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.
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the speedy deletion of "Western Republican Leadership Conference"
You recently speedy deleted Western Republican Leadership Conference. Although I did not have enough information about this organization/activity to fill in the article, I felt that an article would be needed in the near future, so I created it as a stub hoping that others will fill it out. The conference will certainly be extremely notable because it will host the Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2012 of October 18, 2011 (next Tuesday). The external link which was included in the article led to the website describing the conference. So please undelete the article as it is needed to resolve a red-link in the above mentioned article on the debates! Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, I will not undelete that article. I deleted it because it has no content. The text of the article consisted of the title of the article, two internal links and an external link. There isn't enough for this to be a valid article. Also your request above shows that the organization is not notable now. You said that there isn't enough to fill in the article and that the conference will be notable in the future. If it isn't notable now we shouldn't have an article on it now. I can userfy it for you if you want. GBfan13:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear GB fan, I wanted to thank you for restoring the Donald Braswell page following my request. Unfortunately, I didn't discover you had restored it until after TParis deleted it again. I'm attempting to get a deletion review, with my limited wiki ability. Just wanted to thank you for your attempt to help.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well if it is within your power to do so, maybe you could help get my page restored in the deletion review? I don't know what the heck I'm doing in wikipedia, but just trying to get a good man documented. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiauthenticity (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
All I can say at this point is I will look at the deleted article and the deletion review. Then depending on what I find I will see what else I can do. No promises. GBfan17:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Why was content deleted
Confused as to why deleted my article, as it certainly wasn't an advertisement and I had only just posted it and edited items after re-reading guidelines.. Seems as if it was nominated and deleted based on the subject material. Would the same thing happen if I posted the "Humanist Minfesto"? I also need a copy of the page as it was before being deleted.
It was deleted because all it did is promote the standpoint of Dr.William B. Turner. It even went so far as to ask that you please send any suggestions to Occupy North America. The deletion had nothing to do with the subject material and everything to do with the way the article was written. GBfan21:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
You possibly may have seen the original article before it was edited down to be in compliance with guidelines. Will you review the new article when published to ensure we don't have the need to go through this again?Jeremyritzmann (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I saw the article I deleted. I did not look at any previous editions. If you are going to rewrite it, I would suggest you start it in your userspace such as, User:Jeremyritzmann/Declaration of Human Grievances and Goals. You need to make sure you include reliable sources that have written about the manifesto or it will probably be deleted again. GBfan21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that i understand what you mean by other written sources. I can't post it until some one like the mass media publish an article on it? I listed a public source that initially released a review of this very manifesto, so once again, im not sure what you mean by reliable. Jeremyritzmann (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are only supposed to be about subjects that reliable sources have already written about. This is how we determine if the subject is notable enough to have an article. If reliable sources have not provided significant coverage of the subject of the article then there shouldn't be an article in wikipedia. If you click the links I provided it should help you understand. Also you should look at WP:FIRST. That link talks about how to write your first aricle. GBfan21:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I mean, this may be my first article here, however it is far from my first ever. I have a fairly strong background in writing, and I know what a source is. There seems to be a disconnect between the "laws of the land" as some one say. I'm going to re-publish it, it is completely written in a non-biased way, and has a reference source listed who has written a review on the manifesto. Hopefully we won't have further issues.Jeremyritzmann (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Writing articles here and writing articles elsewhere is not necessarily the same. Hopefully you have sources that provide significant coverage of the manifesto in the article. Good luck. GBfan01:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.
You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.
While appreciating the withdrawal, I do wish to clarify that WP:NACTOR does allow consideration of notability for "roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The GNG is set to assist editors in making evaluations when SIGCOV exists. SNGs such as WP:ENT are set in place to assist editors in making evaluations where SIGCOV is lacking. To meet WP:ENT the length and depth of a career must at the least be verifiable, without requiring that sources used for the required verifiabiity be themselves SIGCOV. AS part of WP:N, the GNG and the SNGs work in concert, and not in dischord. And my own understanding is that the essay WP:INHERIT is set more to deal with improper assertions of notability through relationships between people, and less to deal with the guideline-encouraged considerations of an individual's body of work being sometimes perceivable as "wothy of notice" even in a lack of SIGCOV. Granted, a significant hindrance to researching Matilde Artero is that her work fell between the far-pre-internet period of 1926 to 1961, and in a non-English country. It was helpful that her work was at least confirmable away from IMDB in many books. Thank you for your consideration. I will hope that members of WikiProject Spain can come forward with that earlier era's hardcopy news sources not availbale online. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess you and I read the same guidelines differently. WP:ENT is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. In that section it says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." of which ENT is one of the standards. It does not say they are automatically notable if they meet the standard. It does go one to say: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." SO this tells me that it is a judgement as to whether a person is notable enough to be included. What I saw when I looked for coverage of her was minimal, I did not see enough to show me that she was notable. It is great that you came along and could find sources for the article. GBfan17:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It took digging... that's for sure... and you're correct... nothing is a guarantee. And yes... I would have encouraged the author to do more than write one sentence. As I had opined that the one sentence could be expanded and sourced, the onus was placed upon me to let my words be suported by action. Thanks again. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.06:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, GB fan, I do not understand your reasons for deleting the disambiguation page at Aleksandr Ilyin. We have three articles about different people who might be the targets of a search for "Aleksandr Ilyin", so a disambiguation page is necessary. I have undone your move of Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Ilyin and restored the deleted disambiguation page. If you think this biography is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and want to move it back, then at least you should move the disambiguation page instead of deleting it, and fix all three affected articles so that readers can navigate among them correctly. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I am not sure why I did that. I must have looked at something wrong. I should never have deleted that page. Thanks for fixing my error. GBfan11:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, why the contents at Associação Software Livre.Org were deleted? The description came from the association's about page which is Licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 license. should it be in another way ? The page is needed because it is the largest free software association in Brazil, and organizes the largest latin-america free software forum (see FISL).
