Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2013/June

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


Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Teaster

You might check this again against the CSD G13 critieria and the consensus for that at Wikipedia_talk:CSD#G13_-_The_discussion_for_the_official_criterion. I believe that whether or not the topic is a neologism, and in fact the AfC decline reason, are immaterial under the G13 critierion. Of course, if you believe the article is ready for mainspace, than it can certainly be put there. It's a new process, so if I'm missing something (quite possibly), forgive me. Best, --j⚛e deckertalk 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're partly right I think, G13 is the criteria I should have been assessing it on. In my defence it was tagged as G2, and I forgot about G13! However, G13 only applies after 6 months. It's not been six months yet. 6 months seems way too long to me, personally, but that's the consensus. GedUK  21:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it was tagged G2. yeah, my bad too, then. Thanks.  :) (And as for six months, I pretty much agree, but so it goes.) Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 21:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There's always MfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Frequent vandalism by user Muttor

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._S._Viswanathan&diff=557283182&oldid=556988207 This artcile MS Viswanathan is being again and again reverted by Mutoor.User needs to be given warning.Lionbase1234 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

At this stage it's not vandalism, I think its' a content dispute. If it continues, you should warn them on their talk page, then report them to WP:AIV. GedUK  12:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Guess u did not see what additions he made of 4206 bytes...other than the first para.Lionbase1234 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The user Mutoor1 is hell bent on reverting the article. Though already references have been provided for proving that MS Viswanathan has composed for 1200 films and that he was provided 60 gold coins by chief minister of Tamil Nadu etc..he keeps reverting the article. Adequate warnings I have given and explained to him politely but he seems to say that what Jayalalithaa says is of no importance. Is he above the chief minister and can he dictate terms in wikipedia? The user needs to be blocked. Check here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._S._Viswanathan&diff=558562525&oldid=558535388 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionbase1234 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Use the talk page to discuss it. Raise it at WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force as there's lots of experts there who can help you more than I can. If you really think he's vandalising, then report him to WP:AIV. GedUK  12:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Himansh Kohli

In that case will wait for promotions of Yaariyan to start and perhaps by July end there would be more artciles on Himansh Kohli in internet.Lionbase1234 (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That is probably the best solution :) GedUK  19:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh

Hello. Since you protected that page you might also be interested in the somewhat related SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan. The case is a bit stale at the moment, so any further input will be welcome. De728631 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a socking issue there tbh, and as the CU has been declined, it'll get closed soon. GedUK  11:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

About Opinion polling for the Iranian presidential election, 2013

Hi. Yesterday, I personally requested for the semi-protection of the article Opinion polling for the Iranian presidential election, 2013. But it seems you made a full protection of the page!?

The page has source-problems and after the discussion with Patrick and Farhikht (2 of the admins that you will see their comment in the talk page of article), they suggested to solve the source problems of the page. For that I (as one of the main contributors in the article) remove a part of the article with sourcing problems in order to solve its problems and add it later again to article. But some IP members repeatedly tried to add the removed part again into the article. And it was the reason that I requested the semi-protection for the article. But by now, I personally cannot edit the article, too. I am a Autoconfirmed user with almost three years of membership in Wikipedia and close to 6,000 edits during this time period.

Could you please change the protection tag of the article form Full-protection to Semi-protection, so I will be able to edit the article and solve its sourcing problems in the following days. Best regards, Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Full protection was intentional. This is a content dispute that has become an edit war, and not just involving IPs. There's no clear consensus on the talk page about what should or shouldn't be included IF it was just IPs removing information that had been agreed by consensus, then semi protection would be valid. Otherwise semi-protection would favour registered users over IPs in a dispute, which is against policy.
Also, Patrick and Farhikht aren't admins. GedUK  11:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your descriptions. If the Wikipedia rules says these things, of course I respect that. And about Patrick and Farhikht I tought that they are admins. Sorry for my misunderstandings. Regards, Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 14:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Carina Nebula

Hello
Can I ask you to look at this again, please? Thanks, Moonraker12 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. GedUK  21:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

MSV

I did inform at the place where you asked me to report, but i guess somehow my appeal has skipped the attention of concerned people. The user continues to revert though many other users who editedin the past one week did not change the facts incorporated by me. See the difference - from 8th June till 15th June untill user Mutoor1 reverted - other users did not edit what I had added - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._S._Viswanathan&diff=560011403&oldid=559569081. Now again am forced to revert the version put by Mutoor1 and as on 15th June - difference is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._S._Viswanathan&diff=560146122&oldid=560011403.Lionbase1234 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The place to report edit warring is WP:3RRN; they're best placed to help you reach a solution. GedUK  12:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Suspension Query

