This is an archive of past discussions with User:GB fan. 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.
Heya there GB fan, I browsing through and noticed that the page had been deleted quite a while ago, I was just wondering if you could clarify the deletion reason for me please? specifically "which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", also what would you have improved with the page and changed etc? And is it possible that I could have the deleted pages content sent here, added to my Sandbox or have the page undeleted and moved to a Draft/Sandbox location to be worked on by someone like me or anyone else interested in Wiki.gg please? Thanks! Aeyeu (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Aeyeu, I will not do that one. I wasn't the last admin to delete it and it was last deleted after an AFD. You should approach the admin that close the AFD. ~ GB fan11:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Apology
Sorry for using the wrong rd code. What would be the best code to use if the redirect does not fit the target article if possible? Thanks. Red Director (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I already tried to move it. It said it cannot be moved because article with name already exists (the redirect) so the redirect needs to be deleted. ACase0000 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I submitted a technical request here, WP:RM/TR. It will not let me move it over redirect either. Sorry for bothering you. Have a great day. –ACase0000 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
SL93, This is the first two sentences of WP:BLPPROD (bolding and links as in the original):
Unsourced biographies of living people (BLPs) are eligible for a special proposed deletion process, BLPPROD. To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article.
A single source in any form, any reliability is enough to disqualify an article from being eligible for BLPPROD. The blogspot source is enough to make it ineligible. The reliable source is required to remove a BLPPROD that was entirely unsourced when the BLPPROD was added. ~ GB fan17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
That's odd. The whole purpose of the template creation stemmed from discussions about making sure that BLPs were reliably sourced. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
SL93, I don't disagree, it is odd. That is the way the policy is written. There have been numerous discussions over the years about this and there has never been a consensus to change it to reliable in both cases. ~ GB fan23:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Would you like to get the ball rolling? No pressure if you don't, but I tend to screw up a step or two with AfDs. Just a suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not the person who thinks it should be deleted. The rationale you placed in the PROD is a reason to add references to the article not delete it. You will need to come up with a good reason to delete, see WP:DEL#REASON. AFD is easy if you activate Twinkle in your preferences (Gadgets tab, Browsing section). It automates the process and completes all the steps for you. ~ GB fan12:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
(Article) I know you removed the PROD tag but do you think it would be ok to nominate at AfD? Would put on talk page, I guess, but it will probably never get noticed there. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you removed my proposed deletion for the SCC albums. If you believe they should be removed, can you instead have the albums redirect to the SCC wiki page. JuanBoss105 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
JuanBoss105, if you believe the independent articles do not belong, you can redirect them. They shouldn't be deleted, because there is a valid redirect option. ~ GB fan14:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, it is regarding this. Should we revert back to the redirect as of now, or an AfD is required for that? It is largely copied from the history section of the city article by the creator, but a few sources have been recently added by others, though the content is same. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Fylindfotberserk, this is an editorial decision that needs to be made. Is there enough history content to justify an independent article with a summary at the main article? If there is enough then the main article history section should be summarized and a link to the history article. If the history doesn't overwhelm the main article, any appropriate additions to the history article should be incorporated into the main article and then the history article should be redirected the section. I don't plan on evaluating the situation to see what is best. ~ GB fan15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you delete this PROD'd article? I can not because I tagged it for deletion. I thought someone would get to it by now but no admin has. Thanks for your help. LizRead!Talk!00:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Though you have now objected to my move and there is no other option apart from AfD, I would like to know if there is a policy or guideline that says articles accepted through AfC cannot be draftified? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:DRAFTNO #6 applies. It says Another editor has asserted that the page belongs in mainspace, e.g. it has previously been moved there, or there is a clear statement to that effect in the edit history or on the talk page. Since an editor has accepted the article an editor has asserted that the page belongs in the mainspace. ~ GB fan23:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I know it's a procedural move now but it makes no sense to have the Reviewed pages filter in the page curation tool. If the page is reviewed, accepted or tagged with relevant templates, then why do we have a filter for it? Just curious. On a separate note, there is a case where new page reviwers were blocked for abusing their rights and I believe this will end up the same sooner or later. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Palapye public library page deleted
Hi there i would like to understand further why a page of a local public library in my vicinity of palapye,was deleted?i dont understand why a public library that offers service to clients is not of significance.This is not a private library but a govermenemt aided public library and therefore iam not promoting a private entity.kindly elaborate on signifance sought. Olgatladi2020 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The article, Palapye Public Library, just says it is a public library. It didn't say that there was anything significant about the library. There is nothing to distinguish this public library from any other public library in the world. Wikipedia does not have articles about every public library in the world, just those that have significant coverage about them in multiple independent reliable sources. If that information is available then you can provide it and the article can be restored. ~ GB fan13:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Runswick Bay Lifeboat Station
Hi.
