Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2012/October

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


Unprotect request

Kindly unprotect Douglas Tait (stuntman). As noted in the objection to the request, there is no basis for protection. There is just 1 editor's false assumption that all IP edits are automatically vandalism. The same editor also admitted to 3RR in violating WP:BLPREMOVE - but the ed. was not blocked? [1] [2]. As you know, WP:BLPREMOVE instructs that contentious material be removed immediately. That's not 3RR or vandalism, so no violation happened that merits protection. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:61D4:6FD2:B0C6:8F2F (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be ok with changing to partial-protection. This IP can log in instead of shifting from IP to IP if s/he would like to edit. But to clarify, I only noted 3RR on talk to note my next edit would put me at 3, and that I would not edit beyond that. Unfortunately, this IP reverted 4 times. I would also invite you to weigh-in on what was framed as a content dispute after I made the page protection request. Before then, the IP, over several weeks, continuously removed this material without discussion. The IP was reverted by me and others, and never discussed (despite there being a section in talk I repeatedly pointed to) until the last 24 hours. This is the material the IP says is irrelevant and a BLP violation. It is sourced to four LA Times articles and relates to the subject's early acting and is relevant to things the subject has repeatedly mentioned in interviews (such as they are) so even if WP:NPF applies (and I would bet his publicist would argue it does not!), it seems ok. This is the relevant discussion section on talk, with my more full discussion of the IP's latest points (IP's PA's notwithstanding). If you do not unprotect, would you please revert to the last version edited by somebody other than the IP and me so as to not lock in a version that never had consensus and to avoid rewarding an editor who violates 3RR knowing another interested editor will not, and not leaving time for anyone else to revert before the page was locked. Thanks for any help or guidance you can give. Novaseminary (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
As a long-time editor, Novaseminary is well aware that under WP:BLPREMOVE, the removal of contentious material does not constitute a 3RR violation. That is all I have done. But Novaseminary's repeated insistence on undoing those removals does constitute 3RR. He even admitted he was in violation on the article's talk page. So this editor knows better, but he is pushing a long-standing and continuing agenda opposing this BLP. Currently he actually contends that obscure & contentious material, published during that individual's high school years, is actually relevant for inclusion 20 years later in an article that focuses exclusively on their professional life! That really is Novaseminary's argument! As for his request for either partial block or revert, contrary to his claim there is no consensus on any prior version. One editor has already objected to inclusion of the irrelevant & contentious material and one has not. That's hardly a consensus. It is also revealing that Novaseminary is so anxious to reinsert the contentious material during this block - thereby preventing any objection during that period. Instead, just maintain the block, until more editors have a chance to review the material and the talk page. And can weigh in on the proper use of WP policies. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A9D1:44D3:A2AB:F696 (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. I suggest contacting the BLP noticeboard for their opinion on whether this sourced matierial is or isn't BLP compliant. GedUK  11:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, this dispute has been moved to the BLP noticeboard where it still remains unresolved. So please extend page protection of Douglas Tait (stuntman), which is scheduled to expire tomorrow, until the BLP issues are resolved. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3D41:47E5:EC56:15A5 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Why would page protection be extended? Is the IP planning to edit war? I won't (ever) violate 3RR, as I mentioned on talk before the IP reverted me a fourth time over a content dispute. It seems the IP would like to be further rewarded for violating 3RR by continued lock-in of its version. Novaseminary (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Novaseminary's response itself explains why page protection needs to be extended. He just said that he was reverted "a fourth time". But how was that possible if he wasn't edit warring 4 times in the first place? So four times, by his own admission, he restored contentious material that was removed per WP:BLPREMOVE, which not only states that contentious material must be removed "immediately", but that the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. This editor has been told this several times, but instead chooses to resort to WP:ICANTHEARYOU and is now attempting to game the system by forum shopping first to the BLP Noticeboard and now to RFC. So with every indication that his behavior will continue once the page protection is lifted, until this is resolved, the page needs to remain protected. Thank you. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll watch the article and protect if necessary. I'm hopeful that as you're talking on here and various other places (and it should never have left BLPN) the article will remain stable without protection. GedUK  12:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
As predicted, Novaseminary has resumed edit warring on Douglas Tait (stuntman) again. Reinserting the same contentious material disallowed by WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NPF. Per BLPREMOVE, I have "immediately" removed them. I have also asked the editor to stop edit warring and let the RFC that he initiated, run it's course. But he refused. Please page protect again, making sure not to reward him by protecting his reverts, and block him for edit warring. Thank you. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems to have moved on now, and something like a consensus is being formed. I'm not sure protection would be appropriate at this stage. GedUK  12:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disneyland page protection

