Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2010/April

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


Thanks!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for constantly being on the watch for page protections. Whenever I look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or make requests there, you seem to always be somewhere in the vicinity. Keep up the good work. –Turian (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! That's very kind. It's a timing issue. I think I'll have to raise it at AN though, as there's often a backlog when I log in. GedUK  09:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you review this for me?

Muslim population growth, is a report at RPP claiming a dispute, which clearly does exist. I issued 3rr warnings and declined the problematic speedy, but there still seem to be underlying content issues. Could you review it and decide whether it should be fully protected for a bit, as opposed to my current approach of just blocking the users if they continue to edit war after their warnings? Thanks alot, --Taelus (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I blocked one of the users involved as they continued to revert, and they have a history, however I still would appreciate a second pair of eyes on the situation, thanks. --Taelus (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ooops, I saw this second message too late. I've protected for 2 weeks. You may want to consider unblocking, but that's your call. GedUK  09:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked per your rationale on the talk page of the article. As you said, they can continue this a final final warning to discuss and stop this edit war. Thanks alot, --Taelus (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries. GedUK  09:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a bit of a muddle as they responded after the block by pointing to other articles they are having conflicts with this editor in... Still, I will keep an eye. Perhaps I was too hasty to block, but they quite clearly continued to revert after being given warning, and have a past block for edit warring too, and they claimed their discussion was the three lines on the article talk page which I don't see as enough... Still, if this results in the edit war and dispute ending, all is well that ends well I suppose. --Taelus (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You were perfectly entitled to block both of them. If one/both are just taking their edit war somewhere else, then just block. GedUK  09:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, noted, thanks alot for all the help you give me. --Taelus (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

One more thing if I may...

The other user wants to nominate the article for deletion but doesn't know how. I said I would help them create the AfD, but I don't want to edit through your protection now as it could be part of the edit war, as tagging it with db-g4 was an issue. Could you also take a look at User_talk:Taelus#Muslim_population_growth too and create the AfD if you feel it is warrented? Thanks again, --Taelus (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI ... that editor, hours from his earlier block, has now been blocked once again.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the need for an AfD now, it would move the dispute to AfD. I haven't had time/got time to check whether the article is substantially different from when it was last at AfD; if it isn't, then there's no need for an AfD. If it is, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it after he comes back off his block, as needs be. GedUK  10:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the most recent AfD closed as keep anyway, hence why I just declined the db-g4. I'll re-archive the thread on my talkpage then, since this is done with for now. At the time I didn't quite realise how many articles this user's dispute was covering. --Taelus (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. G-4 would never apply, but there's no point in doing an AfD again that was keep last time if the current version is essentially the same. GedUK  10:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Update: He has now strayed into socking, for which he received a further block.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Stan Simmons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can you please do something about him? After being told to stop by consensus, he continues to remove information regarding the credibility and notability of wrestling (WWE). Thanks! –Turian (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the ANI. –Turian (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! This should give us time to get everything sorted out. –Turian (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you consider extending the block on Stan Simmons (talk · contribs) to at least one week or until the SPI is resolved. The comments made on his talk page after you blocked him indicate he will continue to defy consensus and disrupt Wikipedia to make his point once the block expires. Additionally, I find his effort to smear 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs) by falsely accusing him of sending him racist email ([1]) more than just harassment; it's a personal attack. I will concede that this editor has made quite a few constructive contributions, which is why I am not asking for an indef block yet until the SPI is resolved. —KuyaBriBriTalk 01:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC) SPI closed; Stan has been indef'd. Please disregard. Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 12:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I like requests like this! GedUK  12:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Protection sign on Main Page

I see you put the full protection sign up on the main page. Could you remove it please? It gets in the way of the Log in/create account sign every time I try to log in to Wikipedia. Minimac (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Blimey, how on earth did I do that. I NEVER edit the mainpage, I'm too scared of deleting it. Thanks for letting me know! GedUK  07:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Sofia Rotaru

