User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2011/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ged UK. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cagney
Noticed your removal of my comments in the James Cagney article posted last night. The reference to Titanic in the photo's caption is fair enough, I was sort of going along with the playful tone inherent in the observation that Cagney donned military uniforms on a number of occasions throughout his career, plus it's entertainingly astonishing that this same woman was still making films 63 years later, although it doesn't, as you note, directly have much to do with Cagney himself.
The reference to the reviews for Cagney's, Joe E. Brown's, and Mickey Rooney's performances in A Midsummer Night's Dream were directed at those three performances rather than the film itself, which received mixed reviews. Cagney, Brown, and Rooney seem, from everything I've read over the years, to have gotten raves for their individual efforts, and deservedly so (I just saw the movie at the Museum of Modern Art here in New York) but I'm having trouble finding much of anything online to back that up at the moment (the NY Times raved about Brown, who actually stole a scene from Cagney by simply standing there, something I wouldn't have believed possible had I not seen it with my own eyes, but was mixed regarding Cagney).
The business about Cagney and Gable in The Public Enemy and Night Nurse might well be the most important passage in the entire article, since we're dealing directly with Cagney's impact upon gender relations and how leading men conducted themselves afterward. Here's what I added at the very end of the article's germane paragraph in a moment ago, along with the paragraph itself for context:
Cagney received widespread praise for his role. The New York Herald Tribune described his performance as "the most ruthless, unsentimental appraisal of the meanness of a petty killer the cinema has yet devised." He received top billing after the film, but while he acknowledged the importance of the role to his career, he always disputed that it changed the way heroes and leading men were portrayed; he cited Clark Gable's slapping of Barbara Stanwyck six months earlier (in Night Nurse) as more important.
[My contribution:] Night Nurse was actually released three months after The Public Enemy and Gable punched Stanwyck in the film, knocking her unconscious, then carried her across the hall, where she woke up later. According to Robert Osborne, on Turner Classic Movies, the part of "Nick the Chauffeur" was originally intended for Cagney, but his success in The Public Enemy prevented his playing a supporting role.
Ged UK, I think it's important to correct the timeline regarding Cagney's memory during the interview cited earlier (he might have been thinking about Gable slapping Norma Shearer in A Free Soul but that one was released two months after The Public Enemy) to make sure Cagney receives his due, however it might be perceived, for the impact of his seminal film. I hope that you agree with this. Upsmiler (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there! Thanks for the message. The cite I used for the '6 months earlier' came from one of the reference books I used, though I can't remember if that was quoting Cagney directly. It's perfectly possible of course that Cagney saw the film, or was at least aware of the sequence before it was released. That's a matter we'll probably never know. What we need to be careful of is that we don't sythasise our response based on what we think. We have to make sure that whatever influence that role had isn't coming from us, but from the sources.
- With regard to the Nick the Chauffeur part, do you have a better source? By which I mean when did he say it, which edition of the show etc.? I realise that that may be a pain, but I'm about to put this up for featured article, and that's exactly the sort of thing they'll leap upon.
- Thanks for your help with this, as you can see it's been a bit of a labour of love for me! GedUK 12:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Armenian Highland
Hi, Ged UK. There is consensus on removing Iraq and Syria. See. Talk:Armenian Highland#Original research ?. Takabeg (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know, that's why I protected it. The IP can/should raise their points on the talk page. Consensus can change. GedUK 12:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 October 2011
- News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy
- In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts
- WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand
- Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan
- Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2011, the project has:
|
Content
|
|
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 October 2011
- Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians
- News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised
- In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist
- WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People
- Featured content: The weird and the disgusting
Personal attacks
Ged, I'm a little upset that you didn't warn or sanction 109.60.9.211 over his malicious personal attacks against me at this request for page protection at Youcef Nadarkhani. With no evidence to speak of, he accuses me of being an anti-Iran activist from Israel (see his deceptive wikilink to Israel from the word "regime"). How do you think I and other users are going to resolve this content dispute with him when he is relying purely on Iranian government sources to prove that an Iranian Christian pastor is a rapist? Your help is appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ged, I too am amazed that this SPA IP:109.60.1.39 who has edit warred with several register users to get his POV across on this article has managed to get the page locked to his version which to me appears to be completely biased. Could you please review this and at the very least revert it to a previous version. Thanks. Vrenator (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's probably a bit pointless warning a rolling IP, it's unlikely they'd see it, and I didn't really see it as being one. However, I will warn that IP address.
