User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2011/September

Mem Fox
Just to let you knw, I have requested unprotection. It is not at all clear why this violetes Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, as tagged in the edit history. ROx B o 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarity in the archive, it wasn't protected for BLP violations, but for edit warring. Ged  UK  15:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RPP
You mind waiting a few minutes so I can get protection moving done? Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay, moved. I coulda probaby made it easier by hitting the edit link next to each section I wanted to move. :D
 * Also, no, I am not trying to be mean/rude, nor am I mad. LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when the list is like that with a big backlog, I just get my head down and plough through them, didn't see this message till you were done! And don't worry, I took no offense, I'm pretty easy going.  Ged  UK  15:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

List of number-one singles from the 2010s (UK)
Shortly after the semi-protection you applied as I requested on List of number-one singles from the 2010s (UK) expired (1 September), an IP editor changed the dates back to Radio 1 Chart Show Sundays yet again (3 September). I have reverted the changes and posted another semi-protection request; this one should be longer, if not indefinite. There appears to be one or more IP editors actively trying to overrule the consensus Saturday week-ending dates per OCC (6 days *after* the Chart Show); one of them did that while the previous semi-protection request was pending, just before it began. Therefore, I ask that you act quickly. --RBBrittain (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected&#32;for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ged  UK  11:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thanks :) Ged  UK  07:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hey - you've protected Manisha Koirala today.

Gotta need your help because the anon actually has a user account already:.

Thanks. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Start a discussion on the talk page about the contentious material. They presumably have a reason why they keep removing the sources. Tell them on their talk page about the discussion. Once consensus is agreed, then it can be enforced. Ged  UK  12:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

LLLT
Hi,

Regards your comment here, I totally admit that your response is valid but is there anything I can do aside from requesting semiprotection in a case like this? An anonymous account reverts a bad change once or twice a week, at what point does it reach protection, particularly given the lack of engagement on the talk page and there being no way I can contact a roving IP editor? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one of those frustrating things about Wikipedia. I can't remember if the talk page clearly establishes the consensus, but that wuold be very important to establish, rather than just using edit summaries.
 * Generally for protection, most admins would be looking for three+ a day or a bit less over a longer period of time. Give it a week, and if it's carried on, come back to me and I'll look at it again. Regards, Ged  UK  12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I hate the frustrating things about wikipedia.  There's not really a consensus to be established, quackwatch is a reliable parity source for fringe medical claims, it's been discussed repeatedly in various venues and the consensus is pretty clear (it's actually one of the banners on talk:quackwatch).  Removing a reliable source because you disagree with it is a no-no, and that seems to be what the anon is doing.
 * Thanks, I'll drop you a line if it continues. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's frustrating. What makes it more frustrating for me is that if we were still able to use pending changes, that would be perfect for this article. I'll keep an eye on it as well. Ged  UK  20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Ged  UK  21:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

March Days
As you rejected the semi-protection of March Days from anonymous IP, which is unwilling to use reliable sources, and making mass reverts, what is the suggested course of action. Reverting this IP may result in restrictions against the established editors. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's one IP who's edit warring, report them to WP:3RRN, that's the edit warring noticeboard. Then he can be blocked. Ged  UK  21:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is only one anonymous IP, which is really disruptive. Semi-restricting the article may be more effective at this point, as there was a history of anonymous IPs vandalizing the article in the past. Atabəy (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The basic concept protection admins work on is keeping articles unprotected. If it's one IP (or user) repeatedly disrupting or edit warring, then it's much better to take action against them than protect the article so that valid IP contributions can still be made. If it's several IPs, or people changing IPs, then semi protection may be necessary. Ged  UK  11:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
... for this and I think I understand your concern. I have a few suspicions (down Checkuser Lane) myself as well, but perhaps it's a bit early. Let's see how it goes from here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's alright. There was a protection conflict, so it's actually shorter than I had it (another admin protected a few seconds after I did). Ged  UK  12:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Saini people
Hi,

You have Semi-protected Saini people topic only for 2 days as per my request. Will you make it permanently? --¢ℓαяк (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it was three days, but no, not yet. It's highly unusual for an article to receive indefinite protection as a first protection. It usually increases in stages (a few days, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, indef, something like that). We try to avoid indefinite protection as much as possible. Ged  UK  11:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ged for your help. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ged  UK  18:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother 2011 Weekly Summary
Hi, you couldn't take a look at Big Brother 2011 (UK) and see if the weekly summary is too long, one IP user is adding information that is not relevant to Wikipedia citing the lack of live feed for the addition if the information? Thanks --MSalmon (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's far too long in my opinion, and the lack of a weekly feed is a rubbish reason. Ged  UK  13:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what can be done? (Tried talking to the IP user but takes no notice of what I say) --MSalmon (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you need to develop consensus on the talk page; that's how wikipedia works, through collaboration. Once there's agreement on the talk page, then the consensus can be enforced with protection if necessary. Ged  UK  18:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

andrew mcmullen drummer/musician
Hello!! I submitted an article about Toronto-based drummer Andrew Mcmullen in 2009 but it was deleted. I'd like to request a reconsideration as I've performed and recorded with the Chicago band Love in October (eight bit tiger) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_in_October

thank you! AndrewAndrew3625 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew McMullen (drummer/musician)

Andrew McMullen is a Toronto based drummer who has performed and recorded with numerous bands including: Leviride (s/t 2001, nothing's getting better 2002, night of the drive-by 2005) Ministry of the Environment (an ep 2008, your name your street your city 2009) Lost Cities (narrow path 2011) Love in October (aka Eight Bit Tiger) synchronized parallel randomness 2011 Burn the Radio (ep 2011)

Andrew McMullen uses Yahama Custom Oak drums and Sabian Cymbals.