I have posted a reply on my talk page. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

i think you need to have another look at the situation. I think a block is in order. I could do it myself, but chose not to because I probably is in a different conflict with one of the editors. best to stay away. Rettetast (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a reply on the talk page of Jaan Pärn. It would be nice to inform me, but unfortunately the bad experience with Jaan Pärn has learne me to stalk.--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've chosen to protect all three articles to try to encourage you to discuss. You may find it helpful to summarise the key points. RfCs may help as well. Basically you've both got too close to this article. GedUK  20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The key points have been summarized in several occasions. I and Rubikonchik have discussed the issues thoroughly. I have already turned to all RfC pages I could find, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and its Russian subpage. There was a 3O process, which failed as a user simply ignored it and reverted everything that was suggested and edited by the 3O. The page has been protected for four months. None of this has produced any results, the two involved editors have different opinions and no-one else has bothered to step in and give strong suggestions. Currently I am not even trying to push the changes for accordance to Wikipedia policies but just to place maintenance tags so that the reader will know, which contents are disputed or need extra work. If that is wrong then what is the correct procedure? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q1 2010)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2010, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The Amazing Race 16

Hi, i reply to your rejection of thread: The Amazing Race 16 These are the worst 3 IP addresses that spam the article, otherwise, early spoilers are added in way too early, also these users (and others) edit the wrong info on that page, making the thread, very irelevant, i suggest that the thread to be placed semi protected until the show is over. Also within a span of 2 days, many spams were edited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_Race_16&oldid=354492281 made by user 112.203.11.134

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_Race_16&oldid=354486542 made by user 87.204.120.240

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amazing_Race_16&oldid=354268850 made by user 58.152.99.123

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, can i suggest to extend till the show is over, on May 9th. Evan Weinstein 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's just see what happens when this one expires. If it starts again, I'll reprotect for a month. GedUK  14:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for everything. Evan Weinstein 14:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, personaly I think semi protected status was un needed, mostly because these additions people are adding are coming from realityfanforums spoiler area, and previews for the next episode which airs after the episode, take episode 9, it has been pretty much confirmed that there will be a U-Turn(from the official CBS press release, but Evan still reverted edits containing this), ending in, I haven't noticed much vandalism in weeks, infact unregistered users have added a great deal to the article in question, I think perhaps the person who suggested just wants to add his own info before other unregistered people do, if anything. Hope you don't mind me chiming in. Also he seems to be reverting edits he see's as spoilers, doesn't wikipedia have a relaxed attitude on spoilers? Sounds like to me it's not the info being added that's the problem, he just doesn't want to be spoiled on a page he edits on 82.15.9.249 (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a big difference between spoilers and unsourced, or not reliably sourced, fan speculation. fan forums are not generally considered reliable sources. Most, if not all of the addtions added that I looked at were unsourced, so it wasn't possible to tell where they were coming from. If you register a username and login, you'll soon be able to make edits. GedUK  20:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I've been following the various race pages for many years now, only this time my IP has changed, now back on the topic at hand, I would like to request this page be unprotected, the guy who asked you originally obviously doesn't understand about spoilers being allowed on Wikipedia, he has even removed information about the U-Turn for example that has come from the Official CBS release citing *NO SPOILERS PLEASE*, despite what Evan has led you to believe, this page isnt being heavily vandalized, and this block is ridiculus, there is about as much vandalism on this page than any other on Wikipedia, also he has removed information sourced on realityfanforum, including stuff backed up by pictures, I know you probably don't follow the race, but you're being misled by this complainer, please reconsider your outlook on this issue 82.15.9.249 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As I just said, fan forums are not reliable sources. I'm happy with my protection. However, I've got no problem with you asking at RPP for unprotection; you'll need to clarify that you've already had this conversation with me. GedUK  20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason for the protection to exist in the first place though, the page hasn't been heavily vandalized, there are no malicious users wrecking the page for fun, are your reasons from what the other guy has stated? I have debunked them, he is intentionally removing RELIABLE sources of information because he doesnt want to be spoiled(I mentioned the Official CBS(the network that airs the show on TV) press release info for example), also I never mentioned fan forums were reliable sources of info, just sites like realityfanforum have spoiler images taken during filming of the race, which wiki members/unregistereds have taken into account when editting, unregistered users are a backbone of Amazing Race edits in general, if there was a serious problem Races 1 - 15 would be protected, they aren't, please justify a continued protect status on this page, even the admin who responded on Evans userpage doesn't see his reasons as serious. I say again, there is as much *Vandalism* As any non protected page, I'll end this subject with a final comment requesting you please unprotect 82.15.9.249 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said above, ask another admin to review my protection at WP:RPP, I have no problem with that. Otherwise wait until the protection expires in a couple of days. GedUK  06:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Amazing Race 16