- I don't intend to remove the protection until there's a clear consensus on the talk page about the reliability or otherwise of the sources. As I mentioned in my protection rationale, there are better noticeboards for deciding BLP concerns and whether or not sources are reliable, and you should raise this issue at WP:BLPN and/or WP:RSN. If there's an agreement that it needs to change and remain protected, I'll be happy to change it. As it stands, I can't sensibly judge the reliability of the sources. GedUK 12:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- As it stands the article is predominently the POV of the IP editor. Protecting the page as it stands is protecting vandalism. Please could you at least consider reverting to a version before this IP started messing around with it. I have been editing Wikipedia for a while and have over 30,000 edits surely to stop me from editing an article that has been vandalised by an IP whose ONLY edits are on this article is wrong. I understand that you can't take sides but this makes the article unencyclopaedic and does not in any way make it NPOV. Vrenator (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, possibly, but if I roll back to your version, it'll be your view instead. It's not a question of who's edited the most, and as far as I can see, he's stating the other point of view, which does seem to rather balance the article up more, but that's not a discussion for here. As I've said, raise it at WP:BLPN, and get the BLP experts there to help out. GedUK 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ged, I too am amazed that this SPA IP:109.60.1.39 who has edit warred with several register users to get his POV across on this article has managed to get the page locked to his version which to me appears to be completely biased. Could you please review this and at the very least revert it to a previous version. Thanks. Vrenator (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Abdullah Ejaz is Living
Dear Administrator, you have written on the article of Abdullah Ejaz that he is not living which is totally wrong."Abdullah Ejaz is Alive". Fashion Central. Retrieved 13 October 2011.--Jozoisis (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- No I didn't. Three years ago I deleted the article because there was no indication he was important. Doesn't matter whether he was alive or dead, is he notable by wikipedia's standards. GedUK 11:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Jagjit Singh protection
Hello! I see that you have semi-protected the article Jagjit Singh. That was very nice & helpful of you. But the semi-protection allows editors who have been on wikipedia for a while. & i am fighting one such editor who keeps posting, basically advertisements, on this page. I am not very old to wikipedia as an editor & hence know of little means to handle this. Please suggest. Thanks! --Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well....that user is now blocked. So that should be sufficient. Have a nice day! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Allow editing of IOS jailbreaking article
Please allow IOS jailbreaking article to have tables readded. Many people feel this information is useful and there is no other single source to get it from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.246.50 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
64.201.246.50 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Removing the table is vandalism. Putting it back is not. --64.201.246.50 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Raise the issue on Talk:IOS jailbreaking, and build consensus there for its inclusion. GedUK 21:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Please review these blocks
There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.
- 170.185.27.19 (talk · block log · block user) by Ged UK at 2011-10-11T20:06:36Z, expires 2012-01-11T20:06:36Z: {{schoolblock}}
- Cutelittlefishy (talk · block log · block user) by Ged UK at 2011-10-11T20:07:46Z, expires infinity: [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]]-only account
- Udd6 (talk · block log · block user) by Ged UK at 2011-10-11T20:09:29Z, expires infinity: [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]]-only account
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. I've updated those three. GedUK 21:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Luis Suárez
Un-protect. Someone edited the page of the uruguyuan footballer adding the phrase "despite being a racist cunt" whilst it is semi-protected by you. Could you rectify that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.205.42 (talk • contribs)
Possible block evade
You blocked User:Goodwillforyou and socpuppets indef., but blocked IP for a fortnight. 13 days later, another user User:Exactbird pops onto the same page, Doctor of Education, and starts the same stuff. Then another user, User:Shippingpage starts up as well on the page. Both of these new users have short histories with all but one edit only on the Doctor of Education page. I added comments to the SPI here. Not sure if I added the info appropriately, so advance apologies if not.--Lhakthong (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- You need to add the new stuff to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Onemoreforyou or use this link, rather than the archive. It's not quite as clear cut as it was before, the editing patters aren't as similar, beyond editing that article. More experienced admins at spotting sockpuppetry, as well as checkusers patrol there, so they should pick that up. GedUK 22:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Luis Suarez
Hi, Ged, Would it be appropriate to semi-protect Luis Suarez? I looked through at edit summaries and in the last 50 edits, there have been 12 reverts to edits by IP addresses. In the period beginning on 27 June (your semi-protection) and ending 27 September (DumbBOT removing the semi-protection), there were two cases of reverted vandalism. Although, recently, there have been a few non-IP vandalism cases too. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's touch and go. It's on my watchlist, and I do get close to protecting, but generally it's not quite concerted enough (mind you, I've not looked at today's). GedUK 21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, that's probably enough. GedUK 21:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully that helps, but it appears as if it won't completely prevent vandalism. I was asking because I'm not really familiar with the line between when it should and shouldn't be protected. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- There's no hard and fast line/rule, it's down to the admin's judgement. I generally look for at least 3 a day every day or so for a few days. The more per day the shorter number of days. And it also depends on the type of vandalism. GedUK 20:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully that helps, but it appears as if it won't completely prevent vandalism. I was asking because I'm not really familiar with the line between when it should and shouldn't be protected. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, that's probably enough. GedUK 21:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, where does the article say they are even signed to a label, let alone a major one? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's in the infobox. And I didn't say a major label, I said a notable one, i.e. one that has an article. GedUK 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 October 2011
- News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized
- In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out
- WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP
- Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic
About Transformers: Dark of the Moon Voice order
Stop obsessing with Nimoy being second! Let Welker be in between him and CullenMark (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure you mean me? I've never edited that in my life. I semi-protected it in August, which is still running, but that's the only involvement I've had in it. GedUK 11:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Protection expired so the IP came back and made exactly the same edit. Could you maybe drop a note on the talkpage and extend protection? I think anything I say will be taken antagonistically. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've dropped them a warning too. GedUK 11:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the protection. Pranab Mukherjee is another article this IP is vandalising. Could that also be semi'd please? — Abhishek Talk 12:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the situation is the same. They're adding sourced content. If there's a particular issue with the additions, it should be raised on the talk page. As far as I can see, there's no discussion on this particular issue, let alone consensus.
