User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2009/February

RfA thanks
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was my pleasure, and fully deserved I'm sure! --Ged UK (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (January 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

cross wiki link on Fable (video game)
Hi Ged UK, You are right, Balverine is a different thing than Fable (video game), the problem was on la-wiki, where Balverine was pointing to en:Fable (video game) so my bot RibotBOT automatically added it to en-wiki ... like any other bot... I corrected la-wiki in order to prevent any other bot may add this wrong link to en:Fable (video game). regards. --Loupeter (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Ged UK (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, it's doing it again! I don't know what to change on the La wiki, would you be able to have another look? --Ged UK (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes, it was a test to verify the links ... I think this time I corrected it by erasing the link to la-wiki on all others languages. In this way any bot cannot link it again to en-wiki. (A bot works like this: If A is linked with B, and B is linked with C then A must be linked with C). --Loupeter (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, how bizarre! Thanks! --Ged UK (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Rangers Nicknames
How was it not constructive? Rangers are refered to with all these names Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're muddling me up with someone else. --Ged UK (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

oh, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

this guy loves dicks
i saw him sucking 3 at once —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.173.27 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, i see you're a voyeur then? --Ged UK (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kuyt
Hi. I think we've crossed paths before with something - can't remember when! I noticed the discussion at WT:FOOTY and possible socks... the place to go is WP:SPI. :) D.M.N. (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've communicated before about something, though I can't remember what! I wasn't sure that I wanted to start at the SPI page, but I think you're probably right. I'll take it there. --Ged UK (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure that I'm confident enough in my suspicions, and the process is a bit alarming. If you think that there's enough to go on, let me know, and I'll pick it up again. Never done a SPI request before, and don't want to start on one doomed to fail. --Ged UK (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the barnstar Ged. I really appreciate it, and Silkyfoxboy is perhaps an even better name! To be honest when I started editing a year ago I never expected to spend much time on football articles but I found that many articles needed much work&mdash;most suffer from recentism, have a healthy dose of POV, and can become little more than a list of dates and goals. It actually made me realise how hollow football journalism is. No end of year round-ups, few enlightening interviews, the needless "speculation" used altruistically by agents and the press to guarantee larger fees/circulations. That's why I'm keen to write full length leads for articles, it means that they usually get what they want in a few sentences rather than wading through the whole thing. Cheers all the same! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage
I'm looking at your userpage using firefox and it's a mess :-( There is text overlapping the userboxes. I thought you'd want to know. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? It looks OK on my Firefox. Which bit? It is a mess anyway, I need to do something with it anyway, but wikiformatting hurts my brain. --Ged UK (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what I am seeing with Firefox 2.0.0.21pre on Ubuntu. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How strange. I wonder if it's an ubuntu/firefox issue, because it's fine on FF on Vista, and IE6 on Windows 2000, and on FF on OSX? I don't know enough about HTML and webpage layouts to suggest a cause, or solution. --Ged UK (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the cause is css on the page not being correctly rendered. It could be Ubuntu I suppose. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense to me. I have a geek Ubuntu user friend who may be able to suggest something. --Ged UK (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited the page and fixed the problems as I see the, Check if ir's still OK for you. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fine for me! Thanks :) --Ged UK (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Kyal
I included it because it is the only place on the web where Kyal is with Charlotte and they are obviously boyfriend/girlfriend. If someone is curious about Charlotte, they go to that person's post I referenced. It's just more proof. What better than photos? Sure, the site is not reliable, but photos don't lie :-p. Reminds me of the saying "diamond in the rough."
 * Photos lie all the time, and are open misinterpretation. After all, it's just one man next to a woman, doesn't prove they are in a relationship. --Ged UK (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 01:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Agger
Seeing as how your a Liverpool fan I guess i'm not going to be able to fool you into thinking that Agger's nickname is "The Dagger". But c'mon, D. Agger, how appropriate is that. He doesn't have a current nickname that im aware of and this man was clearly meant to have "The Dagger" as a nickname. So at the very least could you spread the word to your liverpool supporter buddies as I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SullyW730 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You spread it to your mates if you want to, I'll leave mine to think of their own nicknames. I do like it, actually, but here isn't the place for it. --Ged UK (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright man, but just to warn you every once and a while your gonna find "The Dagger" written on his page. Gotta keep you on your toes.SullyW730 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pointless, it'll only end up with you getting blocked. Why don't you do something constructive here instead? --Ged UK (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

whatever commie SullyW730 (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you see in Communism everyone has part ownership. Wikipedians are just here for the crack. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do people think commie is an insult? --Ged UK (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Daniel Imperato (2nd nomination)
Please clarify your comment at this AFD. :) - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF???
You don't think being called a Communist is an insult? What is that all about. Are you trying to play the ole "Communism itself is a good idea" card or something. Give me a break. Communism is one of the biggest failures in human history and if you think being called a Communist is a compliment then you don't deserve to call yourself a Liverpool F.C. fan. SullyW730 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The German Student (radio)
Inre your question at the AfD, WP:USERFYing an article is always an option. If this AfD closes a "delete" or "delete all", all you need do is ask the closer to "Userfy" or move them into workspaces which will them give time to bring what ones as can be improved to address any concerns brought up at this AfD. Unless something was deleted for blatant copyvio problems, it is always an acceptable option.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey there! See my response on the AfD itself. It was my subtle way of suggesting that you ask! Hopefully the reasons for that suggestion are clear in my AfD reply. -- Ged UK  22:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ouch. 63 articles to work on one by one by one by..... ? I am unhappy with the process of nominating 63 articles at once. If it is required, it is something I could do.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, like I said, get the ARS involved, that's what they're good at. I don't think it's viable for you to do all 63, that would destroy your soul i suspect, but like you rightly pointed out, there's no deadline, and other ARS users I'm sure could help. And even if all 63 were listed separately, I'm not sure the end result would be much different; most would be deleted because there isn't enough info on them, some might be userfied but some might get missed. In fact, there's less likely to be a good discussion about them if they were listed individually, though that's just a suspicion! -- Ged UK  22:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GAC review for James Cagney
Hello, a few days ago I began a GAC review for James Cagney, which you nominated. The initial comments can be found at Talk:James Cagney/GA1. Once the issues regarding the references been addressed, I will continue with the rest of the review. I would appreciate it if you would respond and/or give me an update as to the article's status, as it has been on hold for four days now. Thanks! María ( habla con migo ) 15:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Patrol Bot Reminder
Thanks for the heads-up! I appreciate it. (I know, your talk page says to post replies at my talk page, but I figure our dialogue on this topic isn't exactly going to be very drawn out) - Vianello (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)