Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2012/September

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


User CHISTHI.ZA and Sufism

Hi there!

Can you take a look at this please? The article contains a section called "Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars". This user keeps adding one person to this list, who clearly does not belong there, since his article (created by CHISTHI.ZA on Aug 20, 2012) is really a joke, currently flagged with the "advert" template. The article is written by a devout follower, in a tone of complete veneration, without anything remotely resembling objectivity, and without any references.

I have reverted this addition twice, with these edit summaries:

1) reverted promotional edit; his article is really not even an article; notability is certainly far from established)

2) notability not established; his WP article is a joke; PLEASE DON'T ADD HIM BACK AGAIN)

CHISTHI.ZA has just added him back for a third time.

I don't know whether this calls for a friendly warning to CHISTHI.ZA or protecting the article or both.

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think protection would be appropriate, this is a content dispute. You should seek a third opinion, talk to a relevant Wikiproject (religion or Islam perhaps?) as I've no real idea about the quality of the arguments on either side. GedUK  07:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't the quality of the article he is linking speak for itself? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
If yuo don't think the notability of the linked to article is right, then nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Then if it's deleted it can easily be removed from this list. GedUK  12:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Will do; thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

please bring ip protection

Please bring back permanent ip protection to [1]. There is a series of ips which are constantly removing sources due to nationalistic reasons.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.165 (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It came off protection in February, and it's only happened once since, so I think that would be overkill at this stage. GedUK  11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

You've got mail!

Hello, Ged UK/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Note - I sent it to Materialscientist as well after he said he was online. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Already done, I happened to have my phone in my hand as the mail came through. GedUK  12:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Request

I requested article protection both times and have initiated discussion asking the other editors for sources on their additions to the article.

The editors that keep adding an 'out' designator to the candidate's photos do not present any sources to back up their changes. Before you locked it this time, I had allowed almost 3 days to pass and no one had commented. This time, at the request of one of the editors pushing for the changes, I started an RfC and no one has participated.

I've tried to show that removing the 'out' designator is in line with our sources, especially regarding Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, and the only discussion I've gotten is in the edit summaries.

I'd like to ask that if they don't step up (within a week?) and actually provide a legitimate source for their changes, that we remove the 'out' designators from all the photos of candidates, and move on. If not from all the candidates, at least from Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

I would also like if those editors who are pushing for this unsourced change make another edit to the article like this, they receive some kind of warning or penalty for pushing unsourced content into the article.

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You'll have to remind exactly what the article was; I remember the broad issues which you've summarised here, but not the article! You may find it helpful to start a request for comment so that the wider community can pitch in and give their views. Lack of consensus is always a problem, but if no-one's willing to discuss it, my view is that clearly sourced additions must be preferable. Certainly if they are adding unsourced content then they can be warned by any user really. GedUK  11:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it was Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. I started an RfC, but the problem really isn't that. It is that these other editors are not willing to give sources, they are simply reverting because they want to show bias toward Mitt Romney. As a compromise, one editor proposed removing all the 'out' stickers from the photos because the primaries are over and it was helpful during the months to see a visual indicator of who was out or not.
But the primaries have ended. Ron Paul was continuing to run all the way to the national convention. He was not 'out' in the primaries. The article is about the primaries. We have a separate article about the Republican National Convention and the choosing and binding of delegates, which is done at the states via primaries, caucuses, and state conventions, is a separate thing from the national convention. These editors will not show any sources that support another interpretation. Our own article United States presidential primary, says:
Some states only hold primary elections, some only hold caucuses, and others use a combination of both. These primaries and caucuses are staggered between January and June before the general election in November. The primary elections are run by state and local governments, while caucuses are private events that are directly run by the political parties themselves. A state's primary election or caucus usually is an indirect election: instead of voters directly selecting a particular person running for President, it determines how many delegates each party's national convention will receive from their respective state.
Please note that all of the primaries are "staggered between January and June", and that the purpose of the primary process is to determine delegates to the national convention. Based on its title, the article's coverage of the subject should end when the national convention begins. Of course, there will be issues that overlap, but I see no reason to indicate a candidate as 'out' of the race in the primaries, if they were still running at the national convention. -- Avanu (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your logic, and it makes sense to me. However, I'm far from an expert in US politics, and on US political coverage on Wikipedia. You'd be best off raising it at the WP:POLITICS wikiproject (or a US subproject if there is one) as there's people there who will know the way we generally do it, which I don't. GedUK  11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving pages in someone else's userspace

Regarding this from RFPP, I just tried to move a page in my alt account's userspace and it worked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll bear that in mind. GedUK  11:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Believe Tour

I really believe that this article should be indefinitely protected. Look at the type of IP additions to the article. Zac  21:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the IP edits, that's why I protected it. I'm just not going to go indef for the first protection, it usually takes a while before indef is actioned, if at all. GedUK  11:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Talkback

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 13:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nikthestoned 13:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi International Airport

I appreciated that you protected Abu Dhabi International Airport since the passenger airlines list sometimes was vandalized. But the vandalized edits are still on the page. So I ask you to please remove these airlines: Air malta, Armavia, Azerbaijan Airlines, Bahrain Air, Cyprus Airways, Ethiopian Airlines, Kenya Airways, Phillippine Airlines, Tajik Air, Thai Airways International, and Uzbekistan Airways as these airlines do not or no longer serve Abu Dhabi.72.89.35.142 (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I protected it because IPs were edit warring. I've no idea which is the right version. You should raise a request on thee talk page to have it updated. GedUK  12:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Nikthestoned's talk page.
Message added 12:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nikthestoned 12:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disneyland

I only know what's in the edit history, where the previous user to edit war for the 18th opening date was New York4152 (talk · contribs), blocked on the 4th April 2012 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathan Yip. A couple of hours later GeorgeKelsey (talk · contribs) came out of a four year retirement to pick up the fight. Coincidence, eh? Yet I also think this person has a really strong case on the talk page, against people who aren't really justifying themselves very well at all, which is why I haven't blocked. I'm a bit conflicted, but my policy at RFPP is to always start at the bottom and go through every request in order, and not just pick and choose the easy ones. As you can see I directed them back to SPI, though given the above I have no problems with another admin jumping in and making a decision where I didn't. – Steel 13:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I always start at the bottom too, hence the protection conflict. I can see your point totally, but I just wanted to give the article some stability. Thanks for the reply. GedUK  14:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Justice and Development Party (Turkey)

You blocked this site. The block is gone, the content-removal by an ip is going on...--Chauahuasachca (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Protection

Can you take another look at the request for page protection for Christian science. The IPs keep inserting original research and synthesis into the article, despite being asked not to numerous times on the talk pages. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have calmed down. GedUK  12:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2012/September&oldid=1139198031"