Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2010/February

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


Deletion Policy and Signature

Ged Uk, can I ask you why the article Gamesoft Technology is not deleted and you said it is declined, thank you for that but can you explain that.

User:Glenfarclas nominated the article GameClub for deletion. Can you check it? and you will be the one who will decide if it will be deleted. Because I dont like User:Glenfarclas because he's not an administrator. Please don't delete GameClub and remove afd tag.

How can I make any design or color on my signature, because I notice others they have colorful signatures.

Please answer me on my talk page please?

Majestic27 09:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic27 (talk • contribs)

Hi there. There are 3 methods of deletion on wikipedia, 2 of which are relevant here. Speedy deletion is without discussion (that's the speedy part) , and is the lowest threshold; you need to make a credible assertion of notability, and a request is assessed by an administrator (in this case, me). I felt that Gamesoft Technology made an assertion of notability, because it is publishes a product that has it's own article.
However, Articles for deletion (AfD), that GameClub is going through, is a community decision that takes 7 days. You, or anyone else for that matter, actually need to demonstrate the notability as defined in policy. Other editors will look at the article and see if it meets the notability guidelines, and WP:BAND.
You can get involved in the GameClub deletion discussion (the link is in the tag), and you can explain why you think it's notable. After 7 days, an administrator will evaluate the discussion against policy, and determine consensus. It probably won't be me, I don't close AfDs very often. It won't be Glenfarclas, because he nominated it. The deletion debate can't be stopped early (well, only rarely).
To change your signature, you need to edit your preferences. At the top of the page, it will say 'My Preferences', then there's a section to edit your signature. You just edit that using standard wiki formatting; mine is [[User:Ged UK|<font color="green">Ged</font>]][[User talk:Ged UK|<font color="orange">'''''UK'''''</font> ]]
I hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else. GedUK  09:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Ged Uk, Can you make article Special Force Online semi-protected because a day ago many different Ip adresses continious to vandalize, see history like Hackers Top 10 and DXT gaming..

Majestic27 09:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic27 (talk • contribs)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry, but there isn't enough history of vandalism to protect the page at this time. To be semi-protected, there would need to be at least 3 or 4 vandalising IP edits a day for several days. If it increases, the place to report it is at WP:RFPP, as I'm not always online. GedUK  09:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Headers

I'm sorry for being many questions.... Can You teach me the code of that header on your talk page??

Majestic27 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=watched|small=no|runon=no|icon=info}}. You can change the 'no' to 'yes' if you like it that way. I like to keep conversations in one place, then they make sense when I need to look back at them later. I don't mind questions! GedUK  11:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! A real cheerup. :-) MuffledThud (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Never a problem, thoroughly deserved :) GedUK  14:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This Is War (Still)

Maybe really you can't read. --79.31.44.5 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Seems unlikely though. GedUK  14:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, are you serious?--79.31.44.5 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fir-Tex removal

Dear Ged UK, I see you have removed the Fir-Tex article and i would like to know why. I have seen no discussion about it on the talk/discussion page of the article and was hoping to get information there about what was wrong with the article to correct or rewrite it as it seemed that user Joris was just Tag driving it. Has there been a discussion in another place? If yes, could you give me the link where? I see you put reason A7 but that criterion specifically says: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The Fir-Tex fabric does this and is going to be a revolution in sports and for medical use. As the farmaceutical industry is absolutely not interested, even against, such an innovation they will do everything to "kill" it. I was shoping that Wikipedia was a neutral medium where such innovations have a place, was I wrong? I would like you to review your decision and at least give me the opportunity to correct the article where needed, if only i would get some feedback about what was/is wrong about it. Thank you for your time and i hope you understand what i mean. Kind regards, Dick (Dicky747 (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

