Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2011/April

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


Wilshire Grand Tower 1

Do you mind if I delete that page under G5? It was created by a sockpuppet. Elockid (Talk) 01:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for asking :) GedUK  18:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Looks like though someone was working on the article shortly after the article. So I guess it isn't a G5 anymore. Elockid (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Shaw (again)

Here we go again: the block has expired and our friend is back. Longer block this time? Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrestlemania XVII

There is a log stating that you protected Wrestlemania XXVII due to persistent vandalism but the vandalism continues. DX927 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Airplaneman. GedUK  07:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2011, the project has:

Content

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 02:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Hi there

Hello Ged UK, SwisterTwister has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I hope that whenever you have a bad day, you'll look at this smiley.:) SwisterTwister (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! GedUK  11:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tips from you

Hi Ged .I would like to have a tip from you.How can one's contribution would raise a stub-class article to a featured class article?.As an administrator can you give an instance in which your contribution paid an important role in raising a stub-class article to a featured or good class article?. Thanks very much! Suri 100 (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on James Cagney to get it from a C class to GA. Took a few months of work (lots of reading before hand). It's often useful to use a subpage in your userpage to layout what you want to do with it, then get some other people's opinions on your structure. GedUK  11:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Was that task quite challenging? Suri 100 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose so, but the best things in life often are a good challenge! GedUK  06:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

No personal attacks ?

Hello Ged, a few points here, but not all at once since I'm short on time just now. First though - no need to shout at me on my Talk page. Shouting is bad etiquette and can be viewed as intimidatory. If you've something say please say it in a normal fashion, Thanks. Now, regarding the warning itself. I note you have singled me out, despite other editors, one in particular, using insulting language and deliberately misspelling my user name as well as engaging in other incivility. Pleas echeck it out. On the subject of the actual dispute I'm going to get back later with an explanation that shows what I have to say is correct. In the mean time you might like to brief yourself in more detail on the British Isles issue and the characters involved in this, becasue at the moment it appears to me you are taking a wholly one-sided view on this. LemonMonday Talk 13:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


OK, back online now, so here's my explanation of what's happened at Neil_Robertson_(snooker_player). I hope you'll review this and give an opinion, rather than as others have done, commented on the side issues. The story begins with the edit: [1] when, back in October 2009 an editor added referenced material stating In October 2009, Robertson clinched the Grand Prix trophy in Glasgow with a 9-4 win over China's Ding Junhui in the final. Robertson fourth title makes him the most successful player from outside the British Isles in ranking tournaments. The wording from the BBC source was His fourth title makes Robertson the most successful player from outside the British Isles in ranking tournaments. All well and good; source matches text, no problem. Fast forward to this edit [2] made by an ip on 1 May 2010. Note the (poosibly POV) replacement of British Isles with Britain and Ireland. Reverting this change is surely reasonable? now fast forward again, this time to this edit [3] made be me on 26 March this year and introducing British Isles into the text, but referenced. Maybe this was POV as well; I stand accused but make no comment here. This edit was reverted by User:Domer48 here [4]. Now go to user:LevenBoy's first edit here [5]. He is restoring the original British Isles usage, but not to the edit made by me and reverted by Domer48. The important point here is that LevenBoy is operating on the sentence beginning In October 2009, Robertson clinched the 2009 Grand Prix trophy in Glasgow ... and not on that beginning There he defeated 2006 champion Graeme Dott 18–13 to become only the third player from outside of the UK. Neverthess, Domer came along and reverted LevenBoy's edit here [6], and this is where the rot sets in; confusion reins and on we go. The problem appears to have been LevenBoy trying to "correct" the wrong part of the paragraph, then everyone getting confused.

