Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2014/September

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


Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri

DEAR GED

I request you to first restore the truthful statement and then protect the page from further changes.

THE TRUTH is that Dr. P. K. Bajpai is implicated in a serious criminal case against women when he was in Rajasthan. He befooled many people and got appointment as Principal in HARYANA.

This is true and it must be made known.

The women commission had recommended that the person should not be employed in a place where women work. He is very dangerous for women and girls because he influences ladies by using very flowery language and then use them as he wants.

Kindly see the changes by womencelludaipur.

telling a truth statement that the case is pending against him must be stated in a very neutral way. Also contribution of the Dr. Raj Kumar (who is no more) must also be stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admnlawwiki (talk • contribs) 05:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've replied to a similar communication on my talk page: Noyster (talk), 14:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. As Noyster (talk · contribs) has mentioned on his talk page, the relevant policy is WP:BLPCRIME. If you think that this case should be discussed further, then the relevant place is the article's talk page, or the BLP noticeboard. Thanks. GedUK  11:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Misguided fool with the pet genre hangup

Hi Ged UK - Re: Lorde page - Whilst I completely support the decision to protect the Lorde page from the misguided fool with the pet genre hangup, it does seem a shame that one bad apple can upset the cart, so to speak. Would a good first step be to restrict the source IP address, with a second step to be to restrict the page ? Also, the current system allows anyone who wants to restrict editing, to vandalise in the clear knowledge that this action will (potentially) reduce editing for many contributors for up to three months. Your thoughts appreciated. Thanks for your work. DustyTheStar — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustyTheStar (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@DustyTheStar: Hi there. Yes, were it just one IP, then I'd agree, but there's been several IPs/new users going back over the last week or so. I contemplated pending changes, but I felt the edit count was just a bit high which means there'd be lots of waiting edits for approval, which is both annoying for reviewers and the system doesn't deal with very well (in my view), especially combined with the fact that almost all the editors editing it aren't reviewers, so theirs would have to be approved as well. GedUK  11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Spanish Inquisition

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done I've given it another year. --GedUK  11:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Weekly Shōnen Jump

You may want to drop a note to Acalamari, who previously declined a protection request, that you have semi-protected the article. Also, given the disruptive editor's previous tendentiousness (vandalizing the article after being blocked for a month for vandalizing the same article), I'm not sure if a week will be enough. Definitely keep your eye on it. —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There were two more vandal edits from two new socks since the first request. I would probably have made the same call at the time, but it was borderline. It's on my watchlist now. I'm pondering longterm pending changes. GedUK  12:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Given the disruption since I declined the initial request, I agree with this protection. @TheFarix: Acalamari 13:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added 3 months of PC now. The semi will also run for a week. GedUK  13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Our friend has returned with two new accounts, just hours after the protection was dropped. [1][2] I'm not sure what the process here is, clearly we have a determined vandal.Does this need another SPI or can we revive the prior one? As you are already familiar with the matter I thought it best to ask you. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You can add them on to the existing SPI if I remember rightly. I don't do them often. I've blocked the two most recent ones, they're clearly socks. GedUK  21:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thanks for the protection change as well.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Me again. Can talk pages be protected as well? [3] Also, [4] is an essential redirect which is now also being attacked. I don't understand how one person can be so pathetic, but it appears they don't intent to stop. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll give the talk page a short protection, I don't really want to protect it for longer. I've protected the redirect for a year. I'll have a look at whether an edit filter can be set up. GedUK  11:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've protected the talk page for 3 days, I'm not comfortable going beyond that as that's in breach of the protection policy really. Longer than that is going to need consensus from somewhere like the admin's noticeboard. I have however move protected the talk page for a year. I've also now updated the move protection on the article to match. Can't really have an edit filter on edits related to one or two articles, so I won't bother even requesting that. GedUK  11:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thanks again. If it starts up again I'll try and put together an AN post with the history.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem. It's possible that a checkuser can identify a narrow IP band so a rangeblock might be effective, but rangeblocks hurt my head. GedUK  11:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

Incomplete longevity claims

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've extended it by 6 months. GedUK  11:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Semiprotection of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

I don't think this was necessary. The vandal—who, admittedly, is unusually persistent—has a static IP, and I'd already blocked him seven hours before you protected. The other anonymous edits since the last semi-protection lapsed mostly weren't retained, but they weren't vandalism - I can in fact find only one instance of vandalism not by this IP since early July.

The previous semiprotection was also about eight hours after I'd blocked the only vandal. That was harmless, though, and the current protection isn't for two reasons -

  • The length of that protection happened to coincide with the time I'd blocked for, while this one is two months longer. I'm somewhat concerned that when my block expires in a month, he'll just latch onto some article that I'm not watching instead.
  • The show's new season starts in about a week, and there'll inevitably be a large increase in editing. Yes, there'll be some vandals, but anon edits to this article have generally been productive in the past.

Will you consider lifting protection, or at least shortening it? —Cryptic 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry, I looked on the talk page but didn't check the block log, there wasn't a new block message. I'll take protection off. I shouold probably have just blocked anyway, got that one wrong! Thanks for letting me know. GedUK  11:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dante Basco

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, probably not. There hasn't been any of the vandalism recently that made me protect it in the first place. This one is on my watchlist anyway, so I think it can expire and see how it goes. GedUK  10:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2014/September&oldid=1076858040"