Some dude popped in to the IRC help channel, briefly, asking if the prot on The Amazing Race 16 could be lifted early; they said that the only troubles was someone objecting to 'spoilers'. It'll run out in a couple of days anyway, so...well, thought I'd mention it, is all.  Chzz  ►  21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, didn't read all the above before I added this. Oh well. Whatever.  Chzz  ►  21:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem; if he comes on to IRC again, please point him to RPP where I'm happy for another admin to review my protection. GedUK  07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ocean Strategy

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, though all I did was decline the speedy. GedUK  10:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I know, but thourght as a curtsey I should let you know that I have taken it to AfD, not that I have a problem with the CSD decline. Codf1977 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I realised :) GedUK  10:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Logue

I was going to start a stub article for Elizabeth Logue (1931-1988), a minor actress and 1960s Hawaii model who appeared several times in the opening sequence of the 12-season television series Hawaii Five-0. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0517790/ The previous article on her was deleted by you - hence this note. Why was the previous article deleted? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabbylucy (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I deleted it because there was no indication of notability. Appearing in the titles of a show isn't enough of indication of notability. It needs some other sources really; were there any magazine articles about her, perhaps because she appeared in the titles? Any other reliable sources discussing her other than IMDB? IMDB isn't generally considered a reliable source, but it would probably be enough for A7, though I doubt it would survive AfD. GedUK  06:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe there were several articles in Hawaii on her in the 60s - she was well known there as the face of the Hawaiian tourism board before she appeared in the series sequence. Naturally, most of those didnt survive to the digital age. The only fragment of that past I can find is this scan of a 1967 Hawaii Tourism News weekly newsletter, which should qualify as a magazine ... of sorts. There was also a 1996 article in the Honululu Star bulletin that is a nostalgic piece on the title sequence. Crabbylucy (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be virtual, by any means. Written sources are just as valid. What sources need to be is reliable and verifiable, so someone else has got a reasonable chance of being able to find them. Does the Hawaiian tourist board make reference to her? The Flickr photo might be a clue that would help someone else find something if you can't. It may be sensible to start the article in your userspace and develop it there; it won't get deleted and you can go at your own pace. GedUK  17:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh why bother? You clearly will never be convinced, regardless of how much evidence is there. And I have no further evidence to offer, as I live far away from Hawaii and wasn't around in the 60s. Evidently people of local importance cannot be included in the wikipedia if said locality isn't that of the Wikipedia guardian who happens to be overseeing that part of his/her domain. Thanks very much, I shall take your advice and not bother pursuing this further :-) --Crabbylucy (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a gatekeeper on this, it's not a protected article. If you want to create it, then I'm not stopping you.
The info you've provided here is more than was in the previous version. But I can't guarantee that someone else won't nominate it for deletion. From what you've told me, I don't think i'd delete it at as speedy deletion, but I'm not sure it would survive and AfD, though an AfD may well turn up more sources, they often do. GedUK  11:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lyrebird RPP

Hi Ged, thanks for your explanation of why the RPP was declined. I'll keep it in mind. :) Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I know it's frustrating, but we want to try to keep as many articles unlocked as possible. GedUK  17:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 21:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Armbrust's talk page. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with Hanoi Radio Television and Magyar Televízió -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's alright, thanks for understanding why I didn't do it yesterday. GedUK  09:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
NP, I think you were right in yesterday's judgment -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

spurce material Amity High School

Why are you removing material that clearly has a source? Then why do you abuse your admin privileges and block me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.189.209 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 April 2010

This is not, in fact, an abuse of privileges, but an honest mistake. it would help to avoid such mistakes to give edit summaries. I too was involved in reverting edits by this editor (69.37.122.8), but I now see I made a mistake: what I thought were unsourced edits were in fact well sourced. Perhaps you could unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I apologise and have unblocked. However, there were other edits that were vandalism, so please be more careful. GedUK  14:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there certainly were vandalism edits from this IP address. Whether these were by the same person is impossible to be sure. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fleinsopp Tales

Not to be vindictive about this but this doesn't appear to be an actual book, it appears to be a series of web posts. (See here). Would that make it qualify under A7? If not I'll be patient and hope the PROD isn't removed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ah yes, so it is. Hmm, that's a lesson for me to learn there; just because it looks like a book, doesn't mean it's not actually web content. GedUK  19:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanking you! *curtsies* PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're Awesome!