I'm clearly getting things wrong with trying to get this redirect deleted.
So why not help, instead of just saying, you can't do it that way!
MartinOjsyork (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It looks good, the only thing is you didn't sign the discussion, I did add one for you, if you want you can go back and resign it yourself. ~ GB fan19:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi User:GB fan. Sorry, that's my bad (I think). I listed the user who created the articles (User:McSyl) when tagging them, who was indeed not blocked at the time. However, the master account User:BobVillars definitely, 100 percent was. See here. Should I resubmit the tagging using the "master" account instead? --McSly (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
According to BobVillars block log, they were blocked for 2 weeks on 20 March 2024 and then indefinitely 2 October 2024. McSyl has a single block entry on 2 October 2024. All of the article were created in August 2024. After the 2 week block expired and prior to the indef block. ~ GB fan10:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
If you think it is enough, retag the articles and present the actual master that was blocked when the articles were created. Another admin will look at it and determine if it meets the criteria. I am done. I looked at the blocked logs and the SPI and it G% does not appear to apply, but I won't take any more action in any way on these articles. ~ GB fan11:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the re-directions. It is the best idea for records that are unremarkable. I'll continue with anyone else who has the same problem, if you don't mind 77.49.204.50 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I was hoping to test whether or not {{prod}}'d pages (with talk pages tagged with {{WikiProject Computer Security}}) would be listed on WP:COMP's article alerts. This won't happen until AAlertBot does its daily run. This behavior is central to an ongoing discussion about taskforce/WikiProject alert tracking. It's possible my test won't work on a user page anyway, but if it does the result can be manually removed from the alerts page.
Would it be possible to flag the page as valid/testing for 24hrs until it runs? This could also be done with a real article but a user sandbox seems preferable. Thanks, Tule-hog (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
If you put it back with an explanation with what you are looking for, I won't remove it again. I can't speak for any one else though. ~ GB fan18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
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.
Dear User (GB Fan) : Please Note : Singer/Composer Satyam Anandjee is an Indian. and very much he has contributed to the music industry with his songs in the genre of Ghazals & Bhajans, kindly do your research before deleting, you can do a search via below
Google search 2. Search on Itunes / Spotify / Wink Music / JioSaavn / And many more music digital platforms. I want to create a subject topic on this Singer : Satyam Anandjee
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I am reaching out about a page you deleted as part of an expired PROD 20:16, 28 September 2011GB fan The notice said to reach out to the user who deleted the page before recreating it.
I would like to recreate this page in support of the activity for WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/324
The person is notable and has reliable sources. I am experienced in writing biographies and would like to write this one in support of the Women in Red activities. Thank you. Nayyn (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Nayyn, As it is an expired PROD, there is no problem recreating it. I can even undelete the article that was deleted in 2011 if you would like that as a starting point. Let me know if you want the old article. ~ GB fan15:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Nayyn, Your welcome. If you ever need an article that was deleted via PROD, just ask. The PROD policy states that anyone can ask for it to be restored for any reason. ~ GB fan18:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.
This is being listed for deletion - whats the article states is untrue and is not fact and there are no proof, how it stayed up so long is anybodies guess.
Hello GB fan I saw that you just removed the PROD BLP tag from Márton Báder. I saw the article myself yesterday and noted that there were sources of sorts - in that situation, can I, as a non-admin, remove the tag myself? Or is that only something that admins are permitted to do? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
SunloungerFrog, Anyone can remove the BLPPROD in the situation where the tag was improperly placed. You just need to be able to justify the removal. The justification is that there was a source (reference, external link) on the article that confirms something in the article when the BLPPROD was added. In this case the first external link confirms his birthdate and birthplace. That is enough to say the BLPPROD was not appropriate. Another case of removing a BLPPROD is shown in Mariann Byerwalter. I removed the BLPPROD because in the past there were sources on the article that had been removed from the article. This is also an inappropriate use of BLPPROD as there were sources on the article in the past. If you have any questions, let me know. ~ GB fan12:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah thank you very much. There are two other BLPs that are on my radar, but I think in both cases the BLPPROD stands:
Zoltán Jovánczai - there are two external links, but neither confirms anything in the article.
Péter Lelkes - there is one external link, but it does not currently, and never did (according to Wayback Machine), confirm anything in the article.
I'd be grateful if you would confirm that my analysis is correct in those cases.
It looks like the system fixed it between when you looked at it and when I looked. For a short period of time you had created it as a redirect from a move. ~ GB fan18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
