User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2009/October

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q3 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

PRADO framework
In the initial process of creating the page there were a sentences on it that matched the official website. Then all sentences were rewritten, and stuff added on subsequent edits. So only the listings remain the same. But these are features that are not in dispute and people that are proven to be working on this.

In this case I enhanced it quite a few times with the following edits. The information is now pretty close because it is factsbased, but it doesn't infridge the copyrights. Plus this article is linked from Comparison of web application frameworks, there is no similar article covering this. The entry there is a few years old and suffers from informations.. The information on coding environement, current version and links are an imporant addon. Also the information about and GPL framework is not copyrighted itself. Ok, I understand what you mean. The first version I commited was far too close. Thats why the bot (its so fast) found it. A pitty you deleted it, anyways I'll try to come up with additional references so next time this works. Regards, --John802 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The "obvious violation" to wikipedia guidelines was only the case in the first commit of the top paragraph, which was revised 2 times, within 3 minutes after first time online. All the best, --John802 (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the sentences were either the same or had a couple of words changes. The paragraphs generally followed the same sentence pattern. The personnel list was exactly the same, in the same order. I did check it all the way through, and whilst there was clearly some attempt to rewrite it, it still was essentially just using synonyms in the sentences. . Ged  UK  15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Waheed
Please tell me how i can create Ahmed Waheed page.. it is deleated always.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inzag2009 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to demonstrate how he is notable. Are there newspaper or magazine stories about him that explain why he is important. Hope this helps. Ged  UK  17:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Protections
I see you protected Mauricio Rua, thanks. I don't see a Lock symbol, though. I was going to add one, but I'm not sure if it has to be done manually all the time, or if there's a way to tie it to the protection and make it 'auto-vanish' when it expires. Senor Vergara (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for bringing this to my attention; just an oversight on my part! You can add it manually (though i've got a script that i can just click to add). Don't worry about when the protection expires, a bot will come along and tidy it up. Ged  UK  18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

why you deleated "Islami Tahreek-e-Pakistan"
Hi!

It is to inform you that "Islami Tahreek-e-Pakistan" is a new political party formed by the students of Punjab in Pakistan and looking forward to be a sting political party and my work is to promote it through media.

So, I wanted to add information about the party and its motto. Kindly allow me to add information regarding my party.

Thanks. Umer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usharaq (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Wikipedia does not exist to allow people to promote things. When the party is notable, it can have an article. Ged  UK  21:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings & thanks!
Greetings Ged UK - thanks for deleting my failed experiment. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! Ged  UK  21:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

incunable vs Incunabulum
The discussion on Talk:Incunabulum indicates consensus on the move. If you have a comment, please add it there. Ecphora (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied there. Ged  UK  21:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Article I marked for deletion
I think this is not a real article. Supposedly he was born in 1995 and entered in the 2001 NHL draft. Are you sure it should not be deleted? YellowFives (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair point. Gone now. Ged  UK  21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

hey. I have a problem (30 Seconds to Mars discography)
look, u should know the Rock Songs chart and the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart are different charts. In the 30 Seconds To Mars discography page, someone keeps putting #20 on the Mainstream Rock chart peak, but I keep deleting that peak because the #20 peak is from the Rock Songs chart. could you please notify whoever keeps putting the #20 on the Mainstream Rock chart peak and tell them to stop, please? Thanks.76.110.128.158 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you used the article's talk page to make your point? That's the best place to start. I don't really know enough about the subject. Ged  UK  09:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * in the talk page of the 30 Seconds to Mars discography page, I made my point.76.110.128.158 (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there's not a lot i can do to help you, sorry. It's out of my field of expertise really. Ged  UK  19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi. I would appreciate your comment. Thanks.  Lourie Pieterse  07:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have commented there. Ged  UK  15:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

entry (Gardening Express)
I am concerned that a valid entry detailing the significance the work of Gardening Express has been deleted. I note the piece was not written as a form of an advert etc. there are several other entries written about companies that are more so adverts than this one. eg videojug, ashdown etc and this company is just as notable in its field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.26.132 (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially there was no evidence that the company was/is notable in its field. Wikipedia has stringent rules on whether something is notable, which involves reliable sources which are verifiable. The article didn't seem to make any credible claims to back that up. It was not deleted because it was an advert. Ged  UK  15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

w.r.t. Planet hypothesis of the moon
-> Who will do this as a native speaker scientist? PauloHelene (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replace it with brilliant prose.
 * I have replied on the article's talk page. Ged  UK  19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Joint Professional Military Education
You deleted Joint Professional Military Education as G12, an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/jointw4.pdf Publications of the U.S. federal government (including its military) are not subject to copyright. (I recognize that United Kingdom government publications are covered by Crown copyright.) Another editor thought that the article referred to a private company, but I thought that it referred to a military program. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, you might be right. I'll restore it with a note on the talk page. Ged  UK  22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a private contractor and not the US government. Fairly obvious from the website that this is the case. Polargeo (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may well be right, though I'm not sure it's necessarily that clear cut. Ged  UK  08:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

FREEDOM GLORY PROJECT
HI,

I wanted to know why did you deleted freedom glory project page?

here is the website www.freedomgloryproject.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nariman ham (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. There was no indication as to why the project is notable, that it was referenced in reliable sources or that were verifiable, all of which are needed for an article to be on Wikipedia. Have a read of these guidelines, and then you'll hopefully be able to see where you need to improve the article. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks. Ged  UK  20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

fixing problems
Though you were right to remove the A7 speedy tag from Ricardo Boechat, perhaps you should have also tagged the article for the obvious critical problems of having no sources whatsoever, and being full of promotional spam. (I took care of the tagging, and removed the spam)  DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

we came as romans
whats wrong with having the tracks listed under the cd part on the we came as romans page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gart99 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the page is about the band, not the detail of the albums. Remember, it's not supposed to be promotional. Removing the track listing helps it be less spammy, and thus less likely to be deleted. Ged  UK  20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

that makes since, thanks. i am new to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gart99 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)