- Additionally, the volume of disruption is considerably lower than on the Bedi article. GedUK 12:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Starcade
I don't know if you remember what went on with this user, anyway another editor recently left a comment on his talk page after you final comments and was just letting you know just in case you want to read them or remove them.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC))
- Thanks for letting me know. There's no need to remove the messages really, I expect Wnt didn't realise that they've been blocked. GedUK 09:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted page, create new and improved?
Hi, I wanted to post an article about a production company called B-Reel. It seems someone else had the idea back in 2009, but it was deleted and marked as spam. One of the comments said they couldn't find anything significant on google. It has been over two years since the article was deleted. A lot has happened since and now there are plenty of mentions of B-Reel since they are really go-ahead in their line of work and make amazing projects using new technology. I don't know if the original article contained any references or links. I have plenty that I would like to share. It said to contact the deleting administrator, so, here I am.
kind regards,
Ichangelightbulbs (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. I can restore the page to your userspace where you can work on it if you like, before moving it to the mainspace. This will reduce the likelihood of it being deleted again, assuming that the sources are good. Let me know. GedUK 11:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, that would be very helpful.
Ichangelightbulbs (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Done It's now at User:Ichangelightbulbs/B-Reel. Please make sure you address the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-Reel if you can, which was about it being too spammy. Be objective, and remember to post the negatives too! GedUK 21:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot of recent activity actually. 09:30, 24 October 2011 Puffin (talk | contribs) m (78,090 bytes) (Reverted edits by 196.207.29.42 (talk) to last version by ClueBot NG)
20:59, 20 October 2011 ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) m (78,090 bytes) (Reverting possible vandalism by 207.28.98.213 to version by Hurricanefan24. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (667978) (Bot))
15:45, 19 October 2011 Hurricanefan24 (talk | contribs) m (78,090 bytes) (Reverted edits by 198.242.211.5 to last version by ClueBot NG (GLOO))
02:29, 19 October 2011 ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) m (78,090 bytes) (Reverting possible vandalism by 123.51.52.107 to version by Trusilver. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (663097) (Bot))
20:56, 17 October 2011 Trusilver (talk | contribs) m (78,090 bytes) (Reverted edits by 66.175.147.254 (talk) to last revision by SylviaStanley (HG))
12:12, 14 October 2011 Velella (talk | contribs) m (78,082 bytes) (Reverted unexplained removal of content (HG))
17:28, 12 October 2011 Mayur (talk | contribs) m (76,991 bytes) (Reverted edits by 12.219.120.195 (talk) identified as unconstructive (HG))
16:28, 12 October 2011 ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) m (76,991 bytes) (Reverting possible vandalism by 38.116.192.81 to version by Maproom. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (647807) (Bot))
11:36, 11 October 2011 SylviaStanley (talk | contribs) m (76,991 bytes) (Reverted edits by 88.111.145.53 (talk) to last revision by Calabe 92. No reason given for deletion.)
16:14, 7 October 2011 Calabe1992 (talk | contribs) m (76,991 bytes) (Reverted edits by Ceciliachw (talk) to last revision by ClueBot NG (HG))
So why did you not protect it? Puffin Let's talk! 12:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because the days are so intermittent. For protection, admins would be looking for 3-4 a day at least, usually sustained over consecutive or near consecutive days. One or two every day or two or three isn't enough. GedUK 21:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you forget to add the 6 months semi-protection to this article? Barret (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, that was weird! Thanks for flagging it, maybe I didn't wait for it to load or something. My work connection is a bit ropey sometimes. Done now! GedUK 18:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 October 2011
- From the editors: A call for contributors
- Opinion essay: There is a deadline
- Interview: Contracting for the Foundation
- WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case
- Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project
Full protection of Template:Userspace draft
Hello Ged UK, could you please restore the semi-protection on Template:Userspace draft? I know there are 32,822 trasclusions of the template. However, like Template:AfC submission, it is quite possible a non-administrator could have need to edit the template. It currently doesn't appear to be a target of any vandalism either. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion on the talk page. GedUK 12:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- The template is currently generating an error when previewed, and doesn't count properly for Category:Stale Userspace drafts I have submitted an edit request, but until and admin stops by, it will generate an error when ever someone tries to preview it. Monty845 16:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think this has been fixed now? GedUK 12:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The template is currently generating an error when previewed, and doesn't count properly for Category:Stale Userspace drafts I have submitted an edit request, but until and admin stops by, it will generate an error when ever someone tries to preview it. Monty845 16:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#St_John_Plessington_Catholic_College requires your assistance. Thanks you. --Njavallil ...Talk 2 Me
- This has been cleared away now, so I'm guessing it's been addressed? GedUK 12:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)