Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2014/February

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


Sam Sailor

Hi, Ged. Sam Sailor and Lute Heil Hitler request that USS Cossack and HMS Cossack be renamed in "Galichina SS division Cossack" in the article "Jewish Cossacks". They delete most authoritative sources in their nonsense edition to prove their nonsense. Any "Cossack" units of Hitler, who, in their opinion, was the best and the only friend of Jews during the WWII, had been intended to fight against the western allies only and not against any Communists. There are many documents signed by Adolf Hitler to use these units against the western allies and pro-western guerillas only. There was a small number of real Cossacks in these units. "Galichina SS division cossacks" have nothing common with Cossacks at all. They were not the descendants of "the only Cossack branch recruiting Jews". Real Cossacks had nothing common with SS. Zaporozhian Cossacks, which recruited Jews similar to other Cossack branches, live in the Kuban region of Russia now and have never served in any SS division and have never applied to the US Navy and to the UK Navy to rename USS Cossack and HMS Cossack into USS Galichina SS division Cossack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.199.180 (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ged, I believe that Lute88 will agree that the above IP is quite obviously MVanova not logging in. I would like to continue to AGF, but I fear this is not just a case of a Russian editor whos English is hard to understand. Quite contrary, his English is fully understandable, but what he writes, in the article as well as on talk gapes, makes often very little sense, and sometimes no sense at all. One example here is that he now talks about an unspecified USS Cossack and HMS Cossack that Lute88 and I should have requested be renamed, but there has never been any talk about these vessels, and I very much doubt they have anything to do with Jewish Cossacks apart from the Cossack bit. The rest of what he writes here is, may I be frank, just as lunatically fragmented as some of his ramblings on Talk:Jewish Cossacks. If you have a better approach than WP:DENY, do tell me. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 19:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a nagging suspicion that MVanova is a gal. What she writes is undecipherable, especially "Orthodox Catholics" or whatever. What I could figure out with some diffilculty is that she conflates 7th Day Adventists with Jews. Yikes.... She also erroneously assumes that 88 in my handle stands for HH i.e. Heil Hitler. Apparently that is a self-identifier code among russian neonazis.--Lute88 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)23:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I honestly can't work out what the IP above is a) trying to tell me and b) what they want/expect me to do. Yes, I can't see a rename request anywhere related to those ships, and certainly not that either of youo have made. For me there's nothing to act on at this point, and DENY for you seems a sensible route to take at the moment. GedUK  12:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ged. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 15:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well.--Lute88 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The falsified content protected by Sam Sailor and Lute88 is an anti-American and anti-British one. "Ukrainian "Jewish" Cossacks" assassinated a lot of US and British soldiers during WWII. They swore allegiance to Adolf Hitler. Lute88 is an international abbreviation for Heil Hitler. There is no difference among bad Russian national socialists and good, in Lute88's and Sam Sailor's opinion, Ukrainian national socialists. Similar to Tzarnayev brothers, they are good in a jail only. If any of them will try either to attack USS Cossack or to help any other Tzarnayevs to attack her, because she is not called after "Ukrainian Jewish Cossack untersharfuhrer Roman Shukhevich" they will be delivered to a US jail for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.249.138 (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Dear GedUK. Please note, that the 17th century Cossacks have never been any Lutherans. Orthodox Catholic churches have never called themselves "Ethiopian", "Eritrean', "Nestorian", "Syrian", "Coptic" etc. as Lute88 insists. They have never considered Adolf Hitler as the part of the Holy Trinity similar to Lute88. Moreover, the 17th century Cossacks might not imagine that they would be called Ukrainian ones. They called themselves Russian Orthodox Catholics ("руськие греческой веры") and had never called themselves Orthodox Christians. Only Poles, Turks, Armenians, Greeks, Africans were called Ukranians in the 17th century, later Russian Old Believers and other people from the Greater Russia were called Ukrainians as well. This is why the first Ukrainian President Vinnichenko emphasized in 1918, that "the vast majority of our Ukrainian people have never been able to imagine that they are Ukrainians". This is why there were no difference between Ukrainian Cossacks and Russian Cossacks. The difference had never been present in time when HMS Cossack and USS Cossack appeared in the British Navy and in the US Navy as well. Please note that Lute88 being a woman writes on behalf of a male US Ukrainian of Jewish origin playing Ukrainian music on board of US ships to make the US Navy prohibit his professional activities. There is no other reason for falsifications of Lute88 and Sam Sailor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.207.139 (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Template:Lua

