlspace / 229 Records) in Baltimore, Maryland at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County studio starting in October, 2007. The album was finished within a year and released on December, 13th 2008 as a 4 song album under the album tittle "Cover It In Asphalt" as a Blackjaw Records release. The "Cover It In Asphalt" album release show was held at The Metro Gallery of Baltimore, Maryland.
Don't call it 'Getting to know Sawhorse' because that sounds horribly promotional. Stick to facts, don't make it promotional, that's not what Wikipedia is about. --GedUK17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, I wanted to check in about the Bog Marten article. What do you think about going ahead with the deletion? I could certainly send it to AfD otherwise, but didn't want to jump in before you'd had a chance to take another look. Many thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There's no way that it's a speedy deletion; it's not a blatant hoax, and the site listed seems genuine to me. It's one for AfD. --GedUK07:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, it was a PROD wasn't it, sorry i forgot (I sit and go through CSD and PRODs and forget which list I come across things on!)! Anyway, it was just because it seemed to have one reliable source made it seem slightly more tricky. --GedUK08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing was copyright in the university text. None of it was lifted - I wrote it all. It is an extensive study of the split - the only one - please re-insert the piece as it is important and written by two men who are neutral. It would have been better to have contacted me, and understanding what it is about, before doing such an act of vandalism.
Waterspaces (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, there was no-way that I could have known that you had written it. Secondly, if you include it on here, it will come under the GFDL licence, and therefore anybody can edit it. Thirdly, a university essay isn't a reliable source, I doubt it's been properly published; if it has, then a summary of it's findings can go in, not a verbatim dump of the text (unless you are prepared to licence it under the GFDL, let me know if this is the case). Fourthly, please be careful throwing the 'vandalism' word around, I really don't consider my edits to have been vandalism, and I doubt you'll find anyone else who thinks they were. Fifthly, the best place to discuss your changes is on the article's talk page where other interested editors will see it. Thanks. --GedUK10:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no "verbatim dump of the text2. I wrote the text and used the uni document as the source. Nothing was copied at all. I don't think you know the law relating to copyrite. The Internet is an open network. If work is submitted on the Internet and its is used
elsewhere for non-profit copyrite is not breached.
A university document is a reliable source. They are regarded as the most reliable, as they are independent. This was undertaken by two unis, Glasgow and Leeds. It is published, I gave the link, stored at Cambridge. You obviously don't like it but that is how it is. Get over it!!!!
I will put the section back on. You should have some respect to others who put some proper research into it.
JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. It adds value. It is clear you just removed the text because it never agreed to your perceptions. You didn't even look at the link, or contact me, so I regard the the removal as vandalism.
My apologies, I misunderstood the point of the research section. I have removed that again, but kept your text on what it was about, and trimmed it. --GedUK13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted your latest edit because it appears to be a verbatim quotation from someone else's work, and therefore, if not a breach of copyright, plagiarism. We cannot do this, for legal reasons. May I invite you to rewrite it in your own words, adding a citation to your source? That would fix the problem. Thanks. Rodhullandemu17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Editors have moved further information to the History article to make sure that we present a coherent and concise description of LFC as a whole. We should have only the most relevant and important info in the main article. E.g. That the City of Liverpool has made a World Cup bid is verging on off topic, especially when LFC's involvement is only with the use of its stadium. The rail station info has nothing to do with LFC in the slightest.