We luve u!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.220.240 (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh-huh. GedUK  09:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

Please, your attention in [2] and other edits. Thanks. --Crisarco (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at? GedUK  13:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Thanks again

Just wanted to thank you again for protecting the Johnny Test Episodes page. I'm just seriously getting fed up with the edits the IP's are not only making to the episodes page, but to any page Johnny Test related. Heavydata (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! GedUK  08:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Favor?

Hey, can you do me a quick favor? Can you move/merge Glenn Jacobs to Kane (wrestler) per consensus made at WP:PW. Thanks Ged! –Turian (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was not achieved as Turian closed the discussion prematurely several minutes after the most recent opposition left a comment. When the community/project decides on a consensus, we will notify you if you are kind enough to carry out the appropiate move. Thank you. Feedback ☎ 03:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the problem is that "Kane (wrestler)" applies equally to two people, as two wrestlers used the name. Additional qualification, such as "Kane (WWE wrestler)" would be necessary, per such precedents as "Avatar (2004 film)" and "Avatar (2009 film)", which, to me at least, indicates that the current title is terrible (as his name is Glen Jacobs, not Glenn Jacobs) but preferable to any qualifier. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
These are the two editors who are rather upset that they are not getting their way. I advise you to look at the discussion (and the number of editors who support it, 6, compared the ones that don't, 2). Ignore these little childish antics and go on with the decision that was made. –Turian (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done Consensus seemed pretty clear in the discussion. GedUK  07:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
They have decided to ignore everyone else... Can you please do something? Thanks again! –Turian (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, how unreasonable of me to feel that an ongoing discussion shouldn't be closed. How about letting people discuss it if they wish, and it will be automatically archived once people have finished? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work

Just a note of thanks for your sensible admin work over on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Ebanks. It is heartening to see that there are people around who take Wikipedia policy and apply it as it should be applied rather than just constantly quoting rules. Job well done! Keresaspa (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind. I don't close many AfDs, but that one seemed fairly straight forward. GedUK  17:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Turian (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:GaryColemanFan.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 16:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it. GedUK  19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Deep Purple vandal

I see you blocked one of the IPs that are vandalising various articles concerning Deep Purple. Your edits are already being undone by User:Adyrock88 (the same person). I have reported it here. If you have any further input, I'd be grateful. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just stalking Cirt's talk page and saw your message and rolled all his edits back. THe editor has been indeffed. I've commented at ANI. GedUK  19:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting the pages involved in the edit wariior situation going on today. Whew - that is one persistent person. It will be nice to get back to other editing. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's alright! GedUK  20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull

Hi Ged, you SP'd the above article but I'm not sure why. Has there been excessive vandalism? I only note one instance today from an IP, although I haven't studied the edits in detail. I do know that many IPs have made good contributions to the article but now cannot do so. Can you think again about this, or point me in the direction of the vandalism. Thanks, MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a request at RPP. There's certainly been enough for protection in my view, however I've shortened the duration to 6 hours. GedUK  19:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking at it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Stauner

You might remember issuing a warning to User talk:Hans zu Stauner, we now have another User:Stan D Stauner from the Irvine22 sock farm, relevant edits here --Snowded TALK 04:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC) And another User:Ben D Stauner plus User:A. Hardie Stauner plus User:F. Lex Stauner--Snowded TALK 05:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, now - have you ever seen a Stauner you didn't want to jump on top of? F. Lex Stauner (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I made an ANI report --Snowded TALK 06:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
All done now? Sorry, I'm not on overnight UK time. Let me know if any others pop up. GedUK  06:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It got picked up on ANI (should have put it there first, so apologies for that)- I suspect we will get another bout shortly, Irvine22 always saw the Wikipedia as a playground --Snowded TALK 06:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologise! GedUK  06:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Magyar Televízió

Hi. Just letting you know the disruptive editing of Magyar Televízió has recommenced the moment the page protection that you applied was lifted, and the same unsourced trivia has all been added again - despite attempts to get through to the guy on the Talk page. I've started a new ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_of_Magyar_Telev.C3.ADzi.C3.B3 -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo (2nd nomination)

I do not see a consensus to redirect here, but rather one to delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I think that the redirect is a more sensible solution. I'll admit it's borderline. GedUK  12:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Unprotect request