Regarding this; I could go either way, really. I figured it was fairly low-risk, but if you feel it isn't I'm OK with protection. Up to you. Best, m.o.p 13:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine leaving it off. GedUK  13:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,
Thank u for your protection of space probe and voyager program...Herald talk with me 13:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Pending changes seemed more appropriate for both. GedUK  13:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

SMART criteria

Page has been vandalized, although edits infrequent. Extend protection time? --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but it doesn't expire till the 10th. Ask me nearer the time. GedUK  16:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Two days from now, the protection will expire. --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DigDeep4Truth

Hello,

I'm being attacked by a user: DigDeep4Truth at: Talk:Sirach. This user doesn't want to explain anything, instead, started instigating personal attacks about me and about my user page saying I discriminate against Catholics. I feel this user is trying to avoid any explanations and is trying to redirect the discussion against me. -- Please help -- ♣Jerm♣729 08:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Also: This user has begun editing the article: Sirach without any resolve in the discussion yet. The user has already been warned by others for personal attacks. Please prevent the user from using inappropriate behavior towards other editors like blocking him/her from editing. -- ♣Jerm♣729 08:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry now, the user has been blocked. -- ♣Jerm♣729 10:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't help sooner. GedUK  13:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now you can help if you get there fast, the user was blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitly accept his/her own talk page. The user has been removing and altering text on his/her page that manipulates the text. I would like to prevent this by a indefinite blockage on his/her talk page. There is no reason for this user to edit if he/she can't even edit Wikipedia articles. The alteration of the text just keeps causing problems, and I would like for you to end it. -- Cheers -- ♣Jerm♣729 05:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you were just beaten to it again. Perhaps different timezones might be it. The user was blocked indefinitely from everything. -- Cheers and srry for waisting your time -- ♣Jerm♣729 08:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm usually on around lunchtime UTC, so 12-1 pm UTC, so yeah, timezones! No time wasted at all, bo problem :) GedUK  12:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thnx, I appreciate your patience. There is one thing left that you could get to without having to race another admin to it...LOL. Could you delete some history of Sirach. Delete everything after this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sirach&diff=591112400&oldid=589020923 because it's just fractured history. Again, thnx and sorry -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: It's from the first edit that user made: DigDeep4Truth here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sirach&diff=593540059&oldid=591112400 to the last edit which should have been my own that should be deleted from history. -- Thnx -- ♣Jerm♣729 23:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry, but I can't do that. Revision deletion is only for use in a very specific and narrow set of criteria. These are set out at Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Errors or editing differences of opinion aren't deleted; they stay in the history. GedUK  12:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's cool, I didn't expect you to do so anyway. Thnx for your assistance anyway. It really means a lot to know you respond so quickly as an admin ready to assist users. -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

John Logie Baird and List of ice cream brands

There have been reverts last month. Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  10:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Kent, Ohio

Back in August you put the Kent, Ohio article on protection because of an ongoing spamming issue. Well, the protection expired on the 11th of this month and the same anonymous editor has already made at least one attempt to add the same link (I reverted it), but past experience has shown that any attempt to communicate with the anonymous editor is useless and it's clearly someone or more than one person who frequently checks the article, but is unfamiliar with the process or unwilling to communicate. The IP address is new, but is from the same source (Doylestown Communications) as all the other ones, not to mention the exact same edits as the others. May need to see if it happens again, but based on past experience, it likely will. Sometimes there are multiple attempts per day, sometimes there are gaps of several days between attempts. Thanks for any assistance. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  10:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Woody Allen's page

Hi there, I noticed Woody Allen's page has been protected per request. But the problem is, the current version was edited by user:Uenuku, who has been reported for edit warring with several editors. The content he was adding didn't even mesh with the reference. His edits read "The Yale–New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Clinic concluded that there was "no merit" in the claim, citing a contradictory statement made by Dylan about where she had been touched", which was clearly not supported by the Ref is here (Please do read the ref). And another edit he's made came directly from a 2013 Vanity Fair story instead of an unbiased news report from 1993 (our original source). I understand the locked version is not an endorsement, but I think we should at least stick to the noncontroversial version. So could you please revert those edits by user Uenuku? Thank you very much. --Artoasis (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Artoasis: Sorry, I've been off-wiki, forgot to put the banner up. Anyway, it's expired now, so can I mark this as closed? GedUK  10:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, it's OK. I figured you must have be busy with real life stuff, so I've reverted the edits when the protection expired today. Please mark it as closed. Cheers. --Artoasis (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection at OMICS