Liverpool's split from Everton was already mentioned, and described in detail in the article about Liverpool FC's history. What facts exactly am I supposed to be "getting over"? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, I do not like being described as a vandal. Especially when that's clearly not how I've been acting. It's quite insulting. Please read here for a description of what a "vandal" is. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Removal of unsourced information, particularly if it may be a breach of WP:COPYRIGHT is not vandalism and saying that it is breaches our policy on personal attacks. Please don't add it back without citing its source, and certainly not without rewriting in your own words in a narrative style, because I'm afraid if you do, you will be blocked from editing here. Furthermore, references to Hitler are equally likely to get you blocked. Please take some time getting used to our policies before going much further. Thanks. Rodhullandemu22:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Abstract
OK, well we now have a citation- thanks- but merely quoting from an abstract isn't quite there yet. What we need to say is something like "In a study by Leeds University researchers X and Y, it was stated that .. <add relevant text>", although if different researchers have come to different conclusions or present different facts, this should also be mentioned (with sourcing) for balance. Rodhullandemu23:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, we are trying to help you here, but I've had to remove this university study again- the citation you gave just did not support the content you added, and therefore, your edit failed verifiability policy. You need to take points from a full, published, version, not just an abstract. Even if it is your own work, it is original research and not permitted here. Any further disruption may lead to a block, but at least that would give you some time to read other articles to see how they are written, and sourced. Rodhullandemu13:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've rewritten it to cite the research. There is no need for there to be a section on the research; the article is about the club, not the research. Hopefully that shuold get us somewhere. --GedUK13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I really can't understand what world you are in. You discredit uni research. It is clear you have never been to one. I have done uni research. It is very intensive and no stone unturned.
You appear to think it is about "research". The research article highlights the prime points of the split - no it wasn't rent at all. It is about the split and how it came about an dhow LFC were formed. I have the 28 page article and have read it, there is verifiable link to it. I dragged out the prime points and put them in bold for easy reading so you don't trawl through masses of text. Unfortunately the whole wiki article is just a jumbled mass of unstructured text.
You are not helping at all, more a hindrance. As I have said get to me on specific points you are not clear on - do not remove whole sections because you don't understand them, or it is the first time you have come across the info.
Waterspaces (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What? I haven't discredited uni research at all. I've used your summary prose, that's all. Not a list of points, but prose. That's what should be in an encylopedia. I don't know what your problem with my edits is. However, I am going to step away from this an let other editors address it. --GedUK14:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a dispute about how this research is to be used in the article. I suggest that in the absence of agreement or consensus, some sort if dispute resolution is followed, and I recommend seeking a third opinion. This kind of wrangling cannot continue. Rodhullandemu14:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Can i ask why you called my edit vandalism? i added that the location was near m57, a580 and m58 leading to m6 and m62 (which remain) but i also added that the location was near Kirkby bus terminus and that the train station is a similar distance as Goodison is to Kirkdale. Why was this removed as they are facts not mere opinion? if you have no idea of the physical location why not query it? please do not call me a vandal i tried to provide a balanced view - with respect the currect text looks like people are against it due to poor public transport arrangements but it does not show the whole story. Everton supporter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.103.125 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure which IP you used to edit that article at the time, so I can't be sure which edit you were referring to. However, I protected the page as there had been a large number of unconstructive edits. Registered users can still edit the page. --GedUK14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I won't drag this out but i know nothing of other edits or vandalism, i was doing something constructive and you blocked me as i was anonamous. the other user jagielka removed or amended my edits and i felt this was not justified. I have queried this with that editor but it is not worth the hassle if that editor wants it one way then so be it. anonamous evertonian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.103.125 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment on protection
Hey there Ged UK. I commented at WP:RFPP on your protection of Free Grace theology, could you please reply? I don't mean to step on your toes here, but I think Wikipedia protection policy needs to be followed and I'd like to take a closer look. Thanks! Tan | 3921:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the article I created, Dooly's, with this description: (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).