Thank you. --giovani spagnolo (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I saw the "Copyright (c) 2005 - 2011 by Associação SoftwareLivre.org, ASL" at the bottom of the page and missed the creative contribution 3.0 in Portuguese at the bottom of the page. I undeleted it. GBfan15:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Magic words, in particular, NUMBEROFARTICLES
Hi. I just wanted to drop this note on your page about magic words. In this edit to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed , I believe you tried to substitute the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} magic word, but instead you stubsted the template{{Numberofarticles}}. This template exists to catch things like this and puts the pages where {{Numberofarticles}} and a few other templates that are not supposed to be used into Category:Pages which use a template in place of a magic word. Usually it's easy to go through and replace the accidentally-used template with the appropriate magic word, but since you substed the template (and since the page you substed it on is transcluded onto about 100 other pages), it took me half an hour to figure out what was causing so many pages to be put into the category. So I guess what I'm saying is, please double-check your magic words in the future to make sure they're actually magic words! If you subst or transclude {{NUMBEROFARTICLES rather than {{Numberofarticles}}, it won't cause a problem :) Thank you and happy editing, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
He is a goalkeeper who is the first option for maldivian top football league's New Radiant SC and in next season, he will be playing for the maldivian champion VB Sports Club If you don't believe me, you can ask me for some videos too. Please let me to create this page. It will be a great pleasure for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZ47 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion, create the article in your userspace, such as User:ZZ47/Abdulla Ziyazan. This will allow you to work on the article without someone coming along and deleting it. Then when you think you have addressed the issues brought up in the deletion discussion you can ask a more experienced editor to review it. My first suggestion on who to ask would be the admin who closed the deletion discussion, The Bushranger, you can also ask at Deletion review. Hope this helps. GBfan14:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That is what I did. Saw a new addition to the dab page and checked what linked to the redlink. The only link was to the dab page so I removed the link because there was nothing to disambiguate. If there is now an appropriate link then the addition would be appropriate. GBfan07:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually that is a bureaucrat action not an admin action. You will need to talk to a bureaucrat about this. I had my name changed a couple of years ago and everything worked fine. I would start either at WP:BN (bureaucrat noticeboard) or at the talk page of the bureaucrat that completed the name change, MBisanz. Sorry I can't be of more help. GBfan01:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion, create the article in your userspace, such as User:ZZ47/Abdulla Ziyazan. This will allow you to work on the article without someone coming along and deleting it. Then when you think you have addressed the issues brought up in the deletion discussion you can ask a more experienced editor to review it. My first suggestion on who to ask would be the admin who closed the deletion discussion, The Bushranger, you can also ask at Deletion review. Hope this helps.
I am not sure what is wrong with it. In the template code there are 23 players listed plus the coach. When I look at the template I see 23 players and the coach. I also looked at the template on the Raúl González article and it shows 23 players and the coach. Are you seeing something different? GBfan02:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know that in Raúl González's one , there are 23 players and a coach. and when we view it, it is appearing nicely. In Ali Fasir's template, there are 20 players in the squad with a coach. but when I save and view it, only 18 players' name is shown, the last two players' names are not appearing though I wrote. And another thing is that, in Ali Fasir's template, there are no player with jersey number 2, but something like {{{p2}}} is appeared.
I fixed it. The problem was that the template was hardcoded and required players 1 through 10 to be named players. Since you didn't have a 2 it came up with that code in its place. Then the template only allows up to #23 so those players with numbers higher than 23 won't display. I was able to fix it using a free form list and some additional templates. GBfan15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, it took a little digging to figure it out, but I finally found it. I haven't worked much with templates before. If you need anything else let me know, I will try to help or will direct you in a direction. GBfan17:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, GB fan! I noticed recently that an article about the Veracity DVCS had been deleted by you, via "speedy deletion". While I have no idea what content the page once had, I feel Veracity is noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. It has come up a few times on mailing lists for Mercurial (software), at least, as possibly addressing some "corporate" concerns about DVCS in general, which Mercurial itself cannot address. There has been some discussion at my workplace among the tools group about investigating Veracity for this reason.
While I do not know for a fact whether Veracity is truly notable in the Wikipedia sense (yet), I do feel that citing Wikipedia:CSD#A7 as a reason for speedy deletion is incorrect, and at most, the article ought to have been deleted with discussion per normal process. Wikipedia:CSD#A7 explicitly says it does not apply to "articles about...books, albums, software, or other creative works" nor to any article with "any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines".
Could you please restore the article? I think it likely the topic could be found notable with some work, although as stated I have no idea what the article content may have been at the time of deletion.
I am not sure today why I deleted that back in September, but I shouldn't have as it is clearly about a software package and software is not eligible under A7. It has been restored. GBfan21:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! That was fast. I can see why it is not very good in its current form. I'll see what I can do this weekend to find some sources for it, but I've mostly only lurked around making small changes on wikipedia so far. Any suggestions on how to go about it if I do find some good sources? Should I start by finding them and trying to expand the article with the information therein, or should I quickly post on the deletion discussion before I get started? I know I need 3rd-party sources to establish notability, but a lot of the best documentation I've found is obviously affiliated with the project; are there pointers on how much of that can be used, and how? --Fritzophrenic (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
If you find good reliable sources you could post them to the article's talk page and then start to expand the article based them. You can use sources that are affiliated with the subject to give basic facts about the software, but only 3rd-party sources can be used to establish notability. Time is ticking on the article, since it has been nominated for deletion under AFD. Unless someone comes up with 3rd-party sources within the next week it will be re-deleted. GBfan21:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome. Most new users don't realize what the requirements are, 96 hours and 10 edits. You are just waiting on the last hour. GBfan18:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Marketplace Mall
Why did you remove the tag? Only one of the malls is called "Marketplace Mall"; the other is "The Marketplace Mall". Since the names are slightly different, there's no reason for them not to be at those names, with hatnotes pointing to each other. (Alternatively, both could be hatnoted to Marketplace Mall (disambiguation) since there's also a Market Place (two words) mall in Illinois.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It was asked at WP:REFUND#Marketplace Mall to restore it because LtPowers asked for it to be undeleted because he seem to disagree that it was uncontroversial. I should have been more clear in my edit summary why I removed the deletion request. GBfan23:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not that I thought it was controversial, just that I had no idea what page was supposed to be moved in, nor what was on the deleted page. I was going to say you could re-delete it per WP:TWODABS and I'd take care of the move myself, but 10#H points out a third option, so I think a disambiguation page is best. PowersT23:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Endre Wolf was proud to say he had never carried a Hungarian passport. He was born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and carried a Swedish passport. You can see why he loathed the Hungary in the cited obituary.