Could you make 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) unprotected for a page move which has been discussed on the talk page? __meco (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see a consensus for a page more, nor indeed where it's supposed to move to. You shouldn't have closed it early, and really you shouldn't close move requests that a) you start and b) will need an admin anyway. GedUK  12:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I see. Who is going to do it then? __meco (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite happy to close it, or any of the admins that patrol WP:RM. But discussions should be for 7 days, unless it's very clear which way the discussion is going. That discussion hasn't agreed to a) that the page should move at all and b) where it should move to if it does. GedUK  12:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we had that pretty much decided. There were no major disagreements and the minor tweaking in the last message exchange was also uncontested. __meco (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've replied on the article talk page. GedUK  12:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Green Party of Illinois

The Green Party of Illinois is a Major Party by State Statue since it received 10% of the vote in 2006. Check the Gubernatorial Election Page on Wikipedia where Rich Whitney is included.

And see here:

http://www.elections.il.gov/VotingInformation/PartyOfficials.aspx


If your going to put a page in Semi Protected mode at least do it right and see the discussion!!!

Kommie27 (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Myanmar International

Further to ANI, the same IP editor has now cluelessly made changes he doesn't know about and can't source at Myanmar International using IP 118.172.193.0 (talk). I've requested page protection and updated the ANI, but don't know what else to do other than that - perhaps blocking the IP he's on for the day every time he does this might help discourage him, but that would really need an admin to be closely watching. Any suggestions would be appreciated. -- Boing! said Zebedee 01:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'll watchlist the articles. Can you just give me a list so that I don't miss any? GedUK  06:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I currently have the following related pages watched. Some are precautionary, but most have been subjected to this kind of editing at least to some degree...
Cambodian Television Network
Channel 3 (Thailand)
Channel 7 (Thailand)
Democratic Voice of Burma
Hanoi Radio Television
Ho Chi Minh City Television
iTV (Thailand)
Lao National Television
MRTV-3 (redirect)
MRTV-4
MTV Thailand
Magyar Televízió
Midnight Radio and Television (deleted - watching for re-creation)
Modernine TV
Myanmar International
Myanmar Radio and Television
National Broadcasting Network (Thailand) (redirect - currently at RfD)
National Broadcasting Services of Thailand
Royal Thai Army Radio and Television Channel 5
TV9 (Malaysia)
TV Pendidikan
Thai Global Network
Vietnam Television
He has also just had Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/i-mobile declined, so I'll be keeping my eye open for any further problems and can alert you to any more pages that need to be watched. I greatly appreciate your help with this, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've added them all. Hoepfully I'll be able to spot them. GedUK  10:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow! I see you have ALL television stations in South East Asia! Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia! And one more Hungarian!
Some more articles he may edit due to the location:MediaCorp, National Broadcasting Network (this is Filipino) and Trans TV!
Who do I have to believe? Due to they already told you there are 3 editors but you said they are same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.226.24 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Too much articles. But Vietnam Television and Magyar Televízió, two articles that I edit very much, I put it long time ago, for Vietnam Television I added in February, and Magyar Televizio in February too, but 2009. But I don't like that Thai guy's edit, as he make me a problem. (Really, he did not do anything with me until he edited Vietnam Television). Can I have his real name?--125.25.35.118 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what his real name is, and even if I did, I'm not going to randomly give it out over the internet. So much of this could be solved if you created an account and logged in, then we could be more confident about who was who. GedUK  19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
(Sigh, I'm getting a load of crap at my Talk page too -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

GaryColemanFan

Please look at the history of the page, as he continues to be disruptive despite everyone telling him to stop. Something more serious must be done. –Turian (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As stated at ANI, where Turian had a chance to object but chose not to, the page automatically archives inactive discussions. If people leave it alone, it will be gone from all of our lives soon. No need for any action on this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If people leave it alone includes you as well. –Turian (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that you all leave the archiving templates alone; they often cause arguments, ANI included. If the discussion is clearcut, then it doesn't matter, but something otherwise, there's hardly any reason to close it. When people stop talking about it, it'll archive. GedUK  20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ged, thanks for your welcoming message, I appreciate your support. Regards, Nasser z (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem! If you've any questions, feel free to ask :) GedUK  07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The paratrooper