There was no indication that it was notable. For wikipedia, this means independent sources. I think you may have mentioned the key phrase above: is going to be a revolution in sports and for medical use. It may well become so, but perhaps it isn't notable enough yet. What you need to do is provide independent sources that discuss the company or the product in some depth. The article's tone was also rather advertorial, though not enough in my opinion to speedy delete as spam.
I can restore it to your userspace for you to work on if you like, let me know. Hope this helps, and if you need any other help, please let me know. GedUK  08:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes please, then i can work on it. It has been sited by several independant sources such as the biggest newspapers of the Netherlands, the biggest news channel, many radio stations as well as smaller papers. It is being used by the Dutch Olympic committee, handball teams and the athlete of the year 2009, Monique van der Vorst (to mention just a few as there are many others in Europe such as, but not limited to Panathinaikos FC, football player Arda of Galatassaray, RedBull Racing in F1 is testing and thinking about using it permanently, the best Greek basketball players, etc). How many independant sources do you need? Or what is wrong with these? Mentioning these on Wikipedia is not what should be done from what i understood. Please let me know how I can do what you say, so that i can work on it, thanks for your help. Regards, Dick (Dicky747 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
I see that it's been restored for you, it's now at User:Dicky747/Fir-Tex 2. The newspaper, TV and radio sources all sound like they could be what's needed, though without seeing them I can't be sure. That they're being used by national teams is certainly a good sign for the article if you can provide some sources for it. If you work on that article, and want me to have a look at it before you move it to the mainspace, let me know. GedUK  19:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have adapted/changed the article, removed quite some text and added the references to WADA, tests done by Dutch Olympic athlete and champion Monique van der Vorst as well as the links to several national newspapers and televised news stations. Please let me know if this is sufficiant or if more info is needed. Thanks again. (Dicky747 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC))
Hi there. It's certainly a huge improvement. The sources do look like they will be sufficient. I can't guarantee that it won't get nominated, or that it would survive a nomination, but I think that it's OK. I'm happy for you to move it back to the mainspace (use the move tab and removed the User:Dicky747/) part. Regards, GedUK  08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
When I move it back does that remove the header also or do I need to remove that manually? Or does it still need to stay there? I appreciate what you do and would have liked there were more constructive people like you in an earlier phase. Kind regards(Dicky747 (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC))
Hi there. Sorry for the delay in replying. The header will change, it's generated automatically from the location. GedUK  07:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Graeco Persian Wars

I hope you also help in this little contest to make a ruling. Consensus is impossible, no sources are ever presented by this IP and editor Xashaiar (as an admin you can check whether this IP is a sock account or something), no answers are given to any points raised... Just screams and shouts... Please, look into the posts made so far and rule whether there is disruption of any sort going on here. Or you could try mediating and formulate the arguments of both sides, since there is no sign of any willingness for any unadministered coherent discussion...

Thx in advance

GK1973 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm really not the best person to ask. I'm by no means an expert in dispute resolution. Have you tried making a request for comment to get fresh eyes on the issue. If that doesn't work, then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests is the next step. Also, not all admins are checkusers (and indeed, not all checkusers are admins). If you're worried about sockpuppeting, you need to go to WP:SPI. Sorry I can't help more. GedUK  07:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

... as this was an IP you formerly blocked ... see this--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. GedUK  07:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Thanks

Thanks for your help on Messiah Foundation International. I think the best thing to do now will have to be to request comments from other editors to finally stop these edit wars. Thanks again though! --Omi(☺) 10:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. As I suggested on the article talk page, request for comment might be a sensible next step. GedUK  11:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Phantomsteve RfA