The only citation for this article is an obituary in The Guardian, which I wrote after interviewing his widow and his nephew. Wolf was born in Budapest in the Austro Hungarian Empire in 1913. As a Jew he was not well treated after 1920 in the new post-war state of Hungary. From 1920 there were numerus clausus laws against Jews and minorities. He was at first denied an exit visa when he was invited to work in Sweden in 1936. The Hungarian police granted him an exit visa only after his aunt told the police, "Here is another opportunity to get rid of a Jew." He lived in Sweden and the United Kingdom for the rest of his life. He carried a Swedish passport and was proud to say he had never carried a Hungarian passport. That is why The Guardian carefully called him Budapest-born. The Swedish language wikipedia calls him a Swedish violinist. He would not have liked Wikipedia to call him Hungarian. Would you have described Irving Berlin as a White Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew rosthorn (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Although the article has content, list's of programs are not to be included in articles, as far as I understood the policy, therefore the only part of the article remaining is a sentence saying it is a college. Isn't this valid for CSD A3? Gsingh (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Even if you do exclude all the information about the degrees offered by the college it is more than just a sentence that says it is a college. You also learn it is in Thanjavur, India and that it was established 23 June 1955. So it is more than just a restatement of the title of the article and that specifically excludes A3. GBfan05:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That was a bit of a screw up by the usually-reliable ClueBot (the first one I think I've ever seen...) - the IP was trying to remove the unsourced material, not add it, so your revert actually put the contentious paragraph back in. I've sorted it. Cheers, Yunshui雲水15:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi GB Fan, the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapasvi_Mehta was created by someone, without including references, catagories and many more, and nominated for BLP articles proposed for deletion So, I edited and corrected them all. I wanted to ask that; Will it still be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZ47 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 28 January 2012
In my interpretation of the policy that the proposed deletion is under, Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, the Sony Entertainment Television article is enough to remove the deletion notice. he policy requires that at least one reliable source be present in the article that verifies at least one statement and that source is reliable and verifies a statement. The other source is not reliable so it does not help at all and should probably be removed. While there is enough in the article to save it from Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, there isn't enough to save it from Articles for deletion. That process would require significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. The one reliable source is a primary source discusses the character he plays and adds in ellipsis that he is the actor. The current deletion process should probably stop but unless there is more information about him in reliable sources I believe the article will still be deleted. GBfan16:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
This page I created has been deleted and I think this is an error. The subject is recognised in various Australian archival sources as a prominent Victorian pioneer. I propose strengthening the references to these archival sources to confirm the "noteworthyness" of the subject.
How do I access the original material so that I might edit it? I don't have another record for it.
Before I use third revert to remove the information from the OWS article, is there another deletion request i should make?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Nevermnd. It doesn't matter. I have used the third revert to undue.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are talking about but G7 only applies if the original and only significant author requests deletion. You were the original author but there is at least one other editor that added content to the article so G7 does not apply. If you feel the article should be deleted you can always use one of the other two deletion processes. If you use WP:Prod and no one objects the article will be deleted after seven days. The other alternative is to nominate the article through the WP:AFD process. That will be a seven day discussion and the article will be deleted if there is a consensus to delete it. GBfan03:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure and we all have opinions. I respect yours and reverted. So don't sweat it. I know this isn't anything that matters...because it involves me.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Actual Art
Thank you for all your hard work....what happened to the Actual Art article? sorry I know nothing about computer languages, (dyslexia and parkinson), help
Palosfierros (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I am only looking at the page in question, User:Sunshinegman/denisemorrison, and looking at the deletion requests and determining if the deletion requests fall within the parameters of the deletion policy. The first time I saw this page you tried to get it deleted as a test page, that is the purpose of a usersandbox. So it does not fall within the criteria to delete it as a test page. The 2nd time you nominated it you used PROD. That can only be used on articles, that is not my policy that is the policy of Wikipedia. If Sunshinegman wants the page deleted they can add {{db-user}} to the top and that would be a valid deletion request. The only way someone other than Sunshinegman can request that page be deleted is through Miscellany for deletion. Nominating through that would require a reason for the page to be deleted and being a dead sandbox or cluttering up wikipedia and the internet probably won't work to get it deleted. THe page is not interfering with anything and most people won't even see it unless they go looking for it so I fail to understand why you are so determined to get the page deleted. GBfan17:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, since you are the admin who previously turned down a Speedy at List of Pokémon Black & White: Rival Destinies episodes, I thought I'd give you a heads up that I re-tagged it for Speedy. It actually does meet the criteria for a speedy deletion, namely under A10, since the text for this article is copied directly from portions of another, already made article. Just though I'd let you know the details, so it wouldn't look like I was just ignoring your initial speedy decline. Rorshacma (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You are right and I deleted based on that. The previous reason for it to be speedily deleted was not a valid speedy deletion criteria and that was why I declined it. Good catch, thanks. GBfan18:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You can remove the Proposed Deletion tag any time you want to. The two sources that you added to the article won't save it though from an articles for deletion discussion. You will need to show that he has received significant coverage to save the article from that. The first source just says that he plays for the Victory Sports Club and that he plays defender It does not really say much. I can not comment on the second source because it is asking me to log in. Just looking at where the info is coming from I don't think it will help either. The best thing would be if you can find an article that talks specifically about him. Hope this helps. GBfan05:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The reason given for the deletion is "Football club navigation template with only 3 working links, 1 of which has been proposed for deletion and the remaining would not qualify for articles." You did comment but on the wrong one. You commented on the discussion below the one your are interested in. If you go back to this link, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Victory SC squad and click on the [edit] link to the right of where is says Template:Victory SC squad then you can comment in the discussion. I do not see much hope for the template at this point though. GBfan05:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
MSU Interview
GB fan,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
haha, thanks for the email. when I got it, I thought the original user had decided to email me, and I was tracking them down to report haha. Quite the creative attack he had! Gaijin42 (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I am researching a project on a public figure with whom you have had direct dealings regarding his Wikipedia article. I would greatly appreciate if you could e-mail me privately to discuss your personal interactions with him. Forgive my vague request; I am aware that the subject in question is very active online and maintains a high level of vigilance on sites such as Wikipedia. Your kind cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Please e-mail our project administrator at tsp_a@yahoo.com. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.254.231 (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I will not email you without more information. If you are not comfortable doing it on Wikipedia, you can use the "Email this user " in the toolbox on the left side of the screen. GBfan15:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
why did you remove the musdeo.com post?
Hey how come did you remove the musdeo.com post from the list, did you know that we are a social media site. Check it out www.musdeo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvendros (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
When you went into the edit screen to add your entry there was a note right at the top of the edit screen, it says:
IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING.
ONLY place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not social networking sites will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Please try to keep entries in alphabetical order. Adding unnecessary links or text anywhere else will also be removed. Thanks.
Please see "WP:WEB" for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia.
Editors are encouraged to write the article first (See "WP:WTAF").
I mean come on Wikipedia is riddled with half truths. When I post my true site, it gets removed. I understand you guys have 10,000 things need doing to make 1 statement. Thats just dumb and not user-friendly. As a web developer thats just poor design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvendros (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think your site is notable write an article about it. Then we can add it to the list. If all we required for that list was to have an active site that page would be ten times the length it is now. We made a decision to limit the list to ones that have articles, it is a policy that can be evenly applied and no one can argue that there site is better. If you disagree with that policy for that page you are more than welcome to go to the talk page and convince editors that the policy should change. GBfan00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This is just an opinion, but this is why I think Wikipedia is doomed!!!
There are so many, many reasons for this. To be concise, I will limit myself here to ten top reasons:
1) Except for a handful of protected articles, editing of articles on Wikipedia is open and instant. This means that any troll, vandal, fanboi, spammer, propagandist, revenge-seeker, political hack, conspiracy theorist, tinfoil-hatted nutter, narcissist, power-tripper or libeler can add their "improvements" to it.