Andrew3625 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For a person to have an article on wikipedia, they need to prove that they are notable. For wikipedia, this means providing reliable sources that are independent of the subject; interviews or reviews, news stories etc. If you can provide some of those, I'll be able to restore it, otherwise it would just be deleted again. Ged  UK  06:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFP
you declined this request, please reconsider as now 4 single purpose editors have visited this AfD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFP#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FWordswithMeaning.21_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 LibStar (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, but 4 is hardly a huge number, and they aren't disrupting the AfD. If they were deleting or changing other people's comments then it would require action. As it is, the closing admin will pay attention to it, but they're perfectly entitled to give their opinion. Ged  UK  06:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * have you seen this clear disruption? ? LibStar (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I went offline as you posted, and just missed this. I think there's a rangeblock now, so this is resolved? Let me know if there's anything further outside of the rangeblock. Ged  UK  12:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Posted in the wrong spot, sorry
Hi Ged UK,

I posted in the wrong place, sorry.

This is in regards to this:

"== Speedy deletion declined: Jules Leroy == Hello ConcernedVancouverite. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jules Leroy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The references give an indication that he might be notable, and it's not clear cut enough for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you.   Ged  UK  20:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)"

Can you please look at the article I have created, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Schuck - it is my opinion that ConcernedVancouverite did the same thing here and in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman and in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show.

It is my opinion that ConcernedVancouverite is exhibiting "bullying" behavior, as another editor believes I am believes I am being bullied:.

Please note that in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show, the organization's website itself refers back to the other refrences in 'Press' because there are articles on the 'press' page which they have put up. Should I take the organizatiion's website itself then, because I have referenced 2 references (the other article and the organization's website?

I would really like to get those articles correct before I move on editing other articles.

Thank you kindly. Domenico.y (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * I think the issue is less that he's bullying, but more that he's tagging a little too fast and not giving articles a chance to assert their notability. Adam Schuck is a case in point.
 * What wikipedia wants in terms of sources are independant ones. The sources linked/cited on the fashion show's website are probably independant, and it would be much better to link to these directly on the Wikipedia article, rather than the website - at the very least it makes it easier for the reader, and additionally, there's no guarantee the show's site will keep them up forever. Ged  UK  11:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you are discussing me, I think it is only fair that I am able to make a comment when my actions regarding these articles have been miscategorized. My only action on the Davina Reichman article which was created on December 28, 2010 was tagging it with a notability tag on September 25, 2011.  Similarly on the Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show article which was created on March 12, 2011 my only editing action was to PROD it and remove one entirely uncited section on September 24, 2011 .   After the article was deproded by Domenico when he blanked the page, an admin is the one that brought it to AfD.  I then !voted on the AfD which had been started by that admin.  I am unclear how these quality control actions could be construed as "tagging a little too fast" in these cases.  I can understand your point on the surface regarding the Adam Schuck article perhaps, which I initially nominated for speedy after it had been online for 9 minutes, as it did not make plausible claims of notability.  But I nominated it only after attempting to find sources and when the bulk of what I turned up was just social media passing mentions and social media profiles I nominated it for speedy deletion based upon my own research combined with the lack of any plausible claims in the article. My research that I had completed is detailed on the now current AfD Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Schuck.  So in two of the three cases where I have been attacked numerous times the claims of either bullying or tagging too fast are entirely baseless.  Yet I received regular attacks for the same such as the editing notes (which quite frankly should be removed by an admin for their inappropriate attack nature) here  and .  While I can recognize there may be differing views on the Schuck article content, the regular personal attacks and canvassing are really not appropriate in my opinion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show&diff=prev&oldid=452443296 I did not change the article itself in these two posts, only the posts to make the wording more clearer at 18:24 and 18:36 on the same day (16 minutes apart). I merely changed the wording as to make it a little bit clearer from the time 18:24 by putting in "after deleting the article and re-starting it again on 07:31, 25 September 2011" and the "as" changed to "now" at 18:36. It was clear the the whole article needed a complete overhall from the many people concerned about it, and I deleted the page and started it up from scratch, but I've found my deletion to be incorrect. What I should have done is keep the article, re-write it in a word doc, blanked the whole article and pasted the new one in all in one step or go - then there can be no arguments. I find it very difficult when ConcernedVancouverite knows that my English is not quite correct and is my second language and misleads anyone to believe his view and I have to defend myself. I did in fact in the subsequent post at 00:27, 26 Sept, take out a number of duplicated references with the organisations and the other websites because I was up all night editing this article to remove the duplicated references, but the way ConcernedVancouverite says it is misleading. In my opinion, these are yet other examples of bullying behavior and I am not sure what to do. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * I'm only speaking generally about the Adam Schuck article and the speed of tagging. The second question I answered was more generally on the importance of relaible sources.
 * The notability tag applied doesn't mean the article is up for deletion, so I think perhaps there's some confusion on Domenico.y's part there, which isn't surprising; Wikipedia can be a very confusing place with different types of deletion and tagging. The line can get blurred.
 * I think that for now everybody just needs to let the AfDs run their course and see where we are. Ged  UK  12:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)