I am wondering of what an example would be that would indicate the article's importance or significance? Dooly's has a considerable number of locations (76) over a significant territory (7 Canadian provinces), and I sourced all the claims made in the article. I'm wondering if a murder or something had to happen at one of the locations for the article to be perceived as significant? Thanks, MTLskyline (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Have a read of WP:CORP which sets out what wikipedia needs for an organisation to be notable. I can restore the article to your userspace for yuo to work on if you wish. --GedUK06:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Puzzled
Hello. This has me puzzled. As per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. To the best of my knowledge, the only violation of policy here is Gsmgm (talk·contribs) edit warring and harassing an anonymous editor. Under AGF, I presume he is just too new to know, so I left him a friendly note, however the IP really should be able to edit his or her own talk page until or unless they do something that violates policy. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I did initially block them with the option to edit their talk page, for unblocking etc. However, the edit summary "Block me twice I dare you" didn't make me think they were going to do anything other than abuse their talk page. I've no problem if you want to review that now a little time has passed. --GedUK12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome. I been trying to clear out the backlog on Category:Articles to be split. I cleared out - July 2008 and deleted the page and I been working on August 2008. It was over 500 articles and I got it down to around 200 articles. I think I'm done with September 2008 as its now only 46 articles. So as you see.. I been Creating Sub-Articles for the last few days. It still has a backlog. By--Michael(Talk)18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I see you deleted this as an expired PROD at 20:56 on 14 April (UTC). I'm puzzled by this, as I had only applied the PROD tag ten minutes previously, having rejected the speedy tag that was previously applied. Do you have any reson for this? — Tivedshambo (t/c) 07:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! You're quite right of course, so I've restored it. I can't remember exactly what the circumstances were. I was going through WP:PRODSUM and CAT:CSD on different tags, and I guess I muddled them up. I do remember looking at the PL wikilink, and working out enough that it was a hoax, perhaps I felt that it was blatant enough to qualify under G3. Either way, it was probably not the best delete. Thanks for pointing it out. :) --GedUK08:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Lancaster Swimming and Water polo
Im new to this i started a page on lancaster water polo but u delted it? I own www.lancasterwaterpolo.co.uk. How to i do a page on water polo at Lancaster?
Hi Zak, welcome to Wikipedia! One of the key criteria for an article is whether it is notable. This means if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Basically, this means books, newspapers, magazine coverage of the club. Hope that helps, and let me know if i can provide any more help. --GedUK18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
RfA Thankspam
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark22:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa
I've been doing some research on this fellow and some needed cleanup of the article. Might you consider, even at this early stage, in withdrawing your deletion nomination? Thank you, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.02:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ged UK, please check the two pages and intervene. This vandal is back with another wave of attacks on these pages. The User:Sekharlk talk page is repeatedly being placed with very personal comments. This vandal is also removing third party cited material from the SUCI page for no reason.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've blocked one of the IPs, and semi protected the talk page so IPs can't edit it. --GedUK19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again User:Kuntan puppet has returned; this time in the name of User:C K Luckose, the name of the Kerala state secretary of SUCI. I email the office of the party (www.sucikerala.org) and I got a reply that the state secretary has not created such an account. So this is certainly a fake id. I reported it for speedy deletion as it is created by a banned user. Attention needed from admins who are aware of the vandalism situation in the page.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. The best place you should take this is WP:ANI, where many more admins will see it, and be better able to deal with what seems to be quite a complex issue. Thanks. --GedUK13:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for shutting down that dude's speedy deletion flag on my Sugino article. Century-old giants of the cycling world are far from insignificant. :) EznorbYar (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your deletion reason "empty" does not seem correct. There's two paragraphs of description.What it does need isexpansion and sourcing. If you do not want to restore it, I probably will. DGG (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for pointing that out, I've restored it. The text was hidden, which is why I didn't see it. I've learnt a lesson here to check the actual content, rather than the on-screen content. --GedUK07:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as an admin who has previously helped me with some questions I've decided that you're the admin I'm going to bug when I have a question or require some help. Sorry. Anyway, to the point. I think moving Kentwood High School (Washington) to Kentwood High School would be a good idea. Kentwood High School is currently a disambig page of the Washington school and a Louisiana school. However there is no page for the Louisiana school so I think the disambig page is pointless, and the Washington page should therefore be moved to the Kentwood High School. If you agree, could you do the moving or explain the process, as I gather the history of the page needs to be moved as well, and I don't know how to do that. Thanks. Alan16talk22:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Generally, if there's only two articles with the same name, it's easier to just use a hatnote at the top with the link to the other article. The move is tricky with history on all pages, and yes, and admin would need to do it. The problem is, however, that if the Louisiana school article is created, the Kentwood High School page would have to be renamed again. It's probably easier to leave it as it is. And no problem with coming to me for info :) --GedUK07:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Slides in Hiding
I tried to add a page for Slides in Hiding Band but it was deleted. Significance is that they were the first band to win the Artist Direct Award for Best Unsigned Band in 2000 which was presented to them by the band No Doubt along with a $25,000 Recording Grant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.104.158 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
What the article needs is substantial coverage in third party sources. Have a read of WP:BAND to see what sort of information about bands WP needs. If you let me know what sources you've got, I can restore the article. Thanks --GedUK17:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I have a video of the event that I can upload. Let me know if that would do. I'll look for other sources as well. Heck, I was in the band. :)
It's not so much a question of proving the band exists, so much as to why the band is notable. Third party coverage would show this. --GedUK14:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
Seriously, how much time do you have on your hands?