2) Wikipedia's central "Neutral Point of View" policy ("NPOV") is fundamentally illogical and has nothing to do with what the rest of the world understands as "neutrality". As a result, "NPOV" means whatever the admin putting the boot in on you says it means. It is the most gamed rule on Wikipedia.
3) Anonymous editing, a thing strongly protected on Wikipedia, encourages people to be abusive and irresponsible toward others. Wikipedia is basically Usenet 2.0.
4) Despite continuing lame attempts to get more experts to participate, Wikipedia has always harbored a culture that is very hostile to experts. The opinion of a Teenage Mutant Wiki Admin means far more than that of an expert would has studied the subject for decades.
5) Wikiality (wikispeak: "consensus"), the process by which truthiness is determined. Like so many other common words used on Wikipedia, "consensus" does not bear even a passing resemblance to its meaning in the dictionary.
6) Wikipedia exploits the mentally ill and those with addictive personalities without pity or scruple. It is an unhappy and unhelpful place for such people.
7) Wikipedia's badly designed and vaguely defined system of governance resembles a primitive feudal system. Wikipedia is essentially run by online warlords.
8) Wikipedia serves as a convenient platform revenge and defamation, and it has often been exploited by unscrupulous people for just that purpose.
9) Drama, drama, drama!
10) Last, but certainly not least, wikipediots. That is, wiki zealots who are quite convinced that Wikipedia has already achieved a state of near perfection, and who respond with hostility and derision to any serious criticism of Wikipedia, or to any serious reform proposal. Wikipediots also have a strong tendency to be confused by facts. Accordingly, attempting to reason with them is inadvisable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvendros (talk • contribs) 00:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it OK if I have a copy of List of fictional businesses in Coronation Street so I can copy the content to Corrie Wiki (A wiki dedicated to Coronation Street). Thanks Paul2387chat17:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have emailed you the article. When you use this please acknowledge you got the content from the deleted wikipedia article to satisfy copyright requirements. GBfan14:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Atlas THON page deletion
Hello,
In December, you deleted the page "Atlas THON" because it had references with links that no longer existed. This is because our organization moved our website to a different URL. If you could undelete the page, I could update the references to accurately reflect this. Thank you and let me know if you need to know anything else.
Thank you, I have updated the links. The Atlas THON website is currently under repairs, but will have the information at the links included on the wikipedia page as soon as the website is back up. Thanks! Mtk180 (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Deletion
Hi,I trying to have my contributions deleted. As you may have figured out I am having a really hard time navigating this site. I am knew anyway I pasted some personal information to my talk page by accident and I would like it deleted. I dont know how to receive messages or anything else can you please help me{{Tharpeanthony1 (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)}}
I have deleted your user page and blanked your Talk page (although there was no personal information on it). You have made no other contributions that can be deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Power modulator page deleted
Hi. I would like to know why the page "power Modulator" was deleted? I see the message "00:07, 21 October 2011 GB fan (talk | contribs) deleted "Power Modulator" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)". This is wrong however, as it was dependent upon the page "Injection Kicker Magnet".
Thanks.
108.65.199.106 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Power Modulator was a redirect to Power modulator (notice that the second one has a lowercase m on modulator therefore a different article). Power Modulator was deleted because Power modulator was deleted so there was nothing for Power Modulator to redirect to. Power modulator was deleted via the proposed deletion process. The proposed deletion process says that any article that is proposed for seven days can be deleted if no one opposes the deletion. That is what happened here. It was proposed to be deleted by Wtshymanski and the reason given was "Original research, nobody called a pulse generator a "power modulator"; neologism." At anytime if anyone objects to the deletion any article deleted under the proposed deletion then the article will be restored. GBfan01:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi GBfan.. in my page Ismail Seremba, there is a { { orphan|date=February 2012 } } and { { cleanup-link rot|date=February 2012 } }. Can you please tell me how to get rid of this problem?? I have linked other articles to the page but still it is not yet deleted by the person who posted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZ47 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 2 March 2012
Sorry it so long to get back to you. The orphan tag is there because only one article, Chelsea F.C. Reserves and Academy, links to Ismail Seremba. If there aren't any other articles in Wikipedia that should link to his article then you can remove that tag. The other tag still applies because the references you have in the article only use URLs. If you look at the references section of Greg Abbott (footballer) and compare that to the reference section of Ismail Seremba. You will notice that the`abbott article has more information. You should format your references like that. GBfan17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the information GBfan. But I don't know how to format the references like in Greg Abbott (footballer). Can you please help me in that?
What I found was this google scholar search. I think there is enough to not call it an obvious hoax at this point and that is what you appear to be calling this. TO speedily delete an article it must fit into one of several limited criteria. The one you appear to using is G3. This applies to only blatantly obvious hoaxes that constitute vandalism and I do not believe this qualifies. You can propose it for deletion in which case it will stick around for 7 days and if no one objects be deleted. You can nominate it at articles for deletion, then there will be a 7 day discussion about it and consensus will be determined. You can also redirect it to the supercluster and then if someone types in this phrase it will take them to the supercluster. The one thing that shouldn't happen to this article is a speedy deletion. GBfan15:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Coming back and looking at this again, I apologize for being so short with you. I think I was getting a bit cynical with the responses there and really wanted to tell people that they should just go away and edit for 4 days and do at least 10 edits. I realized that is not the best answer so not wanting to bite new editors I knew I needed to step away from the page for a while. My response to you was part of that, again I am sorry for the earlier response. GBfan20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Please, don't even think about it. I also have to bite my (fingers) tongue at times when I see that the very first account edit is a request. I am puzzled though, that particular request was denied, so either I was wrong in my assessment or .......IDK. Cheers, Mlpearc (powwow) 22:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I restored this page you speedied. I was in the midst of working on it when you deleted it. The article clearly needs a lot of work, but it looks like a subject that should be covered in Wikipedia. Thanks for patrolling speedy deletion requests! - Eureka Lott01:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like User:ZZ47/Islam Feruz is probably ok. The references show significant coverage from independent sources. The article does have the same problem though as Ismail Seremba. All the references are just bare urls and should be expanded. User:ZZ47/John Swift (footballer born 1995) on the other hand doesn't. All of the sources for that article are from the club except one and that one does not provide significant coverage.
To remove the User:ZZ47 from the front of the article it will need to be moved. You should be able to do that. At the top right of the page you should see either a downward facing triangle or the word Move. If you see the triangle click on it and Move should appear. Then you can click on Move On the new page it will have a place for a new name and the reason for the move. If you need any more help let me know. GBfan18:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok.. So, Do I have to select Article from the drop down list of "To new title:"? And Yea, can you please tell me these 2 pages are ready to be expanded. User:ZZ47/Adodo Paul Odion and User:ZZ47/Ismail Rasheed
Yes, I had to go look what you were talking about. That is a change since the last time I had moved a page. I will look at those two pages in a while. GBfan03:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
User:ZZ47/Adodo Paul Odion will never survive if you move it to the mainspace. None of the 3 references on the article provide significant coverage and there is nothing in the article that makes any claim to significance.
