User talk:Uncle G

Notices
Yes, I am an administrator.
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for.
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.
For past discussions on this page, see the archive.

Hello

a user with an account called is consistently vandalizing pages, these edits are without a shadow of a doubt not in a good faith as they are deleting enormous amounts of pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Ukrainian_Ground_Forces&diff=1084441789&oldid=1084433118

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Ukrainian_Ground_Forces&diff=1084441853&oldid=1084441789

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_equipment_of_the_Ukrainian_Ground_Forces&diff=1084441986&oldid=1084441929

Many thanks,

CCB :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservative cheese ball (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Since, I've just complained about the same thing, it's only fair that I not merely ping you.--Jahaza (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bacon wrapped food, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juicy Lucy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G. It looked like you have an interest in BLP pages and I was hoping you might have a minute to review 3-4 sentences I've proposed at the bottom of Talk:Ulf_Mark_Schneider to expand on the career section (see COI disclosure). It's based primarily on a Financial Times article I can provide a PDF of. Someone tagged it with "request edit", but my understanding is that using Request Edit is for after consensus for the change already appears evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckeye16505 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I always forget to add a space in your username. Just in case you felt like writing about this: Supernatural being (redirect I made into a disambig, and added a source). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as I Should Have Died, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, the redirect has been vandalised, I have restored it and demanded semiprotection. Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have semi'd the redirect for 3 months and of course removed Uncle G's editing privileges. Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

My post above was a joke, but I noticed Uncle G last edited 5 months ago. Long break or goodbye? Good luck in the future in any case! Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• I haven't cheered up Drmies in that long? I am being remiss. Uncle G (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just quoted you on my user page, I'd like to say I miss you and your bouts of zen like brilliance, Uncle G. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice seeing you around, Uncle G! Bishonen | tålk 07:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I have no idea how to request it, and wonder whether doing so in public is wise. I think you know of the pair of articles of which I speak. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The prior creation protection expired. I've left this one at indefinite and at administrator level, like the prior one was. I hope that this will be enough to prevent further disruption in the article namespace without resorting to further measures. (If someone wants to come along and create a decent article in the years to come, I have no objection to the creation protection being lifted.) I've left the draft namespace alone, with all of those piled up rejection notices, although I expect that people are pretty tired of this there. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What you say makes good sense, though I doubt this chap will attain notability 😈. What on earth makes folk try so hard on behalf of a nonentity, do you suppose? That is probably rhetorical! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the 1972 Philadelphia teachers' strike is notable. Do we think that perhaps someone hasn't realized that it began in 1972 and called it the 1973 Philadelphia teachers strike without the apostrophe? ☺

Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is filled with personal attacks ("tripe", "bunkum", "utter drivel"). You might want to tone it down a bit. FOARP (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No it isn't at all. There's not one single thing about you as a person, there. It's not you that is bunkum. People cannot be bunkum. It is your argument. The only person who has tried to make this about you is, in fact, you, trying to make it about your credentials for one thing. This is all about you repeatedly presenting the same false assertion over and over, which is so egregiously and prima facie erroneous, taking the authorship of something from its acknowledgements page rather than from the title page, and very carefully choosing to focus on an acknowledgement of some schoolchildren, instead of (say) the county assessor's office or the two historical magazines who were thanked above them (which doesn't make nearly as good a false narrative), it boggles the mind how one can do it. So stop the bogus mis-representation of sources over and over, please. And stop trying to claim that pointing out that your repeated assertions about a source are complete codswallop, and repeated even in the face of being told days ago exactly who its authors are, along with false claims that you aren't doing it alongside doing it again — and again! — is some form of personal attack. That's clearly an attempt to distract. Uncle G (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea why you are responding here like this to the evidently true statement that this book is a self-published work. I hope you will reflect on your uncivil language here. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That you have no idea, including clearly of what self-publication actually looks like, is the problem. As is your repeated attempts to distract, ducking and weaving. Now you duck and weave with the the above, which is the classic "Oh, it's uncivil!" response to being told that one is wrong. FOARP, you are wrong. You are egregiously and blatantly wrong to anyone who actually opened the work to its title page, or looked at the WWW page where things are published and saw that it wasn't run or owned by the work's authors, or read the work and seen a perfectly normal historical work done to historian standards with primary sources cited and everything. And in the face of that you have squirmed and ducked and wriggled, with all sorts of things; from patronizingly disparaging real named people by claiming "kids" and "their teach", through "not historians" and "I have an M.A.", and distraction fallacies with "personal attacks" after being told that you're wholly and wildly misrepresenting something over and over in 4 AFD discussions, and now the all-too-often-abused "uncivil" when told you that you're doing this over and over and ascribing things to people who didn't assert them (when in fact you yourself did, earlier), and badgering with underlining.