Thanks for the format fix - it seems to be my favorite error of the week!--otherlleft 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! GedUK  08:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving Template:User Juventus to User:UBX/User Juventus

hey I was searching for Juventus related userboxes in Wikipedia and found these two: User:UBX/Juventus fan and Template:User Juventus, but the second one hasn't been moved to any userspace via Userbox migration so could you move it to User:UBX/User Juventus since I don't know how to move templates to userboxes. Thanks for your time. JuventiniFan (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 DoneAs there's already users using the current version, moving probably isn't the best solution (it creates unnecessary redirects). I've copied the userbox to the new location (just a copy and paste of the raw text). GedUK  08:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

blogs and myspace

Some confusion has arisen in the Lesser of Two editing process regarding whether certain blogs and myspace content is acceptable to verify that particular concerts occurred. I have contended that such self published references are acceptable in the WP:SELFPUB exception for non-reliable self published sources especially given the context. They are relevant and there is little doubt to the authenticity of the information. I believe that some editors believe any "blog" or myspace site is never acceptable as a reference. I do not see that to be the policy. Could you help clarify since you are an administrator? Thank you.noodle 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

The best place to ask on the specifics is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Certainly sometimes self-published references are OK, but it depends exactly on what is being referenced. There are more experienced editors at the noticeboard. Hope this helps. GedUK  08:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

fyi

vandal edits from an IP that you blocked this month are being made once again ... see here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've warned them. Quickest place to get action is AIV, admins there will know to look at the block history (it tells you the block history when you go to add a new block anyway). GedUK  08:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

My warning of User:Jolly1958

I believe the 4im warning in this case was justified, as the user is continuing the very same pattern of vandalism (and is a suspected sockpuppet) of User:Hunter2hunter and User:King Avinash Gupta. Please look at their edit histories and the history of the pages they've vandalised and you'll see why such warning applied in this case. XXX antiuser eh? 10:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, they're blocked now anyway, so can I mark this as closed? GedUK  07:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. I just wanted to make you aware of the situation behind the warning. Believe me, I don't give those out cheaply. XXX antiuser eh? 11:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
That's alright, sometimes 4ims do get thrown around too liberally. GedUK  13:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick question since you offered

Heya, since you offered advice, I have a quick question for you!

Would an administrator be "involved" in an article if they step in and revert a change which goes against gained consensus during dispute resolution? I only ask because I am currently watching over a controversial article, trying to prevent a long-term edit war, yet I recently reverted an IP who removed lots of cited content with an edit summary "Don't remove tags", because I felt this was misleading, especially as the pages editnotice requests discussion before removal of content. Would this revert make me involved and thus unsuitable to protect the page/handle edit warriors if the controversy picks up again in the near future?

Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said, only ask easy questions!
I would say yes, probably. The probably part comes from the volume; if you've only reverted once, then it's pretty reasonable to say you're not involved. More than that, and it becomes a bit greyer.
You can 'handle' editors/IPs still in the sense of giving warnings, but I'd avoid blocks unless it's serious heavy disruption, in which case a short block and ask another admin or at ANI to review.
About the protection, are yuo thinking of semi, or full protection? GedUK  08:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be full, to encourage discussion rather than revert battles. Fortunately, after poking those involved they are discussing again and slowing down their reverts/changes which is a good improvement, so hopefully its all settling down. Thanks for answering my question. I'd probably recommend dispute resolution rather than protecting now, and giving out 3rr warnings if need be, since the need for protection is gone if they are discussing. --Taelus (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The need for protection should go away if they're talking, but (and see the Greco-Persian below), it doesn't always work like that! Sometimes, editors say on the talk page what they're going to do, wait 10 minutes then do it, assuming that counts as discussion! GedUK  08:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
True enough. I will keep my eye on the page at least and try to encourage consensus building, and call in another admin should an edit war break out and warnings fail to stop it, would be more beneficial to the discussions than taking action myself and ending up with one of those "You favour him! You protected their version and reverted my friend days ago! Biased admin alert!" situations. --Taelus (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Exactly; you don't want to be using your new-admin card on something like that! Save it in case you delete the mainpage! GedUK  08:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
If I mess something up that badly, I want to at least be original hehe. Anyway I decided to just dive in as an "editor" now in the discussion, and contacted a WikiProject, thus I am now involved with no ambiguity. Thanks again for your help, will be useful for future situations I am sure. --Taelus (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
As you've not told me what the page is, I consider myself uninvolved, so should I see your request at RPP, I'll deal with it as relevant. GedUK  11:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Greco-Persian Wars