Hello, thanks for suspending User_talk:108.245.6.11. I'm wondering how you arrive at the length of a suspension? Just asking for my own knowledge. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, part of the dark art of admining. First offense, nothing too horrendous in the grand scheme of vandalism, looking at the complete sea-change in editing subjects may well be a reallocated IP so might get reallocated again soon. Anything from 24-48 hours for all that would seem reasonable I think for all that. Hope that helps! GedUK  08:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I particularly like the expression "the dark art of admining".Melbourne3163 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries! GedUK  18:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Arianewiki1 requesting unblock

Hello Ged. Please see User talk:Arianewiki1. The user now says he will agree not to revert without previous consensus, though I would want to hear more about that. Since you are the blocking admin, do you want to check and see if any of this is convincing? His posts at Talk:Carina Nebula certainly don't inspire confidence. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My biggest worry and the one of the key reasons I blocked him was this edit summary where he acknowledges that a ban's likely, and that others are intentionally including errors (and knowing that they're errors). I didn't feel that that indicated he was likely to play well with others, as it were. Now, I take his point that adding wrong information could be counted as 'falsifying' even if you don't know that it's wrong, but that again isn't very collaborative.
However, if they're prepared to work on consensus first, we should give them another chance. That would be my feeling, anyway. GedUK  12:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What's up with Eugene Plotkin?

All we need to do is wait for the Sockpuppet investigation - the result should be conclusive. It certainly was last time. But I can't switch it back, I should be an "autoconfirmed editor" - been around here forever. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I know very little about this article, other than it was felt that it might be subject to move warring, and that seemed reasonable giving the history. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to about 'switching it back'? GedUK  12:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lok Sabha

Soon after the temporary semi-protection imposed by you got expired, again the same problem. Thanks.Suri 100 (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can yuo remind me what the specific problem was? Something to do with changing stats? GedUK  12:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

By just tweaking the numbers mentioned in sections like 'Composition of states and territories india' without assigning any reason. Suri 100 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you got with what i said? Suri 100 (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been on for a few days. I'll have another look at it. GedUK  11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Heated...

Yes, he is quite coming under my skin with accusations of being a sockpuppeter, spammer, vandal and You are bureaucrat with out any ethical feeling. I can understand he is very emotional about the protests, but that should not reflect in his Wikipedia actions. Prediction: next clash this night after another round of protests... The Banner talk 13:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Protection of the page "Swami Maheshwarananda" in connection with Swami Maheshwarananda

I do not understand your reasoning which led to exclusion of the sexual harassment allegations section.

No, he hasn't been charged, because his acts fall under statutes of limitation. Still, in the wider world, outside of his cult, his claim for fame is sexual abuse of his female followers, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of reports on this person from reputable media, as opposed to self-published or obscure, deal with this angle of his personality.

Can it be that you glossed over the non-English language references and came to an unbalanced judgement? Also there aren't any dead links in the references for the sex abuse, but lots of them in the references for the fluff . Lovelybeing (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC) , (formerly 217.13.185.14)

There's a discussion on the talk page, that would be the place to discuss the wider issue. GedUK  11:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Isco

As you have protected the article Isco, is possible to add Template:UEFA Euro U-21 2013 Team of the Tournament to the page.

User talk:Alexgreene87, 21 June 2013, 18:52 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected, you shuold be able to edit it. Let me know if you can't. GedUK  11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Protection Heresy in Christianity

The user that asked for page protection is refusing to discuss the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heresy_in_Christianity&diff=561300944&oldid=561299526

He states he wants to keep denominations on the heresy page(the reason for the page protection request), but denominations are classified as schisms, which have a separate article on the encyclopedia . He is refusing to discuss the changes, refusing to rewrite the section and also claiming that other editors are incompetent. I am requesting your help Thereandnot (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is essentially a content dispute. An admin has no more weight in the dispute than any other editor. Your best bet would be raising it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity where there's obviously many knowlegable and interested people in the subject. Essentially there's three people involved in the disagreement, and the more opinions you get the better. GedUK  11:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2013/June&oldid=1168301362"