      No, FOARP, you reflect on all this shifting and tapdancing, and why your goal of getting rid of the wretched GNIS stuff has so blinded you that you'll outright resort to all of these tactics and what has now become (since you've had it explained four times over to several utterly fundamental levels) wilful repetition of falsehoods in the face of what's right under your nose, including things that are easy to read right from the title page of a source. This is a poor show for people who are expected to be writing an encyclopaedia. Reflect that you're now being lauded by the "I Googled it and got no hits." ("I looked in Google Earth") camp. Counting Google hits is of course not research, but your methodology is being defended by the people who put zero research effort in, whose own approach is also shameful. That's a big red flag that you're going very astray.

      Uncle G (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uncle G,

I was looking at our PROD list and I think there might be a problem with the PROD tagging you did today. I don't know whether you use Twinkle or paste in a template on to the target article but you have a lot of tagged articles that showed up on the error list (see User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary#Failed to parse). I'm not tech savvy enough to diagnose the problem but since you went to the trouble of evaluating and tagging these articles, it's important they show up on the list that admins review when they come due next week. It might be a problem with the time stamp, that sometimes causes errors. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It was just {{subst:prod}} as always. So nothing should have gone wrong. And the substituted result looks correct as far as I can tell. The only commonality that I see — and some of those nominations aren't mine — is the use of a template within the concern parameter, in this case {{user}}. I'd say that's a problem with the 'bot. Uncle G (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • These PRODs are still showing up as errors at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary#Failed to parse not on the primary list that admins use to review and delete proposed deletions. So, basically, if these tags aren't fixed, these articles will not be seen by patrolling admins and deleted on schedule. Maybe some admin will think to look at the bottom of the page but that's nothing you can count on and as the page tagger, you are not supposed to be doing the article deletion. Just informing you of this situation. I suppose it could be a problem with the bot but I've never seen this happen before in the years I've spent reviewing PRODs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing that I can do about the 'bot. It's not mine. And the articles are otherwise listed quite normally in the categories. This seems to be a problem entirely within the compass of the 'bot, only happening on its own output. If you're using the 'bot's output and not the categories, then you should really be taking this up with the person who operates the 'bot. Uncle G (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	i love this page and i'm gonna keep it as a note for future potential articles, thanks! XanderK09 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this was for the page you posted on the afd discussion, apparently that didn't show up on the barnstar LOL XanderK09 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the discussion on English-speaking Quebecers. I was just a bit puzzled in getting the message, since I don't recall ever meeting you before? But you knew I'd likely be interested? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have secret superpowers that enable me to read what people say in old CFD discussions. Don't tell anyone. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your secret is safe with me. 🤫 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you rename the article Khour II as Gayur-khan? The user @Swalors renamed it without discussing and despite the name Gayur-khan being mentioned by a number of WP:RS that are cited in the article. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If there had been more involvement at Talk:Khour II#Requested move 6 October 2023 showing some sort of a widely agreed status quo ante, yes. But at this point there's 1 editor on either side of the discussion, no citing of sources on the talk page to bolster arguments, or even talk page participation by one of the editors, and Khour II is just what happens to be the current page name when the edit warring stops. I'm not going to take sides in this conflict of 2 people. It's going to be The Wrong Version for one of you; and I'm not a go-between or a proxy here, merely the person who prevented a week-long edit war from continuing. Try and find some third-party editors from a WikiProject or some such to help in actually resolving the issue. Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty short, so i emailed you the text. Let me know if you'd prefer a pdf. ——Serial 12:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It took a while for the penny to drop here. ☺ That is because I was thinking of it as the Fortune article. I'll have a look. I already put the citation into the article, so someone else with access can pick it up and run with it, too. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uncle G, great work finding/adding sources to the AfD article related to the British surgeon. (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County island to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography, you didn't add a corresponding notice at the AfD page using {{subst:delsort}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While reading through WP:AN#Distasteful? (in re death of Kissinger), you commented that the Nobel Peace Prize article has two different prize figures quoted, and you had a seemingly-relevant but paywalled source.