Do you agree that LevenBoy's restoration of British Isles is reasonable? If so, here's the compromise. I'll abandon my attempt to introduce British Isles. Yes, it was well sourced, but there is an alternative source using UK and Ireland and I'll accept it. However, we also accept LevenBoy's restoration of the correct wording to the sentence he was working on, in which British Isles is used. This proposal has the advantage that both sources come from the reputable BBC, rather than one from the BBC and one from the Telegraph, so we have a bit of consistency for what it's worth. If you do agree, then perhaps you could un-protect the article and suggest we proceed as outlined here. Thanks. LemonMonday Talk 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A cheezburgr for you

Armbrust Talk to me Contribs haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

Thanks! GedUK  09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

LemonMonday

Could you have a look at this more personal attacks from LM. Mo ainm~Talk 21:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this menace. Bjmullan (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
And the alter ego, they edit in collusion, both are SPAs and I can't believe they aren't socks of some type. I have thought they might be linked to Irvine22 who is a veritable sock farm since he was blocked. --Snowded TALK 22:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Combined history of blocks for disruption of LemonMonday and LevenBoy: 10
Combined history of blocks for disruption of Mo anim, Snowded, Bjmullan, GoodDay & myself: 0
We have all dealt with these two accounts for quite some time, and their last compatriot Triton Rocker (talk · contribs) was sent up the river permanently for identical behavior. The number of AN/I, 3RR, WQA, SPI etc. threads based on these two is quite alarming. The bad edits far outweigh the good, enough so that they should unarguably be considered "disruption-only accounts". They wiki-hound editors after periods of "slumber" and clearly exist only to cause problems and to disrupt the project to prove a point. Blocks should once again be instituted in order to prevent the future disruption that they are proven and guaranteed to cause. There's no need to protect even one more page because of their activities and edit-warring agendas. Doc talk 07:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, at least, and I say at a minimum, one out of the list of saintly users cited above by Doc9871, Mo ainm is a supposed CLEANSTART reincarnation of an editor who very much did have a history of edit warring over these issues. And you can see from the e/s of Neil Robertson and countless other articles that All the others have also tag teamed on this issue and resorted to petty attacks, as a matter of course, rather than follow any steps in WP:DR at all. Snowded has all but given up any pretence in that regard to users who he has summarily judged as SPIs, while Domer are Mo ainm have a vast amount of experience in the game of call and counter call too as a substitute for actual civil (the do not ignore others type) discussion, while they also simply edit war while fortuitously avoiding either the bright line, or the more obvious pit fall of blatantly attacking the opponent. Bjmullen too, from a shaky start, is rapidly learning this technique too. They all also have a history of following their opponents to conflict sites, where they have never before been involved. I urge you to protect any article you ever see be disrupted like this in future, and block any editor who is the repeat cause of such disruption. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Mick, I long ago lost patience with SPAs on this and other subjects. Its not a summary judgement its plain fact that LemonMonday and LevinBoy are SPAs and that they track the subject --Snowded TALK 16:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we both know how much mileage you get at Wikipedia for asserting what is and is not just a basic fact, expecially when it's a behavioural accusation that invites a block. And where they go, others surely follow. But rather than being the sole cause, they are merely a reactionary symptom of the abject failure to tackle the elephants in the room that dog the whole failure that was BISE frankly. At least they are open and honest about how they end up at certain articles, unlike some, who get no legitimacy at all through the mere fact they edit articles about cheese now and again. MickMacNee (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As this is now at ANI, I don't think I need take this any further. Admins who patrol ANI regularly are better experienced at this sort of thing than I am. GedUK  09:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

LemonMonday AN/I - Not assuming good faith

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Noted. GedUK  09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

RPP and pending changes

Hi Ged UK,

Please have a look at the message that I left at WP:RFPP, I think what I am saying is correct - unless policy changed again?


Thanks,

The Helpful One 10:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically, you're right, but I'm sorta riding on Jimbo's blessing of a case-by-case use. I think I might have to have a proper re-look at the discussions and policy as I may be out of step. I've replied at RPP, but it's probably better to use the RPP talk page otherwise that request will stick around for ages. GedUK  10:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Tree Warbler

Hi. Semi-protection time on this article again? SP-KP (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm still convinced pending changes is better than semi protection on this. It's such low level and low volume that it can sit there unchecked for a few hours without damaging the encyclopedia and removing the kicks they get. GedUK  09:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. How do we go about getting pending changes put in place for this article? SP-KP (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's already done, I did it yesterday. :o) GedUK  07:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for semi-protecting my user page. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2011/April&oldid=1143018665"