Again the article was protected to the version proposed by the IP. Please, read through the disussion, see the arguments presented and the bibliography given (all bibliography points to "Greek victory", none relevant was given to any "stalemate" for the whole duration of this "dispute".) I have urged the IP editor to set up an account multiple times and he chooses not to. His points are extremely weak and unsourced and he just chooses to blindly abide by his POV. Please... just read through the discussion and even if you choose to protect the article, do so not "as you found it" but as sources dictate. On my part I presented multiple very exact sources which can easily be checked by you or any other admin. This "stalemate" result has stood there for 8 days already, the discussion was again fruitless, because of unwillingness of the IP to really discuss any point given. It instead gave irrelevant points (like another treaty made 50+ years later). Again... please... check the discussion out and make a ruling either against me as a disruptor or the IP. GK1973 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per your request I have requested for comment. Visit the discussion page in question and see if everything is presented by me the way they should be for proper commenting. GK1973 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. When protecting the page, as the template says, it's not an endorsement of the current version. Protection policy doesn't allow the protecting admin to protect it at his preferred version.
re the RFC, I think it looks fine. Hopefully the IP will add their side, and other editors will get involved and we can come to a consensus and take it from there.
There is no real reason for the IP to register an account, their views are just as valid editing from an IP address (in general terms, not necessarily this specific case). GedUK  08:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Rover's Morning Glory: see ongoing discussion here

Please follow this link. ReplyToMegaS (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. GedUK  08:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jammie Jolly

Hi one of your collegues delted my page again? Any particular reason why? and can they just keep doing this after I have been working with you? Can you please put the page back in my user site again? thanks this is so frustrating i almost want to give up. Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnice27 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hi there. I've restored it again to User:Jnice27/Jammie Jolly. I know it's frustrating. Assessing whether something meets the minimum criteria is a difficult balancing act. Just keep adding sources on the userpage for a while, and I'll keep having a look. GedUK  08:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Embers (band) possible deletion.

Maybe you are still interested in the fate of the Embers (band) page. It's now in the consensus phase at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Embers_%28band%29 javascript:insertTags('noodle 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting me know. It's quite an interesting debate. Also, your signature seems to be going wrong. GedUK  08:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Chris Markides

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:Chris Markides, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Sceptre (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Err? I don't understand why you wanted this page deleted. I've declined the speedy, but if you want to explain it to me here, I'll consider deleting. GedUK  13:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a vandal's talk page; it's arguably housecleaning. Sceptre (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
We don't generally delete vandal's talk pages, the CSD queue would become unmanagable for one. Page blanking is fine, and possibly oversight (see my message on your talk page following on from BWilkins). GedUK  13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Life on Repeat Page Deletion

Curious as to why the page was deleted and what I can do to create a page without it being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydemis2 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. You need to show why the band is notable; reviews from reliable sources for example is a good thing for a band. Hope this helps, message back if you need any more help. GedUK  20:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Cohn

Out of curiosity, do you think the subject passes WP:AUTHOR? That's the criteria I applied. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. CSD A7 is a lower threshold of notability than WP:AUTHOR and similar, all it needs is a credible assertion of notability, and for me, published books is an assertion. Doesn't automatically mean that they pass WP:AUTHOR, or would survive AfD. Hope this helps. GedUK  20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It does. Thanks. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