Thanks, But I have 1 source for the 1st 3 {{citation needed}} ones. But the problen is, the source is written in Dhivehi Language. So, is there i can do for it?? ZZ47 (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The language of the source does not matter. You can add it in the same as any other source. One of the additional parameters you can use is; | language = So add that to the source with the language name. GBfan14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
GB, can you plz tell me the full format of the reference, I know in this way, {{cite web | url=xxx | title=xxx | publisher=xxx | language=Dhivehi | date=xxx | accessdate=xxx}} but it comes wrong..
So that I can look at the problem, please tell me which article you are talking about. Also if you could provide a diff of when you added it in that would be helpful GBfan17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let me make this more clear for you. This is the reference link, written in Dhivehi Language [1] and I want to add this instead of all 3 {{citation needed}} in User:ZZ47/Ismail Rasheed. The dhivehi language's heading's English translation is, "Dhivehi Film Industry's top 10 Actors" ZZ47 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to work just fine using the format you listed above. I added it to the article but you should translate the title and the date to english. GBfan14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear GB fan,
A page for Professor Pamela Ronald was tagged for potential removal because an alert for somebody with close connection to the article was detected by Wikipedia. I had sent the link to the page to Professor Ronald to ask her if there were any inconsistencies with the page and if she had any thoughts about my work. She proceeded to make a few edits directly, and I understand that this action may have alerted the neutrality and close connection functions on Wikipedia.
I sincerely request that this page not be deleted, as I have gone over each edit she made manually, and ensured that it complies with all Wikipedia requirements. I have also made additional minor edits to ensure that the page remains highly neutral, objective and accurate. I am a research scientist in the field of plant innate immunity and can verify that Professor Pamela Ronald's page is worthy of inclusion, and I can guarantee you that any edits directly from her that have alerted the neutrality issue have been addressed. In addition, I have sent the page to several independent scientists to verify the information.
I also want to point out as you can see from the history of the page edits that I have spent a considerable amount of effort and time over the past few months to compile an original, highly accurate page that is referenced in a detailed and verified manner. It would be highly disappointing if all this effort goes to waste.
I am willing to take on any suggestions that you may have to ensure that the page is not deleted, and implement these suggestions directly and immediately into the page to ensure a high level of quality control.
I look forward to hearing from you about this matter.
Many thanks in advance and please feel free to contact me about anything that may help resolve this soon.
Best wishes,
Dr Arsalan Daudi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsalan daudi (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are concerned about the article being deleted. The article is just tagged that a person with a close connection has heavily edited the article. You confirmed this with your edit here. When I tagged the article I didn't have the time to read through all the sources and verify that the article accurately reflects what the sources say. Someone would also need to look for other sources that you or her might decide to include that might say other things. You also appear to have a conflict of interest. GBfan18:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I read them and I don't see anyone else saying that the userspace draft should be deleted as a G11. I don't see the harm in leaving that page in place for a while, no one can search for it since it is not indexed. If you readd the CSD tag I will let another admin make the decision. GBfan15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Paletta (surname)
Hi
I recently asked for the Paletta surname page I was working on to get deleted. The reason for this is it needs more content and references.
I shall be doing a new Paletta surname page worthy of being shown on wiki now I understand how to do page lay out and so on.
Thanks for the Paletta information that you sent back. The reason it needs more work and improving is that my wife is a Paletta and said so.
I hope that I can add more to it. After speaking with my wife may be we can find out more on the surname, via our relatives in Italy.
I have removed the Paletta page you sent as I have created a new page. Not sure if I have done it correctly though or is this something you should remove for me?
I only want to display the new Paletta page not the old one.
GB fan - unfortunately, what you deleted wasn't a userspace draft; it was a post-deletion userfied article with a history that included multiple editors (Including myself). When Robert created a new page in article space and had you delete the good one, all that history got lost. Can you fix this, please? Thanks! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽05:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, didn't check deep enough. I have restored it and merged the histories of the two. GBfan14:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
When I go on Google and type in Paletta surname, Google still comes up with the USER:Robertgahame/Paletta(surname) can you delete this so it does not show, thanks for the help.
Hello GB fan, article Veilig Rijen had been nominated for proposed deletion by me only about 2 months ago and i had (not anyone else) stopped the deletion by giving it another chance. Now when i have nominated it for deletion again, how come it does not meet the proposed deletion criteria ? TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I apologize, I thought I had left a message on your talk page as to why I did that, but going back and looking I did not. Not sure what happened there. I had never seen before where an editor Proposes an article for deletion, lets it run for almost the whole seven days, removes the Prod and then comes back are proposes it again. I did not think a Prod could be readded in that situation but I wasn't sure, there is nothing in WP:Prod that talks about if the original proposer removes the Prod can it be readded. It only says if an article is proposed for deletion and the Prod is removed for any reason it can never be proposed for deletion again. I was unsure enough that I asked at WT:Prod#Different situation. Another administrator responded and agreed that a Prod can not be readded in this situation. It was not that it does not meet the proposed deletion criteria, it is just a technicality of the rules for propose deletions. Once again I apologise for not leaving this message after I removed the Prod. GBfan15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem GB fan, nothing to worry about. I was very much confident that when i had first proposed the article for deletion it would surely have got deleted, but i thought of giving it another chance and stopped the Proposed deletion. But after some time again i was confident for nominating it again. I knew that if another editor removes proposed deletion template when the article first gets nominated, the article should not be proposed again. Did not know if the original nominator can not do it again because of the reason you gave. Anyways, you did your work as you should and it's all right :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Prod irregularity
Looks to me like you removed the PROD at Veilig Rijen on procedural grounds. Why? It seems to me to be common sense to allow a user to restore a removed PROD if that same user had been the one to remove it — especially since that user was also the one to place it. I can't think of anything in which a self-revert is prohibited, as long as the version being reverted to isn't a major policy violation. Talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether it was allowed or not, so I asked the question at WT:Prod#Different situation. The response I got said that it should be considered contested. You can also look at the section above this one. GBfan02:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't delete them yet. All of them are properly tagged and they will all be eligible for deletion on 9 April. That process has a 7 day wait period from tagging to deletion. GBfan14:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Prager University
I saw your message about uploading the prager university seal from the commons, and it did indeed get deleted. There can be more sources added if need be, my new account is not approved, if you could upload the prager university seal for me that would be helpful and much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerj135 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello GB fan. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Thank you for your work on this article converting the references Much appreciated.. I am so accustomed to inserting references the other way that I do it reflexively. I will try to follow suit when adding references in future. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You've added warning tags that could undermine the credability of the Victim of Xen article that I feel, while well-meaning, are undue, as the game's article is written in a neutral tone, using citable sources (from the best in the indie niche genre (to my knowledge) at the time of writting) and it's source (me), while vested, does not necessarily mean that the point of view of the article is not neutral (which should be confirmable simply by reading the two sentences and checking those two claims through the 4 cited sources (two non-original per fact)).
