Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2012/June

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


Request to reinstate deleted page

Hello,

I'd like to reinstate a page you deleted:

21:39, 27 June 2009 Ged UK (talk | contribs) deleted page Local Initiatives Support Corporation (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.lisc.org)

The page is for the organization Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC). I am a public policy student working in community development. I think LISC should have a page as it is of historical importance to the community development field. I'd be willing to rewrite it so that it does not infringe any copyrights.

Please let me know how I should proceed.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hreijm (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not going to reinstate a page that was a copyright violation. However, the page is not protected, so you can create it yourself! Please make sure that you read WP:FIRST for guidance on what wikipedia expects to make sure an article is notable, especially around the use of reliable sources. These are what are used to determine whether something is notable or not. Feel free to let me know if you need any help. GedUK  11:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Deletion of Doghouse Diaries

Although the article has been deleted, I wasn't able to get any response for my last edit, which includes another reference from webmagazine, MakeUseOf. I agree some of these webmagazines I have never heard of, but that doesn't really qualify them to be unreliable sources. For example MakeUseOf, has a full editorial board, and not just from the magazine, but also from its wiki entry it seems like a reliable web magazine. In any case, this was my final comment, if because of this you change your mind, please let me know what I could do.

I have added yet another reference which puts doghouse diaries in the list of Top 8 web comics. This was in the web-magazineMakeUseOf, an independent media magazine, with an independent editorial board. MakeUseOf, Mashable and Gizmodo, each of them have covered Doghouse Diaries well enough to qualify it to be notable. The objection however could be as to whether the above sources are reliable or not. Here are my points why they could be considered reliable
  • They are not related to Doghouse Diaries, nor does it seem that they are trying to unfairly promote Doghouse Diaries.
  • They have editorial system, for which I refer to their corresponding wiki articles, for example the editorial for MakeUseOf is Editorial staff. Each one of them has an Editor-in-chief and so on.
The clarity of this discussion would be enhanced if the other wiki editors could cite the reason why they think the above references cannot be taken as reliable. Points like Mashable is a trivial source, is a trivial argument.Shashi B Jain (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. There's two options you have, and you could do both. You could take the deletion to deletion review, but that tends to focus on poor closes (eg not correctly assessing the validity of the consensus. That didn't happen in this case in my view (whether the consensus is right is a different issue)).
The second, and probably better option, would be to post on reliable sources noticeboard talk page. Don't post on the actual noticeboard as it's not related to an existing article; the talk page is for general queries about a source, as I understand it. Editors interested in sourcing will be able to take a view on the issue. Hope this helps. GedUK  12:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ! Although talking to the other editors (who voted for deletion), the problem doesn't seem to be on reliability of source any more, but notability. They feel that being listed in top 10, or a list of must read web-comics cannot be considered as a sign of notability. Shashi B Jain (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It's one of those things about Wikipedia. There's guidelines on notability, but the interpretation of them is undertaken by the community at deletion discussions. It's frustrating, but there's not much that can be done about it, except wait for more sources. Consensus can and does change. GedUK  11:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, you declined semi protection for Kunduz airlift‎ on the basis that there's not much disruption, that user is now back again with another IP pretending to be a different person, however geolocation tells something else: [1] [2]. I'm very sure that this is the same person who was trolling before here and on a number of other articles as I've encountered the guy before. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, some one else did it. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Thanks and some clarification

Hello Ged UK. Thank you for protecting the list of top 100 horses of the 20th C. I certainly understand your reasoning for not upping the protection level. I should explain that in the two years that I have had this article on my watchlist (other than a series of edits about criticisms of the way the list was compiled) the only edits have been by IPs changing the order of the horses. It has been sporadic and the article is on at least two active editors watchlist so we usually catch it. Thanks for mentioning that we can update you if the vandalism occurs and we will get back to you as needed. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's one of those frustating things I'm afraid. The consensus is to increase protection lengths through increments. Now the protection has started it can go up each time (unless there's a big gap in the middle). If it's very heavy to start, then sometimes it's longer. Yes, feel free to mention it here, but my editing time is sporadic, so reporting at WP:RPP is fine too.
It's a shame that pending changes wasn't implemented, because that would be perfect for this (edits by new users and IPs have to be approved by registered editors before they show). GedUK  11:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Where are my manners. I meant to leave a follow up thank you yesterday and things completely got away from me. I do appreciate your taking the time to reply and enjoy your Midsummer's Night Dream" next week on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 02:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

