User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2008/November

Gerrard
Just got caught in an edit conflict with you over the Gerrard article. I'm going to write a serious lead for the article soon, the lack of a decent one is just one of many problems this article is suffering from! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem! --Ged UK (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I know MBE is a redirect to OBE but I thought it would be more informative if the reader could hover over the link and read what the acronym MBE stands for. Either way, I'm not too fussed. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bakugan
Hey, Ged UK! Do you like Bakugan? If so, tell me on my talk page.Bakutrix (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Bakutrix

Guitar hero metallica
You placed a speedy notice on this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zacharycreaky66&oldid=216927568 page. ] Is this the article you intended?—  Ѕandahl  ♥  22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC).
 * To be honest, I don't remember! I've looked through the article's log, and obviously I didn't place one, though I might have thought about it. I do, if editing from my wireless laptop, have connection problems, and what may have happened is that the connection went whilst Twinkle was placing the tag, and it had time to place the talk page message, but lost the connection whilst trying to place the actual tag. By the time the connection came back the deed was done. However, that doesn't explain what the notification was doing on that talk page, as that user didn't create the article. I plead 'Twinkle Error', and promise to audit what it does in my name better in the future! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Ged UK (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(reply) Tom Daley
Hi there! Just thought I ought to clarify my response to your protection suggestion on Tom's talk page. Firstly, I'm not an admin, so if you do think that the page ought to be protected again, feel free to nominate it (at WP:RPP if you didn't already know), but as I explained, I'd be surprised if it got approved, but you never know! Obviously if the vandalism picks up again (and it probably will, sadly, if Tom does well on the BBC Young Sportsperson of the Year award), then feel free to nomiate it, if nobody else does. Secondly, I just wanted to say keep up the good work, I know you do vandal-reverting work, and that's really important to Wikipedia! Cheers! --Ged UK (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Ged UK, I did actually think you were an Admin. And I think the vandalism will pick up again,on said page which is annoying. thank you for the vote of confidence referring to reverting vandalism. thanks for the shortcut link, didn't actually know that, thanks. Matt G (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. It's worth having a look at the page protection page, gives you an idea of the things that admins look at/for when deciding whether to protect a page. --Ged UK (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking "American"
The problem with unlinking "United States" from "American" (which I certainly agree with), is that there's a bot which will eventually find it and relink it. For this reason I've taken to linking "American" to "American (word)". For film articles "Cinema of the United States" would be an appropriate choice. Just know that if you leave it naked, it isn't going to stay that way forever. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. As I understand it, removing links to American/US like that is the new approved policy/consensus on the WP:MOS discussion pages. If there's a bot going round linking everything back up again, I would have thought the bot needs stopping rather than putting links in that are contrary to consensus. Do you know what the bot is called? --Ged UK (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe there's a new consensus that I'm not aware of - that's very possible. I haven't seen the bot (sorry, can't recall which one it was) make that edit in a while, so probably I'm just behind the times. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly the country link consensus is fairly recent, I believe, probably within the last 6 months, most likely sooner. I'll keep an eye out for the bot if it shows up and smack it. --Ged UK (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiser's Small Batch
I have removed the prod tag from Wiser's Small Batch, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! As I mention on the talk page, it needs a merge not a delete. I'd do it if I knew how. But there's more info on this page now than the target, so delete isn't right, I don't think. MadScot (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

glamour (charm)
I'm rather unimpressed with your abuse of process on the glamour article. It was only a stub, but the wikipedia no longer has an article on this entire concept. For the article stub to be deleted you are saying that the entire concept of glamour is nonsense are you? And how do you explain the fact that the article referred to a reliable source????- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Check your facts. I didn't delete it. I nominated it. User:Jac16888 was the administrator who deleted it. --Ged UK (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You still nominated it for a speedy delete, and you claimed that a referenced article, based on a dictionary term, was nonsense. That's abuse of process right there. Perhaps the article could have been clearer, but that's no reason to speedy it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an abuse of process. If it was, the admin wouldn't have deleted it. Take it up with them. I see you've recreated the article. --Ged UK (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have that much of a complaint, raise it at WP:ANI. --Ged UK (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm just going to take comfort that you've wasted your time creating a deletion review on it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate information
I received a message from you a couple of days ago that said my edits to the Ben 10 list of characters page "did not appear to be constructive and has been removed". I was merely removing inaccurate information from the page. I just wanted to make that clear. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinBen (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't remember the particular reason, and i can't be bothered going back through the edits to find out. However, if it's like the edit you just made to List of Characters in Ben 10, you removed content without using an edit summary. Using an edit summary allows other editors to understand why you have done something. If you just take stuff out, as you just did, without explaining why, chances are it will look like vandalism. --Ged UK (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD: Tricky tv
FYI: I've redirected Tricky tv to Tricky TV. Skarebo (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)