I'm not sure if you're still looking for sources. If so, here's what (some of) the article said, and I've incorporated into Nobel Peace Prize: the amount of prize money varies from year to year (presumably depending on how much the Nobel Foundation has on hand). They give some recent prize amounts, hovering around the 10 megakronor mark, and note that an early award to Red Cross was only worth about $15k.

Hope that helps, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone sent the text to me, and I've had reading it on my to-do list, after more Creek work. I suspect that you've saved me a job. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See recently expanded geostub monster Carlstrom Foothills. Half the entries were not on the 1964 map or in Alberts, Fred G., ed. (1995), Geographic Names of the Antarctic (PDF) (2 ed.).A search on "Carlstrom Foothills" here explains why GNIS is ahead of Alberts. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Independent Counter-terrorism Police SubdivisionPolicji has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20 § Independent Counter-terrorism Police SubdivisionPolicji until a consensus is reached. . Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said on the administrators' noticeboard, I'm going to leave the decision on that to other people. I'm just the wikignome who fixed the edit history after a copy-and-paste bogus "move". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for stuffing this up and thanks for your good works mopping up my messes.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G. I noticed that you seem to be using pretty long full protection durations when dealing with edit warring compared to what I'm accustomed to seeing (and what I've inferred from WP:PREEMPTIVE which is a bit vague). I wanted to ask if the common practice differs on WP:ANI and WP:ANEW compared to WP:RFPPI where full protections are generally a week or less. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally look at how long the war has already gone on for as a guide to how long to give it to cool off, or for people to think of a different approach. A week is barely a blip to the participants for some of the months-long wars. People can always ask for protection to be lifted if things get settled, and that's definitely the idea with the indefinites, where there's no real hint at how long it might take to settle things. Alas, sometimes I'm protecting where protection or blocks have expired and the warriors have simply taken back up where they left off. There's a few of those in the log. None of this is pre-emptive, notice. It's all reactive, and far too often in reaction to long-term warring. The short-term stuff mostly does not make it my way, unless I see it at AFD patrol or entirely by chance as I happen to be writing; but I cannot remember ever having used full protection at AFD, so that's not what you are asking about. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wheeler, Kansas and other Kansas community articles, please stop reformatting Kansas community articles. Also, please stop changing the reference style too. If you disagree how USA community articles should be formatted, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary, please stop reintroducing falsehoods into Wikipedia, as you did in Special:Diff/1198032374. You turned a sourced past tense village back into an unsourced present tense "unincorporated community". And the idea that USA community articles are even formatted this way is blatant nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of articles for the USA that don't have this idea of including irrelevant external links and "list of books about Kansas" that don't even have the subject in them and turn out not even to be a list of books when the reader follows it; and the guideline that you point to does not say anything like what you are producing. Your defence of this identical boilerplate crap in Kansas articles where every article has exactly the same content, which is no content at all, and your re-introducing outright falsehoods and removing an actual source, is a disgrace. Uncle G (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you! Avishai11 (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhondda has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone has done a bogus copy and paste move somewhere in the past 19 years. The article that I created in 2005 was Rhondda (disambiguation). Yet I am not credited in its edit history at all, now. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have repaired a set of cut-and-paste moves from 2008 to reconnect the edit history. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've uncovered something that will require conversation and cleanup far beyond the Lincoln-Villa article and far past the duration of its AFD pbp 18:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Villieria, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villieria until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jones, Douglas S. (1993-07-07). "Out on a limb Boundary quirk puts Yale area residents there". Times-News. Vol. 88, no. 188. Twin Falls, Idaho. pp. A1, A2 – via Newspapers.com.

This article describes some quirks of the Yale area. I wonder if there are additional articles that could give notability to this? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spoiled child, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoiled child until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Citation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nickps (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article All Request, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Request (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G. I nominated Midnight Fantasy, a redirect you created, for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 13#Midnight Fantasy. The phrase "Midnight Fantasy" can refer to two topics, so I've asked the community for guidance about how to handle that. Cunard (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meow

Drmies (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]