I'm a bit confused. The article appears to be about a series of comics. ALI nom nom 22:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not contesting it- the PROD is fine by me. I was just a bit confused when you referred to it as an article about a fictional character. ALI nom nom 18:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

TV channel vandals are back

In case you hadn't noticed, the 125.25.xx.xx editor(s) is/are back, adding the same kind of unsourced material to articles about TV channels, this time to [3] (I've reverted that one, and will keep my eyes peeled for more) -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, just fyi, more nonsense at Talk:Vietnam_Television#Unprotected and at my Talk page (the latter I'm just deleting) -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw the talk page section, but I didn't have TVP1 watchlisted for some reason. Have watched and reprotected. GedUK  13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks - I've also added Telewizja Polska and TVP2 to my watchlist. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No personal attacks. Saying others are vandals are considered as a personal attack.--125.25.11.182 (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Repeatedly adding unsourced content, or content not sourced properly, when repeatedly told not to, is vandalism. Stop it. GedUK  08:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
So I promise, I will find sources as much as possible, but please unprotect it first. I promise I won't edit until I got enough sources. Otherwise you can protect again FOREVER--125.25.11.182 (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Unprotect: Vietnam Television and Magyar Televízió. As I promise, I won't edit until I got enough reliable sources.--125.25.11.182 (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Add the sources you want to use on the article's talk page. If they're OK, then they can go in. Saves reverting on the actual article and keeps it stable. GedUK  08:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Here, check [4] this and see the 11th link, I want to know that is it reliable or not--125.25.11.182 (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So possible?

So possible to add references after reverting to the correct version?

Boing! said Zebedee said no but Skinsmoke said yes. Discuss it here and please don't revert it now. I will try to believe Skinsmoke--125.25.11.182 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It can't be the "correct version" without references. GedUK  07:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
He's started edit-warring at Vietnam Television again, and has even asked me to stop watching it [5] in case I get it protected again -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
WHO DID I EDIT WAR WITH???--125.25.11.182 (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Catholic sex abuse cases semi-protection

Hopefully two weeks will do it but I kind of doubt it. A number of different editors have been drawn to this article and I've caught a few logging out to make reverts or similar edits. However, with the number of edits and revisions/reverts, it is extremely hard to keep up with this article. I had to drop the Catholic Church article because its talkpage lights up over half my Watchlist screen. --Morenooso (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if two weeks were enough, but I'm reluctant to leap in with longer as a first protect. GedUK  08:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Understood as the basic tenet of WP is that it's available for all to edit. Too bad we all can't be NPOV in all our edits. --Morenooso (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Flagged revisions will probably help, though I don't think they would be turned on an article like this, at least not to start with. GedUK  14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Teach me

Can you teach me how can I get no more page protect? And can you teach me how can I put references?--125.25.11.182 (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You can either add the references to the page, or use {{semiprotect}} on the talk page and a registered user will add them. Alternatively, you can register your own account, and after 4 days and 10 edits, you'll be able to edit past the protection, and it will be a lot simpler for everybody. GedUK  12:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
But if I registered and after 4 days/10 edits and if I edited back then it will get full protect. Why everyone have to discredit me? If others can add the content without references but why I have to?--125.25.11.182 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult to be certain it's always the same person who's editing from the same IP address, especially as your IP changes so often. GedUK  13:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I've found to be at least two persons. I don't know why can't I create the account. Maybe I should go somewhere else just to create an account. Can you stop the guy who edits Myanmar TV? But not blocking, because his IP changes everyday like me. And blocking the range isn't good because you will block everyone in Thailand.
That's why we haven't used a range block, and why we have to protect the pages. If you have an account, you can edit the page even when it's protected. Go to Wikipedia:Why create an account? and click the Create an account now link near the top in the blue box. GedUK  07:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind a comment from me too. The problem is that a small number of people from 125.25.x.x Thai addresses have been adding lots of unsourced material to articles about TV channels, and much of it has been found to be wrong and/or unsupportable. As we can't tell who is who (or indeed even how many people there really are), that means we really can't trust any such additions from those people. The obvious solution, as Ged UK suggests, is for you to register your own account. That way we will know exactly which contributions are yours, exactly who we are talking to, and if you establish a trustworthy record of properly sourcing your additions we will have far less reason to distrust your additions. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why can't I register an account?
Go to Wikipedia:Why create an account? and click the Create an account now link near the top in the blue box. GedUK  07:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
PS: Also, your own account will give you one place, your own Talk page, where we can discuss things with you - and even offer some longer-term help if that's what you would like. But we can't do that right now when your IP address changes every day and we can't even tell who we're talking to. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Telewizja Polska