9-5-2

Hi, I realize this happened quite a while ago, but I just logged in (I've been a user rather than contributor lately) and noticed that the 9-5-2 page got deleted due a copyright infringement. I am the original author of the article and it's on my website jeays.net which I list on my user page (I realize the infringement notices may be done with bots or whatever, not blaming you). Anyway if there is a way to restore the article that would be great! I thought that I had indicated that I was the original author somewhere in history or comments but I may have forgotten -- it was many years ago. Cheers, Dze27 (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on here, then I can check it via OTRS.
Another alternative is to put a note on the website, stating that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, then let me know where it is.
Please note, that this will mean that other people including sites other than wikipedia can use the text, change it etc.
Hope this helps. GedUK  19:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Greco-Persian Wars

Seems like there would be no end of fighting about the result of Greco-Persian Wars because it continued even through Greek and Iranian voters who didn't provide any relevant arguments, so I made this subsection with all possible result proposals and I left it for you and other admins to decide - I won't interfere in your decisions. --93.142.162.53 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ged UK, just for your information, the above IP has been shown to be a rather obvious ban-evading sock of User:Orijentolog (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive and a current ANI thread at WP:ANI#Sock of banned User:Orijentolog causing major disruption on Greco-Persian Wars). If the IP's activities were the main reason for your protection of the article, you might want to consider whether reducing to semi would be better. The talk page RfC seems to tend quite firmly against the IP anyway, the way I read it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved editor, I have struck a fair number of Orijentolog's comments on the talk page but there are still plenty left. Could I suggest that you change the protection on the article from full to long-term semi- and consider whether semi-protection is appropriate on the talk page during the term of the rfc.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC) previously uninvolved

I've semi-protected the page. GedUK  16:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. (Someone at today's London wikimeet said that they had mentioned them to you in the past. Any chance of you attending any in the futire?)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I go periodically, I think I've been to 4 so far. It was Valentine's Day for the Feb meet, so I was otherwise engaged! Hope to make the March one. GedUK  11:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay I may see you there. m bad at putting names (especially wiki ones) to faces. So we probably have met before.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Greco-Persian Wars

The whole fracas on that article was due to the 93.142 IP, which turned out to be a sock of the banned User:Orijentolog. Now that he has been dealt with, would you consider unprotecting the page? Best, Athenean (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:User Juventus

Hi, could delete this template per Wikipedia:Userbox_migration#Quick_summary#4, since I have moved all of pages and userpages linking to Template:User Juventus to User:UBX/User Juventus, see Special:WhatLinksHere/User:UBX/User_Juventus. thanks for your time. JuventiniFan (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also I left this messages in all of those pages and userpages: fixed a link to User:UBX/User Juventus, since Template:User Juventus has been moved here via Userbox migration. JuventiniFan (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your work on this. GedUK  16:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

360 Kombat

Thanks for the note about declining the speedy deletion request on 360 Kombat. You mentioned that it does not apply to combat systems. This reads as a very spammy article essentially about a company (this is its only product). I would think that A7 would apply as a result.--RadioFan (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be a case for deleting it as spam (G11), though I don't think it's hugely spammy. The best approach would be to take it to AfD if you're not confident of the notability. GedUK  16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Gamesoft Technology

User:Teancum has proposed Gamesoft Technology for deletion. You said creating an article with article on it is enough for A7. Please explain why did User:Teancum put Gamesoft Technology here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic27 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope neither you nor Ged UK mind me pouncing from the shadows here to answer, but: A7 refers to a criteria which allows the page to be deleted right away without any discussion. Users may nominate an article for AfD even if none of the speedy criteria are met in order to gain consensus on whether to keep or delete the article. I see you have already commented at the AfD, however you may want to expand your comment to explain exactly why the article should be kept, as merely not falling under criteria A7 is not a reason to keep. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is a process to allow an article to be deleted without discussion if it fits a narrow band of criteria. Even if it gets through that, the full AfD process allows the community to discuss the article in question. The is the opportunity to explain why the company is notable GedUK  18:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Justin Bieber discography