Disneyland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I see that a few days ago that you fully protected the Disneyland article, even after another admin declined the protection. You did so, leaving in serious breaches of original research and synthesis. I will remind you that WP:OR is one of the three core content "policies" on Wikipedia, and there should be no leeway in them. Unfortunately, I don't think that you looked very deeply into what the other user, possibly and sock puppet, was adding to the article. Now that "original research" is starting to show up in internet search results, which leads to false and misleading information being distributed across the net and unfortunately attributed to Wikipedia. I don't think you did your homework on this one. Full protection should only be used as a last resort and you seem to have misused the tools. Hopefully you will review your own action before I'm forced to ask for an Admin review.--JOJ Hutton 13:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it wasn't after another admin declined it, but rather at the same time. Whilst he was decling it I was studying the page history (as he did). A two year slow rolling edit war does to my mind pretty much require full protection as a last resort as clearly it's not been resolved. I couldn't see a clear consensus about what the date should be, and from what I could see there was certainly a lack of clarity in the sources, and their reliability. I'm happy with my judgement on this, but certainly feel free to have another admin review it; I've no problem with that.
What you'll probably find more effective though is trying some of the various dispute resolution options open to you to get a wider view on the argument, as at the moment it's you and another editor. GedUK  11:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
So you have no problem with editors violating WP:OR, which is a core content policy? Did you review the edit? Or the alleged "sources"?--JOJ Hutton 02:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course I have a problem with that. The fundamental issue here should not be decided by one admin on his talk page. As I've said, you'd be better served trying to reach a consensus on the core issue, otherwise the edit war will simply start again, and it'll need to be protected again. GedUK  11:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Well take a good look at the edit in question. It's WP:OR and you are insuring that it is currently left in. And you can't discuss anything with a tendentious editor who only shows up every 6 months or so and tries to add his version of original research, won't discuss on the talk page, and may possibly be a sock. I think you are taking the wrong road here and instead of attempting to fix the problem you are standing by a poor decision.--JOJ Hutton 13:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
There's plenty of other editors who you can engage with to form consensus. There's plenty of alternative routes, RFC and 3O are probably the most relevant. If you think they're a sock report them to SPI. If that turns out to be accurate then they can be blocked, and the protection would be no longer necessary. As it is, it's 2 users disagreeing, and it should be a community consensus that agrees the way forward, not just an admin on their talk page. GedUK  12:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I will advise you to take a good look at the edit and the blog "source" before continuing to stand by this decision. You are protecting obvious WP:OR and that type of information should never be left in Wikipedia, especially when it is wrong because nothing in the so-called "source" confirms anything that was added to the article. It will behoove you to look at the edit very carefully so that you are fully informed in case an official notice report is filed.--JOJ Hutton 04:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Madison Eagles

I have never before encountered "a page with this title has previously been deleted" and was told to speak to you about it. I have reliable references and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the message. I deleted this as it was a recreation of a page that the community decided wasn't appropriate. However, things can change, so that's not necessarily a reason to delete it again.
I'm assuming that the article you want to create is about the same person, a wrestler, and not something else. If so you should have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (3rd nomination) and make sure that you can address the issues raised in these deletion discussions.
Essentially the issues were around notability, so make sure that you've met the requirements of WP:N and WP:ATHLETE.
It would probably be helpful to develop the article in your userspace, and then ask some members of the relevant Wikiproject to have a look at it and see what they think before you put it in the main Wiki.
Let me know if you need any more help! GedUK  11:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2012

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2012, 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 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC_2

Hi. I want to make sure you know that this RfC was already marked closed when you commented. The official close hasn't happened yet, so I don't see any compelling reason to undo, but I'm concerned that it's not clear that input is no longer being solicited. Do you know of a better template or some other markup that can be used? I've poked around here and there and can't find anything that works. Rivertorch (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. Sorry about that! I don't know why on earth I didn't see the template other than pure blindness/stupidity. I can guess that it might be the fact that Wikipedia:PC2012 said, and still says, under way, so maybe I went into template-blindness mode! GedUK  12:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've changed that status now, but you might want to refine/tidy it. GedUK  12:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. There are so many loose ends to tidy, I'd forgotten all about that page! Rivertorch (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, you said you have protected this article for 1 month but you haven't protected that yet. Could you please consider to protect it? Torreslfchero (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously forgot to actually press the protect button! I see it's been done now. Sorry about that. GedUK  11:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

RFPP archive bot

FYI - I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Bot archiving that you might be interested in contributing to. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Have contributed. GedUK  11:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Telecom Council wikipedia entry

I am wondering why you deleted the Telecom Council's wikipedia page on 10 December 2010. It is a 12 year-old international community of telecom innovation executives that is referenced over a dozen times on various wikipedia pages in a few languages already. The page also explained the SPIFFY Awards, which is also referenced in dozens of pages and once you deleted the Telecom Council page left all those other pages without context. I wrote the page to not talk about the future work of the Telecom Council, and only talk about the history of it, so that it would only include provable facts and no marketing language. You took it down for reason A7.

But then today I see a shameless self-promotion wikipedia entry that this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Martinez) is using as a marketing tool to promote a questionable business. When I see that, I can't for the life of me understand why you would pull down an entry for a real association that impacts 1000s of companies a year across a global industry and is supported by AT&T, Vodafone, Orange, Telefonica etc.

Assuming that you are able to put the page back up, may I respectfully request that you use the previous page. It would take hours and hours of research to gather all of that data again and waste a lot of time.

Thanks Kerton (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing within the article that indicated why it was notable; there were no independant third party sources that discussed the company. That this company 'impacts' 1000s of companies isn't really relevant if there's no verifiable sources to back the claim up. There were only three 2-line paragraphs in the whole article
I can restore the page to your userspace to work on if you like. Let me know. GedUK  11:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Please Protect my Page User:Greatuser (Indifinate Semi-Protection), I Requested on its Request page but it was removed, But my edits were reverted. Reason: I want to ban editing to this page for Unregistered user and Newly Registered User, Thank You Greatuser (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You should make a request at WP:RPP. I don't know why it got cleared away last time. I very rarely protect user pages just because someone wants it protected. GedUK  12:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like he's forum shopping. See his previous requests at User talk:Lectonar#Page Protection and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection for persistent spamming please

More persistent spamming on Acrochordon, I see you've semi-protected the article in the past over the same spam, so perhaps some extended protection is necessary? -173.187.139.38 (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for alerting me. I'll try and get that site included on the blacklist so it can't be added. GedUK  13:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Thank you!

Someone else who is finally sane!!! Please help on the Godfather, I have been dealing with this for so long since April! --JTBX (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC) You may want to look at what they did to your message on the talk page JTBX (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2012/October&oldid=1089754443"