Could you please remove these tags by confirming these facts if you are unaware of them?
Thank you for your time and consideration on the matter!
I have looked again at the article and agree that the tag about nuetrality does not belong based on the current version. I still see nothing that would indicate this is a notable video game. So I have removed the coi tag and left the notability tag. The place to have further discussions is on the article's talk page. GBfan14:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
delete
Hi GB, Can you please delete this page?? [2] This page is done by me, and i have moved the page to [3]. I don't know how to delete the page. ZZ47 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You do not have the ability to delete pages, only admins can delete articles. I have deleted it for you. In the future if you created an article and no other editors have given significant contributions to it you can tag it with {{db-author}} and an admin will come by and delete it. Or you can come back here and post like you did this time. GBfan14:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you want to delete the redirect, Haveeru Sports Awards. If someone were to add that exact phrase to an article it will take them to the article Haveeru Sports Awards (football) which is what I think you would want. I do though have concerns about the page. There is only one source. Normally if something is notable enough for WIkipedia we have multiple sources that discuss the subject. I could see that article being deleted in the future unless there are other sources that discuss the award. GBfan14:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure exactly what you are asking. I did delete List of extinct animals of Ireland because you were the only author and requested deletion, so it qualified for G7. Now for the other two, both of those redirect to List of extinct animals of the British Isles. If you want any of those articles moved you will need to go to the talk page and discuss the move. There has been enough moving of that and other titles today. Please stop moving articles. GBfan14:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so you like to mess around with pages I created and have put effort into updating. At least this time you did something I was considering doing myself by merging List of rural communities in New Brunswick with Rural community. But if you're going to do something like that, try merging the references rather than just destroying them.
Now I'm leery of of updating anything on New Brunswick local governance because I expect you to come along and "fix" it in ways that show ignorance of the subject.
Addendum: The page you deleted by merger was connected to the Subdivisions of New Brunswick template, which I had to correct to account for the fact that it's now the only type of New Brunswick subdivision without its own List of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Timothy Walton (talk • contribs) 14:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't like messing around with pages you have created. You drew my attention to the articles by requesting a page be deleted so you could move a page to a name that is contrary to how we name pages and how the government names them The source you provided uses lower case for both throughout the document. After getting there and doing some research I found those to pages that both basically said the same thing. I apologize that I didn't merge the two together to your satisfaction. I won't come along and change anything with New Brunswick governance unless my attention is drawn to it because I won't go looking for it and I won't go through your contributions to find what you have done.
I didn't delete any page, all the information is still there in the history and you have fixed everything that I missed to your satisfaction, so please lose the attitude. Also the title of this section is wrong Merging my pages., YOU do not have any pages, they all belong to the whole community. GBfan15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah and if you disagree with what I have done, revert the changes, then if I feel the changes should be implemented anyway I will discuss the changes, that is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. GBfan15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
About red links
You managed to flag my update as a "recent link to be corrected". If someone can make the link to "Dangling Pointer" work on the "Red Links" template page, I'm more than happy. If not, I was already about to undo it since it was a no-preview-slip. A good-natured revert would be appreciated just as much; you just got in the middle a bit too fast for an undo to go through...
I am not sure what the problem is. You added [[7]] and I just fixed it 4 minutes later so that it looked like Dangling pointer. Both link to the same article and my way of linking it shows what it is linking to rather than just having a 1 inside of brackets. GBfan23:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I finally see the discussion you are talking about, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries#Special task force. There are 3 processes to delete pages on wikpedia, Speedy deletion, Proposed Deletion and Deletion discussions. Speedy Deletion only applies to specific clearcut reason for deletion and the pages are deleted without discussion. This page does not meet any of those criteria. The Proposed deletion only applies to articles so it does not apply here. The WP:XFD is actually about 4 different processes, Articles for Deletion, Categories for Discussion, Redirects for discussion, Files for Deletion and Miscellany for Deletion. This page would fall under the Miscellany for Deletion process. The tag you added, {{db-xfd}} is only valid if there has been a discussion at one of those centralized discussion spots in this case and that discussion is closed by an admin as delete. The discussion the four of you had on that talk page does not meet the requirement. You need to raise a discussion following the instructions at Miscellany for Deletion if you feel this should be deleted. That discussion will run for 7 days and if the consensus is to delete the page it will be deleted at that time. Hope this helps explain why I declined your deletion request. GBfan18:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, but deletion discussions need to be advertised to the wider community before we delete something. That is what those five areas are for and the page we are talking about falls into WP:MFD. You need to advertise it there and if the consensus after 7 days is to delete the page an admin will do that. Editors do not get to make up there own deletion processes. GBfan17:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Go to WP:MFD start at the top and read through. It talks about what you should do before nominating for deletion and policies you should familiarize yourself with. Then there is a section right above the table of contents that is How to list pages for deletion. If you click show in the box it gives you detailed instructions on how to list a page for deletion. Follow those instructions. GBfan22:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to edit semi-protected pages e.g:Navya,India & many more..and i have experience about wikipedia and i have read all wikipedia guides and rules and i want to upload few images at Wiki e.g kasautii zindagi kay,ek doosre se karte hain pyaar hum etc and many more ,Thank you Changez121 (talk) Changez121 (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
You have already asked for rights at the correct place. Another admin or I will evaluate your request when we get a chance and make a determination. Going to admins directly makes it appear you are anxious. The process works. GBfan22:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't help you understand it because I don't understand it myself. I must have accidentally hit rollback and didn't realize it. I have reverted myself. GBfan03:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear GB Fan, can we remove the COI tag on the Pamela Ronald page. It has been up for over a month, but a number of independent editors have reviewed the page and verified neutrality. Can you please update? Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsalan daudi (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If independent editors have reviewed it and verified that the article is neutral then they can remove it. That is the way Wikipedia works. GBfan20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I am doing great, how about you? I do not believe the article is ready. As it currently stands it has one source and that is a forum site. Forums are not generally considered reliable. I don't know anything about that particular site. You need to find at least another reference if that forum is reliable, jf it isn't then you need to find a couple of reliable sources. GBfan15:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm also going great. I think that forum is reliable. And, I have hardly found another reference link. It's very difficult because it is a TV Show of the year 2004 to 2005. So now the page is okay.. right? If not, I can work more to find one more :) ZZ47 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I still think the article is missing coverage in reliable sources butif you believe those are enough coverage to establish notability you can move the article. GBfan20:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks better. I still don't know. I do not know much about Soap operas. You might be better off asking the question at the relevant Wikiproject, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. The editors that watch that are more up on what it takes for things kinds of articles. I don't like pushing you off to other people but I am at the end of my knowledge on this one. GBfan20:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Why did you delete List of online newspaper archives?