Hi there. Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) indef protected this article, and a few minutes later you unprotected it. I've now protected it again for three days after a request at RPP. Was your unprotection solely because it was an indef block? If not, please let me know if you think this article should be unprotected, and I'll review my action. Ta. GedUK  09:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, that article was protected during a 4chan attack. I unprotected it when the 4chan thread died, without noticing that it already had been. Sorry about that! -- Pakaran 12:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks! GedUK  13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback / Zentai

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 18:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ged. I shall continue the discussion here.
Although not under an explicit heading, I have indeed asked the protecting admin to reconsider his protection of Zentai. However, the request disappeared and no action followed, which is why I brought my request to WP:RUP.
I find myself in disagreement with the conclusions of the protecting admin's "investigation" of this incident, and I have to reiterate that there was not enough disruptive activity to justify protection at the time, let alone an indefinite one. Please review.
Thank you. 123.218.165.23 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've asked Schuminweb if they're happy for me to unprotect. GedUK  09:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done GedUK  15:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 205.228.108.185 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Unblocked "User_talk:Hsatanicus"

FYI he was warned: 69.115.9.147 - 69.115.9.147 - 68.196.91.82 are all the same user. Jrod2 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well, the page has been protected now, so that user won't be able to edit it either as his account is too new. Come back to me if he starts up again when his account autoconfirms (3 days). GedUK  16:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do, Thanks. Jrod2 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ged FYI, I think he came back now pretending to be the owner [1]... i emailed Mr. Standen already. Thx.Jrod2 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've replied at the link. GedUK  08:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
GED, it's clear that the user who signed up is a troll not the owner of Gearslutz. No one has received any such written request at WP and nothing has been sent to me, man. This is that "Hsatanicus" (talk • contribs) troll reincarnated or his meatpuppets who came to WP to request for COI and are impersonating me (second post [2]) and these now deleted comments (first & fourth posts [3]) messing up with the good name of an engineer. The might also believe that there is such coi cause they are aware we work in the same building in NYC. Anyways, if you were the owner, wouldn't you follow up? I believe the comments should be removed at once.Jrod2 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this reply sooner. Obviously there's nothing I can do about the stuff that happens off-wiki. Is there particular action you'd like me to consider in this case? GedUK  18:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I could be dead wrong but I think these users won't come back to vandalize WP anymore. Maybe you could archive that? Or, if you prefer that I do it, that would be fine too. You let me know. Thx! Jrod2 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Archive the COI noticeboard request? You can leave that, a bot will tidy it away. GedUK  19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I was referring to those comments at Gearslutz talk page :) Jrod2 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You can archive them if you want, but there's probably no need. GedUK  19:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know "Hsatanicus" (talk • contribs) is back and keeps using privacy tools to hide his real IP (see [4]). I reverted two today but I think this is just the beginning. He has a personal vendetta against the engineer on the article's quote. He'll come back in many forms to delete with the same excuse. If he comes back to revert again, I recommend semi-protection for a year. This will force him to open up an account and then we can user check it to match his socks.
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Could you do that, actually? Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  08:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Cheers! XXX antiuser eh? 08:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Kyustendil protection

Hi there, can you please extend the semi-protection of Kyustendil, as User:SunnieBG's IP socks keep vandalizing the page after the three-day protection is over. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 18:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

noreagaa /The Arrivals (series)

why did you delete the link to The Arrivals, the series by Noreagaa and Achernahr? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.227.253 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There was no indication as to why the series was notable. Please have a look at the notability guidelines to see the sort of sources we need. Thanks. GedUK  08:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Backlog Clearer's Barnstar