With respect, I'm not sure you've looked closely enough at this one. In essence, you are taking the view that Randykitty and I are the vandals here while Movieking007 (talk · contribs) is a legitimate editor. The sock puppet investigation [1] strongly suggests otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking the view that there's an edit war, and am stabilising the article. I'm not looking at who is or isn't a sock, that's what SPI is for. The protected version is always the wrong version. GedUK  13:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, then like I said you're not looking closely enough. Perhaps the question here is whether you are interested in having editors in good standing keep track of articles in situations when there is very good reason to believe that other editors are acting against the interests of Wikipedia more broadly. As things stand, you are rewarding the efforts of a determined set of POV-pushers who edit Wikipedia for financial gain. This sort of action makes it difficult for me to conclude that the effort here is worth it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If they turn out to be socks, then they'll get blocked, the article will be unprotected, and you can roll it back to wherever you want. If they're not socks, then it's a content dispute and it needs to be resolved through the usual channels. If necessary it can be semi-protected to stop them coming back, but at this point nothing's been decided and I don't have checkuser. GedUK  13:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think Ged made an alright call to be honest since we are still (!) waiting for CU. In the meantime though, can I send the article to AFD? There's no way that it meets WP:CORP - most of the references cited don't even mention the company. SmartSE (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. GedUK  13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
"The protected version is always the wrong version." Yes, but particularly when the protected version consists almost entire of a copyvio of a PR document that someone else has now had to clean up. --JBL (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, there wasn't a copyvio notice on it before, so sorry if I missed that. GedUK  12:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor Newsletter—February 2014

Did you know?
Click this image to see the details.

You can easily re-use references by going to the Insert menu, choosing "Reference", and clicking on "Use an existing reference" in the lower left corner. A list of all references, their numbers, and their ref names (if any) will be shown. You can search the list for any author, title, date, or other keyword. Read the user guide for more information.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some small changes to the user interface, such as moving the reference item to the top of the Insert menu, as well as some minor features and fixing bugs, especially for rich copying and pasting of references.

The biggest change was the addition of more features to the image dialog, including the ability to set alignment (left, right, center), framing options (thumbnail, frame, frameless, and none), adding alt text, and defining the size manually. There is still some work to be done here, including a quick way to set the default size.

  • The main priority is redesigning the reference dialog, with the goal of providing autofill features for ISBNs and URLs and streamlining the process. Current concept drawings are available at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. Please share your ideas about making referencing quick and easy with the designers.
  • A few bugs in the existing reference dialog were fixed. The toolbar was simplified to remove galleries and lists from the reference dialog. When you re-use references, it now correctly displays the references again, rather than just the number and name. If you paste content into a dialog that can't fit there (e.g. ==section headings== in references), it now strips out the inappropriate HTML.
  • You can now edit image galleries inside VisualEditor. At this time, the gallery tool is a very limited option that gives you access to the wikitext. It will see significant improvements at a later date.
  • The character inserter tool in the "Insert" menu is being redesigned. Your feedback on the special character inserter is still wanted, especially if you depend on Wikipedia's character inserters for your normal editing rather than using the ones built into your computer.
  • You can now see a help page about keyboard shortcuts in the page menu (three bars next to the Cancel button) (T54844).
  • If you edit categories, your changes will now display correctly after saving the page (T50560).
  • Saving the page should be faster now (T61660).
  • Any community can ask to test a new tool to edit TemplateData by leaving a note at T53734.

Looking ahead: The link tool will tell you when you're linking to a disambiguation or redirect page. The warning about wikitext will hide itself after you remove the wikitext markup in that paragraph. Support for creating and editing redirects is in the pipeline. Looking further out, image handling will be improved, including default and upright sizes. The developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments, some behavioral magic words like DISPLAYTITLE, and in-line language setting (dir="rtl").