Why did you delete List of online newspaper archives? You deleted it giving the reason (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page), however, it redirected to Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives. The reason you gave makes no sense. Deleting the page when there is a working redirect causes link from outside websites to break. This is one of the main reasons for redirects. Please explain why you deleted the page in a way that makes sense. If not, please recreate the page and the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.188.101 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is hat everyone else has to go through a long drawn out deletion process, when an admin can unilaterally without discussion go ahead and delete anything as he sees fit? same user, btw...but the admin can challenge and remove tags freely while deleting as he sees fit?(Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)).
I can not explain why Nightstallion deleted that article. It was deleted out of any processes that exist. If anyone other than the person who adds a Prod removes it for any reason the process stops and it can never be added again. It doesn't take an admin to remove the Prod, anyone; admin, registered user or anonymous IP editor can remove it. All of them have the same effect. If you want to know why Nightstallion deleted that article you would have to ask them. GBfan00:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Parvaresh-Vardy codes and list decoder entry is deleted
Hi, as part of our course on "Coding Theory" by professor Dr. Atri Rudra, at State University of New York, at Buffalo, we were required to do a Wikipedia entry on one of the topics on our interest. For that first step was to do that entry in our in-house wiki pedia [1]. I and Aditi did this entry together. Now for make entry on Wikipedia I just copy pasted my part. I think this has caused some confusion.
I want to assure you that I and Aditi are owner of this page. (Both of Wikipedia entries have been deleted). I have added copyleft code
on that page thinking that it will resolve the issue. Please guide me with what else that needs to be done. I have to complete this entry by midnight tonight.
thanks
Raman Sonkhla (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You're quite welcome; I figured that the user could easily resolve the whole issue if he were telling the truth, so I decided (correctly, as it turns out) to attempt to resolve the copyright and make the user happy at the same time. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Why did you delete List of online newspaper archives?
Why did you delete List of online newspaper archives? You deleted it giving the reason (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page), however, it redirected to Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives. The reason you gave makes no sense. Deleting the page when there is a working redirect causes link from outside websites to break. This is one of the main reasons for redirects. Please explain why you deleted the page in a way that makes sense. If not, please recreate the page and the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.188.101 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is hat everyone else has to go through a long drawn out deletion process, when an admin can unilaterally without discussion go ahead and delete anything as he sees fit? same user, btw...but the admin can challenge and remove tags freely while deleting as he sees fit?(Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)).
I can not explain why Nightstallion deleted that article. It was deleted out of any processes that exist. If anyone other than the person who adds a Prod removes it for any reason the process stops and it can never be added again. It doesn't take an admin to remove the Prod, anyone; admin, registered user or anonymous IP editor can remove it. All of them have the same effect. If you want to know why Nightstallion deleted that article you would have to ask them. GBfan00:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Parvaresh-Vardy codes and list decoder entry is deleted
Hi, as part of our course on "Coding Theory" by professor Dr. Atri Rudra, at State University of New York, at Buffalo, we were required to do a Wikipedia entry on one of the topics on our interest. For that first step was to do that entry in our in-house wiki pedia [1]. I and Aditi did this entry together. Now for make entry on Wikipedia I just copy pasted my part. I think this has caused some confusion.
I want to assure you that I and Aditi are owner of this page. (Both of Wikipedia entries have been deleted). I have added copyleft code
on that page thinking that it will resolve the issue. Please guide me with what else that needs to be done. I have to complete this entry by midnight tonight.
thanks
Raman Sonkhla (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You're quite welcome; I figured that the user could easily resolve the whole issue if he were telling the truth, so I decided (correctly, as it turns out) to attempt to resolve the copyright and make the user happy at the same time. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You are doing good, but you need to slow down a bit and make sure what you are reverting as vandalism is actually vandalism. Can you explain to me what is vandalism about this and this? GBfan23:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I have given you Rollback rights. Please ensure when you use it that the edits are actually vandalism. You might want to go back and read WP:Vandalism every once in a while. It helps remind us what rollback is to be used for. GBfan20:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I wrote the post http://myjourneytoselfactualization.com/sylvester-stallone/ that is my personal website. I saw the wikipedia article AFTER writing the post and was surprised there was no mention of a story that touched me and portrayed Sylvester Stallone's life in a new light for me. I have edited the post (directly on the self actualization site) to make it clear it is OK for wikipedia use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namsu22 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There are still some problems. The first is that the release you left on the page does not surfice. The release can not only say that wikipedia can use the text. It has to be released so that anyone can use it for any purpose. You can stipulate that you need to be given attribution. The next problem is that your personal website is not a reliable source. Information must be referenced to reliable sources. Has any reliable source discussed the events leading up to Stallone making Rocky? If they have then that is the source to use, if not then it probably doesn't belong. GBfan14:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
If the article says it is specifically allowed for Wikipedia use, OF COURSE then it is OK for wikipedia to use it. I have made many edits from anonymous accounts with the simple "OK for Wikipedia Use". Nevertheless in spirit of love and compassion I have put explicitly for ANYONE. Your next "problem" being that it is a personal website and therefore the source is not reliable. If you looked closer you would see that the source is not only clearly cited on the website but also when I made the wikipedia post. It starts at 16 minutes from an episode of Inside the Actors Studio (posted on the myjourneytoselfactualization and as a source on the article I edited) where stallone HIMSELF recounts the story i inserted. I even went through the trouble of inserting a link where the video skips to where he recounts his story. There was simply no website I found that transcribed the story so I MANUALLY transcribed the story. Imagine my frustration when someone removes my work that I put in the hopes it would inspire someone. You are quick to remove peoples hard work but not you cannot and SHOULD NOT do that without looking at what you are deleting more closely. Deleting something or reverting it takes 5 seconds, going through the time to find it, write it, make it, and then share it takes MUCH longer. The post is explictly OK'd for wikipedia use, it is from a "reliable source", and I have spent too much time sharing this story that I wanted to share in a spirit that has now been heinously trodden on. PLEASE REVERT MY EDITS BACK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namsu22 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the edits so they are visible now that the copyright issues have been resolved. I still do not believe the source of this information is a reliable source but that is not a reason for the information to be deleted from the history. If you believe my interpretation of the copyright rules are wrong you can ask someone else for their opinion, a possible place to ask is Wikipedia:Copyright questions. If you want to ask someone about reliable sources a good place to ask is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. GBfan22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this. As the decision is being made by another that my userspace's are somehow inappropriate for articles I had intended to work on as I am able and as sources became available, and as defending my intentions is not worth the drama of repeated MFds, I will be moving several more to doc files on my PC. Please watch for more WP:U1s. Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.19:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is here to document notable subjects. That means subjects that have been written about by outside reliable sources such as newspapers or books. You should take a look at what Wikipedia is not, especially this section. I have also deleted the talk page. Please do not recreate it, if you want to discuss this, discuss it here. GBfan20:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Re: Block
Hi. There has been an ongoing battle at Liberal Democrats between the two users that I blocked, going back to 12 April. Keith D (talk·contribs) protected the page on 22 April. The protection expired on 6 May and the third non-bot edit was a return to the edit war. I blocked both users so as not to take sides (both have done reverts following the expiring of the protection); as both of them have had two previous blocks for edit warring elsewhere on Wikipedia I felt that a week was appropriate.—Jeremy (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I was just wondering it just seemed a little excessive but I haven't seen that page. Thanks for the explanation. GBfan20:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
User: Tan Chee Hien
I want this page quickly deleted as I am no longer active on Wikipedia.