Are you unemployed or something?? Get a life man. Or go find a girl friend or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.146.223 (talk • contribs) 06:01 20 April 2009
Hey, you responded to an RFPP request for this, but haven't semi-protected it. Is this in the works, or did you change your mind? GlassCobra15:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what happened there. I usually keep RPP in one window/tab and the actual article in another. Somehow the protection didn't take. Probably due to the appalling connection I had at the time (or i forgot to press the button!) --GedUK17:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hay, I just wanted to see how you was doing. The weather here is hot. We had a Record high temperature of 100°F yesterday. I hope you having a great day. Talk to you later--Michael(Talk)18:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that it's just one person vandalizing, perhaps protection is not required, though I think one more block might be. The two ips [4][5] have stated[6] that they are the same person, and their edits are identical. And thanks. –MT21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, i was sure they were the same person. In making no effort to hide that fact just means they are about to change IP again, so blocking those ones would probably be pointless. Hopefully protection will make them get bored and go and do something constructive. But if you find them vandalising related articles, which is sadly probably likely, take them to WP:AIV. :) --GedUK21:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing, thanks. My guess was that they were using a work or school computer, since they switched back to the same one. No matter. –MT22:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that the vandalism is not recent. However, multiple episodes of wrong facts including possibly saying the wife is dead (at least twice). That's the reason that I asked. It wasn't like someone added something silly, it was saying someone is dead. I'm not asking you to reconsider, just explaining why I asked for RFPP in the first place. User F203 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. The point of protecting a page is to stop likely vandalism in the immediate future. The best way of ascertaining whether immediate future vandalism is likely is to look at the immediate recent past and make the assessment. There was no indication that that information is likely to be added again in the immediate future, because the edits seemed to have stopped. I'll add the page to my watchlist and keep an eye on it. There's no problem with going to RPP with it, better to err on the side of caution with reporting. Hope that clears up my thinking for you. --GedUK06:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to add to your workload, I'll keep watch over it. I just added it to my list. My list is very, very short so I can really watch things. User F203 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Just to let you know, admins don't generally have that function (deleting specific edits). This is call WP:OVERSIGHT. I asked an oversighter to deal with this for you :) That oversighter was FT2 (talk·contribs) --GedUK17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay! I thought deletion of edits and oversight were different things altogether. As far as I know, deletion of an edit removes it from public view while it is visible to administrators while an oversight remove the edit from an administrator's view, too. Isn't it so?-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Admins can only delete a whole page, not specific edits. Well, technically we could delete the whole lot and restore all the other edits except the 'bad' ones, but I don't think that's generally regarded as good practice. --GedUK17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been removing speedy deletion tags that you have been putting on Indian cricket articles as I don't feel they meet the critera. Please don't re-add them. If you think they should be deleted, please PROD or take to AfD. Thanks. --GedUK 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ged
I nominated these cricket association pages for speedy deletion. all the pages have same content just names are changed and I thought this was a spam. as you have removed the DB tag. For future reference what should we do to such pages as I dont think they are any informative.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not necessarily saying they should be on Wikipedia, but speedy deletions are a very particular deletion process, and these articles don't meet the criteria. Keep up the good work though, your unref tags are very helpful. You might want to have a look at Stub sorting as well! --GedUK19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Defense of speedy deletion of Open Yale Course Fundamentals of Physics
User talk:Beeblebrox: I'm not sure what you intended this article to be, but very, very few classes merit their own encyclopedia article. You would need to provide multiple reliable sources to verify the content and establish the notability of the subject. Click here for more information. (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
For this free online course an article of at minimum timestamps and class summaries with links to wikipedia articles would help those interested a great deal. I know It would be a good use of my time as i go thruogh these courses and have thuoghts i want to socially collaborate with others. I think the social collaboration would be productive and promote wikipedians updating and improving many physics articles.