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 04:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji

Thank you for fully protecting the article, as requested. I asked for the protection because of a number of socks who were removing sourced information and adding information against policy. So is it really necessary to have the big template on edit warring on top of the page for a whole month? A bit worried. --krimuk 90 12:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If/when they get blocked, as does seem likely, let me know and I can unprotect the page again. GedUK  12:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. :) --krimuk 90 12:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, the trouble causing socks have been blocked here. Could it be possible to reduce the protection template to a lesser one so that IPs and newly registered users won't be able to damage it? Thanks. --krimuk 90 02:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done GedUK  12:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac

Need extra PC time? --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Simpsons episodes

Hi Ged, thanks for your attention to this matter. If you'd like to contribute, there's a discussion regarding this matter on the Simpsons WikiProject talk page now. – PeeJay 13:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I don' tknow that I have an opinion either way. GedUK  13:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Erik Prince

Hi GED UK - new to all of this so not sure if this is the correct place to leave you a message. The information added to Erik Prince's (the PMC guy - not the footballer) is from his autobiography, so I'm not sure why it was undone. Can you explain? 7130hush — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7130hush (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is that first party sources, like an autobiography, aren't very reliable. Please see reliable sources. For example, a footballer could say "I'm the greatest player ever", but that doesn't mean it's true. Even for things like height and weight and age.
When that's combined with a sensitive issue like affairs and pregancy of another person, we have to be extra careful. What we would really need is a third party source to say that, and even then it might not be enough. The rules on Biographies of Living People are quite complicated because we have a duty to make sure we don't cause distress.
Hope that helps! GedUK  12:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi GED UK, yes that does make sense when someone is bragging about themselves "best footballer ever!" but if someone actually says, "I had an affair while my wife was dying of cancer" in an autobiography, isn't that somewhat different than bragging? Not trying to be tedious or parse words. In addition, court records would support the divorce from that second wife (the one Joanna Houck) with whom the affair took place. Just trying to add to the public record - no worries! Cheers! Oh, when can I upload a photo? I have one of Jamie Smith, the creator of Blackwater Security Company, showing him in Pakistan (or close to the border). Cheers! (again) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7130hush (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the two photos of Jamie Smith, I uploaded them to the Blackwater Security section. The files were used with permission. I received an email alerting me to the need to show proof. I emailed back (as instructed) a fwd of the email giving permission to use both images.7130hush (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I just read that I cannot upload for four days and ten edits. Can I send the photo to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7130hush (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, just because someone says that they have an affair doesn't mean they did, and the point is the woman involved hasn't written this, we have to protect her as well as him. With regard to the photo, it would be better to hold on until your account is confirmed. Also, please make sure you read the licencing rules about pictures because someone will own the copyright to it and we need to be careful about whether we can use it or not. GedUK  12:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


WRT Erik Prince, I found two other supporting sources for the affair (CNN and Politico) and cited them both. I also block quoted Prince from his autobiography; this technique as was allowed by another poster without any apparent problem. So hopefully, this resolves this issue.7130hush (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. GedUK  12:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Bobby Dragas wiki

Hi Ged UK You deleted my wiki page in Dec 2013. Can prove that I was a professional football player. Please return page otherwise let me know what you need to do so. Really require wiki in my profession. Cheers Boris

Hi there. Let me know the sources and I'll have a look at it. The issue at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Dragas discussion was that he/you hadn't played at a fully professional club, per WP:NFOOTY, rather than he/you weren't professional. GedUK  12:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the page.

All the relevant details were blinked to make the article receive permanent deletion. I have copied and pasted all the history all removed but which is very relevant including the U Mugs review which is also included below is the fullest most informative history for the Pro editors to make a final discussion.

Thanks. There's no need for this to be on this talk page though. All the history is visible on the history tab. GedUK  14:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OMICS Creations

Some group editors doing syndicate editing ande redirecting films and movies page OMICS Creations to Scientific Publishing OMICS Publishing Group. CU is required and/or investigation required about these people who are representing as experts but behaving as culprits. This is a Preposterous activity at WP. I request sock poppet investigation and full protection for this article.Movieking007 (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You can start your own Sock investigation at WP:SPI. I don't have checkuser rights. GedUK  12:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Macaulay Culkin and Avan Jogia

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've done Culkin, but not Jogia, that one doesn't look too bad. GedUK  12:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your protection on the entry: "Rohingya Rebellion".

Hi Adim, thank you for your protection. But, it is not only the content dispute but the disturbance. Please kindly read my report. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rohingya_conflict_in_Western_Burma#Not_only_Content_Dispute_but_a_Disturbance_Made_by_IP_92.17.245.111 You can also check from the editing history - what this disturbing user did. I don't know how to handle such behavior of this user who seemed to be very new. Stevejaw (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, you need to edit any of the various Dispute Resolution processes. If it's just the two of you with a difference of opinion, the best route might be to get a 3rd opinion. GedUK  11:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2014/February&oldid=1147977253"