The Backlog Clearer's Barnstar
For jumping in and clearing a huge backlog at RPP, spanning over 40 unfulfilled requests and several hours work! Taelus (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Aww, thanks! Thanks for your help too. I wish it wasn't a frequent occurance, but it tends to be! It seems to be worse when VOAbot goes offline too, for some reason. It particularly annoying when I log in, and find the requests I dealt with the previous night were pretty well that last ones actioned! Ah well. GedUK  11:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe someone offered to take over VoAbot a short time ago to try and avoid its frequent downtimes, but nothing came of it. Also it does seem to be quite frequent, the backlog grows over the 2 AM to 8 AM period GMT and VoAbot seems to go offline at the same time, making a pretty scary looking list going up to 1.45 in the Table of Contents! --Taelus (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I raised the VOAbot issue somewhere. I don't know much about bots, but I don't know why we can't have a back-up that sits in a different timezone, like the AIV helperbots or similar. GedUK  11:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for covering for me too

Thanks for responding to other users at my talk page whilst I was away. --Taelus (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Let me know if you want me to do it again, if these are (semi)regular break. :) GedUK  15:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind, I am not planning any regular breaks, but I will be sure to ask you in the future. Do let me know if I can ever return the favour too, the fact we are both in the same timezone is quite helpful for such situations. :) --Taelus (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How to move a userbox

Hi, could you tell me how I can move a userbox in my userspace because I'm using Beta right know and I can't find the move button at the top of the page. And I'm a autoconfirmed user too. Could you help me? Thanks. JuventiniFan (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely missed this request. I've not used the beta for a while, but one of the tabs on the top should have a drop down on it, which should have the move button in it. If you can't find it, come out of beta (and leave a comment saying you couldn't find stuff!) and move it as per usual. Let me know if you're having problems, and I'll see if I can help. GedUK  07:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
wow thanks man, I'm using Beta for six months and didn't even know it is on the top and now I found it! thanks a lot. JuventiniFan (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No worries! Maybe yuo could comment that perhaps they could make it clearer? GedUK  13:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Frazer Brown

Thanks for that. all the best Felicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfan2424 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! GedUK  19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster

Thanks for the quick and appropriate action on Loch Ness Monster. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! GedUK  19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:Edit warring

Very well, I take your warning seriously. I am simply annoyed and puzzled as to how an couple of users can simply undo all my hard work, create blatantly obvious POV FORKS, enter whatever nonsense they please (contrary to presented sources), and then simply edit-war to keep it all in. No discussion except empty repetition of phrases. And then, of course, I get blocked to boot.

(P.S. DR methods work seldom, if ever, on this sort of Balkans disputes (spoken from years of experience). Non-involved users most often do not respond at all, particularly when there are this many articles to get to work on. This is simply because Balkans issues are 1) obscure, 2) sensitive, 3) complex, and 4) are generally considered more-or-less irrelevant. Even if someone does get involved (a freak occurence), the well-meaning user usually has no knowledge of such matters (and this is often necessary, since as I say, the matter is usually complex). Its incredibly difficult to work on this area of Wiki...) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand it's frustrating, I know you do lots of work on Balkans related areas, but as you know, edit warring is innacceptable. If you see ti starting, I suggest perhaps you'd consider ANI to get admin's awareness of what's happening. GedUK  12:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Josh Andrew Koenig‎

Thanks for protecting it. You've put a lot of minds at ease. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem :) GedUK  09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks from his friends and family!!!

Best, Robert RobertMfromLI | User Talk 07:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Reporting the news before the family could be notified is certainly not "vandalism." But yes, thank you for giving them an extra day to believe that Andrew was still alive and putting those "minds at ease." 200.166.248.132 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

querry about the arrival

hi can i ask why did you delete information about the arrival serius. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.15.247 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response earlier in the week, a few items up from here. GedUK  21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nazareth

There is an unprotection request up at WP:RFPP. (FYI) --RegentsPark (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've unprotected it, and it's on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye on it. GedUK  21:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Chad Knight

Could you please userfy a copy of this deleted article to my userspace. I have a number of suitable sources that will address notability and can trim out any remaining potential BLP issues. Ash (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done It's now at User:Ash/Chad Knight. GedUK  16:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2010/February&oldid=1146681301"