For notability I would imagine this article could someday be posted as a resource off of physics, no? Can you give me an example of "secondary reliable sources"?
I read Wikipedia:Reliable source examples but i'm a bit confused. What would it be in other cases? What could it be in this case? a review of the course by another organization? what general people have said about the course?
I probably agree with you that this is more of a directory than other wikipedia articles, but i think it can be much more than a directory once more content is added about the way the course is structured, why, and its different topics...is this type of idea unprecedented on wikipedia?
you declined the A7 Speedy deletion tag on the Blockland Article because you said the A7 doesn't apply to software. When nominating an for A7 using WP:TWINKLE the button you click on is "Unremarkable Website". the Blockland article is about the website blockland, so I am just wondering where we get the software stuff from? Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Blockland is a piece of software, downloaded from the site. There are no circumstances under which A7 can apply to software (unless the criterion gets rewritten!). The article isn't about the website, it's about the game, therefore, no A7. If the question is whether a game downloaded, and played online (but not strictly on the web, rather on the net) is an interesting question, and one better asked on the CSD talkpage. As far as I'm concerned, it's still a piece of software, so not covered, but others may not agree. A wider opinion may be useful. --GedUK22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It was speedy deleted and recreated. Andy Piercefield "began" to play in MBL on April 11, 2011. I can't find any information in current roster of Tampa Bay Rays. Check the infobox, please. A hoax? --Vejvančický (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I think that the article establishes notability (first draft, 3million signon etc). It may be a hoax, but I don't think it's blatant enough for a speedy deletion. He probably fails WP:ATHLETE, but that's not a speedy criteria. Best thing to do is to take it to AfD. --GedUK08:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt answer, Ged. MBL 2008 first round selection doesn't mention Piercefield. It's completely hoaxilious (and blatant IMO). Insufficiency for speedy deletion is a bit surprising for me, it's seriously damaging Wikipedia... (only the layout is OK:), but I'll take it to AfD, as you recommend.--Vejvančický (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It's tricky. Blatant hoaxes are more in the line of Bus found on Moon, David Beckham is really Elvis, that kinda thing. If another admin during the AfD speedies it, I'll have no problem with that. You can link them to here if you want. --GedUK08:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I found that article on MPOD was deleted.
I disagree that it's insignificant.
I referenced patent information which is serviced by Korean portal.
All the articles are true and if you know enough knowledge in digital broadcasting and Korean language I'm sure you will know the significance.
I propose you to check the links which are written in Korean whether the article should be deleted.
And someone with deep understanding of technology and ability to read patent report should verify the article.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiahn (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disputing it's real, just that it isn't notable. The article needs to explain why it is notable, not just that it exists. It shouldn't require someone with a deep understanding of technology to work out why it is important, that's the whole point of wikipedia, to explain things to the layman. --GedUK16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't protect it, I just removed the speedy deletion tag on the article. I have now taken it to articles for deletion as I don't think that there's enough information about this movie yet. Pages aren't generally protected unless they are being vandalised. The place to ask is requests for page protection. --GedUK12:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' question. Personally, I would look for around 5-6 in a 24 hour or so period, factored against how many constructive edits are being made by IPs. Additionally, that would probably go up if the article is protected itself. If the talkpage is protected as well, it becomes impossible for an IP editor to even make a suggestion for an addition, except via the WP:RPP page, which is compliated, and not intuative to find I suspect. If the edits were BLP/attack edits, then I would be much more likely to protect it if the IPs were moving or a number of different people. When it's a current issue like the flu article (which I guess you're referring to), then I personally think we have to be careful about protecting talk pages; we need to be able to get new information discussed, and IPs can often bring that. --GedUK16:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Locking of Miss USA 2009 when NO reverts or Vandalism had occured. At all.