Our friend has just peppered this with multiple references to the same blog. Looking at the blog, it looks like it's a one-man site and doesn't source any of its claims - but it does look like it may well have been the original source of the material in this article. That must make the article rather dubious, so not sure what should be done about it (other than removing the blog refs, which I have done) -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Best place to start would probably be the RS noticeboard. GedUK  19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks - didn't know about that -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Heh, everywhere on wikipedia has a noticeboard! WP:RSN is the link you need. GedUK  06:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Cheers ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
ITS ME DOING IT!!!--125.25.237.58 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Help, an editor is making serious accusations against me

While working in my userspace as per my post earlier to you (you can check my contribs versus the time of all activity, a user on Talk:Coffee Party USA noticed that I got logged out. I don't know how it happens but sometimes either Wikipedia or the combination of my IE6 browser/XP logs me out. I can be in the middle of editting, leaving warnings, etc and not notice for several minutes what happened. Please see my post here in this DIFF. --Morenooso (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the last section I added on the Coffee talkpage. There is another great example of when I got logged out and was in the process of issuing a warning. When I saw that I had been logged out, I logged back and placed/signed my username. My fingers are shaking right now. I can't believe MookieG and another editor is taking him to task on MookieG's page because he too issued MookieG a 3RR warning.
On my talkpage, another editor warned me about MookieG. It appears he is very petty, obstinate and uncivil. Heck, we can be a little uncivil at times but he combines all three to bring out reactions in other editors. Then he fails to see the wake of his actions and chides the advice he is given. --Morenooso (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it, there's no evidence you're socking, as you point out and evidence quite clearly, you just got logged out. It happens to me quite frequently, but I usually catch it because most of my editing is admin stuff, and if I'm logged out the buttons aren't there. I'll delete that section from the article talk page, as there's no need for it to be there. I've dropped a friendly note to User:MookieG. GedUK  07:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, very much! I imagine as admin you have way more buttons. Usually when I lose my roll-back rights, it's in the midst of a revert and I'm fumbling because it usually takes me a while to figure out I've been logged out. I'm going to bed as I feel deflated. I truly was up because I think I've found the link to 1981's ephinany she passed onto Jimbo. I had intended to work on it but have been in the dark just shaking. --Morenooso (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry that it's upset you. Have a short break, I often find it helps. And yuo're doing great work on the Bianca Jagger article! GedUK  07:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to help him

OK. I will help him. So he have some problems on Vietnam Television article? As I see, as Boing said to you, blocking him every day will discourage him, but as I see in his comments to you, I think only locking the page can discourage him too. This is just a comment not any requests to unlock as I don't edit Vietnam Television, I edit TVP1. But I don't want you to unlock TVP1 either as I am reasonable. I am 12-year-old Thai boy (as there are 2 editors in Thailand doing the same). I know nothing about SE Asia TV (Except Thailand and Cambodia). I hope he will discuss soon.--125.25.237.58 (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Protecting is discourage me. You help me very good. So, Ged UK, next time, give me some chance.--125.25.73.175 (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
But because this is your first edit with this particular IP address, I can't be sure who you are. Both of you, in fact, have new IPs today. It would make everything much easier if you just made an account. GedUK  14:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey it's 12-year-old Thai again, 125.25.73.175 is American. The possible way to see who is who, is to see their contributions. If the editor edis Polish TV-related then it's me. But if the rest of the world TV then it's American. If Myanmar TV then it's another Thai.--125.25.49.177 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The difficult I have, as I keep explaining, is that you have again got a different IP. I know it's not your fault, but logging in would make it much simpler. YOu don't have to give any personal information, and there's no charge. GedUK  07:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I know I don't need to pay or give personal info but if that American makes an account too then he or me may consider as sockpuppet--125.25.242.114 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No, that won't happen because your IP addresses are different enough, and any claims would be investigated and would show that yuo're innocent if you just use one account each. GedUK  14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Dancehall

I am not looking to own the page only to stop the editting on the history. References are being ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.42.5 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 April 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2010/April&oldid=1139315885"