IP:50.81.90.92

You recently blocked User:50.81.90.9 for disruptive editing on a variety of Food Network Star and similar articles. Since she's come back from the block, she's made a few passing attempts at discussion, but is still editing the articles over and over and over and over. I can't seem to make her understand two key things: a) that you stop editing when you discuss and b) that you use an edit summary. She's making some good edits, no question, but it's difficult to find them among the almost-neurotic fiddly, repetitive, disruptive edits. The weird thing is, I think much of what she's doing is good faith editing, but given the endless editing and re-editing and re-re-editing of minor stuff on an article and the lack of corresponding discussion or edit summaries, I've begun to think she isn't competent to be editing here. I thought the least aggressive next action would be to come back to you and discuss what action might best be taken to get her attention and get her to understand that there are policies and practices by which she must abide. It's the weirdest behavior I've seen in my years of editing. --Drmargi (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's very difficult when IPs don't engage. I'm wondering whether it's a language issue; English perhaps isn't their native language, or possibly they haven't seen the talk page messages. We have to balance I guess between good and bad edits (ignore whether they're good faith or not), and decide whether there's enough of the good to carry on reverting the bad, or if the bad are so numerous that a longer block may be necessary. GedUK  11:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Difficult and frustrating. It's definitely not English; when she does on occasion engage, she uses proper English that suggests she's not an English learner (and you can trust my judgment on that). It's the daily fiddling and fiddling and fiddling with the various articles that makes the process so disruptive; she has the articles in a constant state of flux, and with no edit summaries along with scant discussion, you have no idea what she's trying to accomplish. She's coming around to some degree -- we've got her less "my way or the highway" than she was, but she's got miles to go. I don't know whether blocking will do the job, or how to get her attention (did you see my latest on her talk page?)
There's an odd little subculture herein, no doubt one of many, that seems to have to do with a cadre of IP editors who are almost slavishly devoted to creating the contestant progress tables in the various elimination US and UK elimination series. I cross their paths with the Food Network Star and Top Chef articles, and find them generally impossible to deal with: no edit summaries, no talk page discussion, no recognition of consensus, POV interpretation of outcomes, and plenty of edit warring seem to be the norm. The worst case AussieLegend and I saw was the most recent article from one of them which had a carefully maintained contestant progress table with an overly-elaborate color scheme and no narrative content. It took several threats of AfD from multiple editors to get the table builders to actually add content beyond the damned article. One of the IP's (who has also edits as Worstcook) even keeps a sandbox with a collection of her latest tables. It's pretty weird stuff that thoroughly impedes normal article development. --Drmargi (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, TV articles generally, and 'reality' shows in particular, attract a type of editor that wouldn't normally edit any other part of the encyclopedia and doesn't really understand the importance of notability. I don't know whether there are guidelines from the WikiTV project on what should or shouldn't go in them. Perhaps that might be a good next step to take more widely. It won't solve this particular issue in the short term, but it might help head off future problems? GedUK  11:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Iaaasi

I would like to notify you that I have began deleting contributions made by the confirmed socpuppets of the banned user Iaaasi ,however, user:Bozo1789 who is an obvious sock of Iaaasi restored them one by one. I do not know what should be done. Either all artcles should be semi-protected reverting to pre-sock version, or a Ip range block should be reinsatated on Iaaasi as there is no way to be stopped Iaaasi otherwise.--Nmate (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nmate revertes obvious helpful edits: [3] [4] [5] [6] Bozo1789 (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Bozo1789 has been blocked. I suspect a range block might be the best way forward. However, I'm not skilled at working them out I'm afraid. I'd suggest asking at WP:AN (not ANI though) for an admin who can do rangeblocks to have a look at it. If they say that the block would pick up too many people, then we can have a look at the individual articles. GedUK  11:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Shazza McKenzie

Hey there, I noticed you deleted an article about women's professional wrestler Madison Eagles. Just thought I'd direct your attention to a less-worthy article by even lesser-known wrestler Shazza McKenzie, who has an article which looks a lot like a resume and seems to be self-promoted or most likely done by a friend for advertising. I figured there are so many more well-known professional wrestlers and entertainers in general without articles, I found it odd that this particular one had one. I nominated it for deletion but someone took it down, I've since put it back up and thought I'd get an admin to look at it. I'm still new to editing on wiki so I wasn't sure of the protocol, hope you can help me out with either conundrum. Cheers!

- Currysteak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Currysteak (talk • contribs) 07:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2012/June&oldid=1089754472"