Why did you lock the article Miss USA 2009 for such an extended period using the excuse "excessive vandalism"when not a single act of vandalism - nor even a simple revert had occurred? Is it possible that you are mistaken and the lock should be removed? 99.151.172.42 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I protected it on the 20 April. There was a string of IP edits and then reversion by editors of unsourced 'facts'. You need to look back further in the history. There haven't been vandalism or reverts since the protection, which is the point. --GedUK16:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I do see, buried in amongst the edits that were occurring at nearly one minute intervals, two single edits inserting 4 words about "Clay Aiken". Is this is what qualifies as excessive vandalism, a full week lockdown and an additional line of code to ensure that the lockdown is not reflected on the entry page but kept secret to those not privileged enough to be allowed access? Do you still have a link to the request for locking the article? Did you block the single user who made the two disruptive edits first according to the page protection policy? [7]
I fail to see evidence of "heavy and persistent" vandalism, and the policy is quite specific in prohibiting the use of the administrative tool to prevent the future possibility of vandalism.
What specific edits were the basis for the use by you of the Administrative powers to "Page Protect" the encyclopedia article and what was the specific basis upon which you chose to do so non-publicly by NOT displaying the Page Protection padlock Tag at the top of the restricted entry? Thank you for your time. 99.151.172.42 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You need to check those diffs again. Here is what I see with each of the diffs you presented:
1st: Correctly lists celeb judge Holly Madison notability as being derived from Hugh Hefner's lover and from the famous pictorial "Girls next door". The entry was later correctly Wikified - but the edit was not vandalism, it was a factual edit that was later tremendously improved by another editor.
2nd: An edit for height 5'10"
3rd: An edit removing vandalism
4th: An edit for height changed to 5'9"
5th: A text edit, possible vandalism, appears dubious and unsupported.
6th: Vandalism - "Clay Aiken" entered
7th: An edit deleting the entry for winner
8th: Vandalism - "Clay Aiken"
9th: An edit rephrasing "competed" and "arrive" as "compete" and "will arrive"
10th: An edit adding competitors names and states to the table.
We are obviously going to have to agree to disagree. 1st seemed to be abusive to me. 2nd edit was reverted later, so seemed likely to be misinformation. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were vandalism. 10 wasn't adding information, it was unneccesarily (as far as I could see) moving information around, which I felt was likely to be unconstructive. I'm happy with my decision to protect the page. If you weren't you could have gone to WP:RPP or here to ask me to review it. I would have been happy to shorten the length of the protection. --GedUK19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to press this, but I think it's important for an Administrator to be accurate and understand what they are doing.
#1 is hardly abusive, it is exactly the same information found in the first sentence of the judges personal entry on Wikipedia itself, "best known for appearing as Hugh Hefner's number one girlfriend ... on the reality TV series The Girls Next Door."
The second edit that you continue to cite as vandalistic "misinformation" on the basis of it being "reverted" later on was not "reverted", nor did the edit summary claim that it was. It was an entry of a height of 5'9" and was changed by the same editor who entered it. You've cited the change itself as vandalism - it is edit #4. Strangely this makes edit #2 both vandalism in itself during it's initial posting and at the same time the victim of vandalism when it is changed to read 5'10".
6 & 8 are debatable, but #9 is not. #9 is an edit rephrasing "competed" and "arrive" as "compete" and "will arrive", which was entered on a single occasion. Re-phrasing which changes nothing but tense and is only entered once can never honestly be characterized as vandalism in need of a full weeks lockdown.
#10 was not unconstructive, indeed it is the current ordering of the list and still stands having been stable and unremarked upon until now when you chose to both cite, and when questioned on the specific basis, support your contention that it was vandalism in need of a weeks full lockdown.
Of the Ten, only two are minor edits requiring reversion, reversion which occured instantly and did not repeat again - nothing however met the standards required of an Administrator before using his power to cut off access, and nothing comes close to allowing a full weeks shutdown with a hidden lock tag. 99.151.172.42 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I am prepared to accept that i misjudged #1. You've lost me with your second point. 6 and 8 are NOT debatable, they are vandalism, flat-out, I have no intention of cutting fast and loose with BLP. #7 is vandalism, removal of the winner. #9 is vandalism. It changed the tense to the wrong tense, having already been corrected once: will compete and will arrive on 2 April when the date of the edit is 20 April, that clearly is wrong. That in itself isn't vandalism, but it was a reversion of a correction, without explanation. I took that as vandalism. And i did not 'hide' a lock tag. I immediately added the tag after the page protection. The next editor promptly removed it, but I was not watching the page, so couldn't really be expected to know that.
I am always happy to review any decision I make. Please don't think that I make decisions to protect pages lightly. If you look back through WP:RPP you will see many occurences where I have declined requests. --GedUK20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for responding to criticism, albeit harsh criticism.
On the second point where I apparently lost you - You noted #2 as vandalism, the basis being that you said it had been "reverted". I pointed out that edit #2 (entering a height as 5'9") was changed (not reverted) by the same person who had made the edit. Interestingly the edit that changed #2, the one that you noted as proof, also made your list of vandalism. It was edit #4 (The height was changed to 5'10"). I may have lost you when I attempted to illustrate the contradiction by reducing down the implied logic.
What article? If you mean Ajit's 50th movie I never protected it. If you mean another article, you'll have to tell me because the only contribution you've made is to this talk page, so I can't work it out. Thanks. --GedUK16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I know i've given it indef, but i'll be happy to review it in a couple of months and watchlist it and see how it goes. I've left a message on Richardshur's talkpage that I've protected it again, and that i'm happy to discuss the length. --GedUK12:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
yeah saw the thread above after I posted this. Brewcrew keeps an eye on my page, which I appreciate especially when I'm offline and a troll is active. StarM12:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
James Franco
Why don't you go tell ThinkBlue not to keep removing edits on the James Franco. She's crazy by removing edits that she does not know anything about or take the time to do the adequate research. She took this page as her own personal page. There was no reason to undo the edits; it wasn't even controversial or untrue fact. Ucla90024 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I told both of you to stop edit warring. You've both broken WP:3RR and could easily have been blocked for it. When you're in a content dispute, you use the talk page to reach an agreement, not constantly revert. --GedUK06:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ged, listen, if you see the history page, the first time Ucla added something to James Franco's article, I reverted his edit saying that the info. he added needed a source, since one was not provided the first time. He undid my edit and "warned" me for doing "vandalism". I reverted his edit, again, saying that what he kept adding needed a source. I told him to stop adding the info. unless a source was available. Now, I "tried" fixing the info., but he still kept undoing my edits. Easily, he's the one who's broken 3RR. Now, I understand what I was doing was in good faith, but his actions are not. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Use the talk page and explain your position. Don't just revert each other. You both think you're vandalising the article, clearly you need to talk about it. --GedUK16:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, but it won't be helpful, he seems very stubborn. I left this notice explaining to him that such statement needs verification. But, that didn't help, if you see the article's history. Also, the user is not leaving me alone and I believe he broke 3RR, because he just re-added the info. without a source. I thought I should let you know about this. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
You've both also been moving a sentence around the article, that's definitely not vandalism, it's a content dispute. --GedUK19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. But he doesn't. I'm just gonna leave it alone, I don't want to get blocked because of him. Also, the user seems to be stalking me, obvious per this edit. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)15:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your request of User:DragonflySixtyseven concerning this article. I found Ticket:2009042910074003 and can confirm that protection is not necessary for this article at this time. I've revised the article slightly.
Done --GedUK 11:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
: 6 April 2009