I have forgotten my password that is why I couldn't access my account !
Tan Chee Hien
See this AfD discussion. No, I'm not scouring Wikipedia looking for this sort of thing. :-) Another editor and I are talking about what he calls a "procedural nomination", and he pointed me to this where you say the same thing. Does such a thing exist in any guideline or policy?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know of any place in policy or guidance that talks about Procedural nominations. Looking back through the article history a Prod was added then an IP removed the Prod with an edit summary. The original Prodder undid the IPs removal adding the Prod back on. It looks like I found it while reviewing expired Prods and noticed tthat the Prod had been removed and restored. I think I sent it to AFD without doing any WP:BEFORE so I believe that is why I called it a procedural nomination. GBfan03:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It looked to me like it was an unusual back story. I guess my question is what permits us to take something to AfD without doing WP:BEFORE? In the past I've been roundly criticized for some of my nominations. One of the criticisms is my alleged failure to not do the work required before the nomination. I've deflected most of that criticism by now always stating what kinds of searches I've done of secondary sources in the nomination, although, unfortunately, certain kinds of articles simply don't lend themselves to WP:BEFORE. I have the feeling that if I ever nominated an article and labeled it a "procedural nomination" I'd be tossed on my butt followed by a frenzied feeding (as you probably know, AfD is not a friendly place).
This other editor I'm talking to who used the same phrase in his nomination got away with it (as you did). His story was a somewhat similar to yours although the deletion wasn't as obvious. He saw a battle over a notability tag on an article. He also saw that the notability tag had been around for a long time. The editor's view (with which I disagree as a matter of policy/guideline although it makes some sense otherwise) is that notability tags cannot remain on an article too long. Either the tag has to be removed because the notability of the subject has been resolved (I agree) or one can take it to AfD without doing WP:BEFORE as a "procedural nomination" (I disagree). It's kind of like opening a discussion as to whether someone is notable without first asserting that he's not. As far as I know, rightly or wrongly, the initial burden is on the nominator.
Any comments about any of this (and I hope I've interpreted the other editor's views properly)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Lately when I have seen this same situation I have handled it differently. Today I leave an edit summary that a Prod can only be added once and that they should take it to AFD. I don't necessarily agree with the other position as you have stated it. In that case someone put a notability tag and they may or may not have even looked for anything. I have been guilty in the past of adding a notability tag from just looking at the article and not looking any further, then leaving it for someone else to figure out. Using an notability tag to take it to AFD without looking any further could just be perpetuating that mindset. Passing it off to editors that watch AFD to either find sources or determine that the notability tag really did belong and the article should go. That is just as bad if not worse as adding the notability tag without looking to see if anything can be found. AFD is not the place to try to cleanup articles. GBfan15:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit lost, but you seem to be saying that before adding a notability tag to an article, one has to do the equivalent of WP:BEFORE. If that's true, then why add a notability tag rather than just taking it straight to AfD? As for AfD not being the place to clean up articles, I agree as a matter of policy/guideline, but where is the place to clean up articles? If you have a garbagey article and it stays garbagey for years and no one is willing to clean it up, should it just stay that way, potentially indefinitely?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not saying that before adding a notability tag everyone should do a BEFORE. I am saying that I need to start doing that rather than passing the buck onto others to find what I could look for. No articles should not stay in a garbage state for ever, I think everytime before someone nominates an article for deletion they should do a BEFORE. I am not saying it needs to be an extensive search but a quick look through the likely places that a source might be found for that particular article. Then add appropriate sources but if not enough to satisfy you then send to deletion. I don't think procedural nominations because the article has had a notability tag for years without even looking is appropriate. GBfan22:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I've posted an argument for the deletion of the page, and a justification for the removal of the Reception section. Please feel free to comment on my arguments. Mglmpr 24 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. If you need any help let me know. Came a little late to just move it from the AFC. It looked notable enough to me. GBfan01:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Taiwan Edit
He's the one that made the changes without discussion, I made no such drastic changes prior to the lock. I'm trying to support Wikipedia's 5 pillars of which is NPOV. I'm trying to follow the rules and policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midcent (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, GB fan. I noticed from page history at ANI that you, like myself, would like to see the "oversight needed" thread there come to an end. I presume you noticed my explanation in an edit summary, though, as to why I manually undid Equazcion's collapse there, and decided to revert your re-collapse? In any case, I appreciate that, thanks.
It did seem to me to have been Equazcion's collapse, btw, although it looked like it was done by admin Rschen. I may be mistaken about that, but I couldn't find anywhere in page history where he (Rschen) had actually performed a collapse, himself. Anyway, I explained at some length just now on Equazcion's talk why I "uncollapsed", although I'd not have the least objection to an {{Archive top}} being put in place at this point. Not sure what Blade of the Northern Lights, the blocking admin, would prefer at this point. I'm about to post to his talk, in a moment, although I see he (like you, I believe) isn't online just now.
If you do choose to "Archive top" I'm not sure what, if anything should be done about the top-post made by 209.6.69.227(talk·contribs·info·WHOIS). (That appears to me be a static IP, btw.) He placed that at the very top of the thread, immediately after the level 2 section heading, as you probably noticed. Seems to me, that along with his other comments in the thread (search for the phrase notation added by Ohiostandard with your browser's "find text on this page" search function to find those, if you're interested in seeing them), and the behaviour he was just blocked for at another page, by Blade, that this is more of the same. YMMV, however.
I understand the confusion but no, I did not make a mistake there, they are autoconfirmed. Most of the time when someone comes to that page their first edit and the creation of their account are very close together. In this case Sergant105 created their account months before making their first edit. That means as soon as they made their 10th edit they met both criteria. You can even verify that they are autoconfirmed here, http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Sergant105GBfan13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
You are right that parenthetical statement was wrong. I have updated that statement to agree with what actually happens. GBfan14:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't dislike that comment. I didn't even read that comment. I must have accidentally hit rollback on my tablet as I was scrolling and didn't realize it. I apologize for that. Next time it would be great if you didn't assume that the person is doing something wrong. I wish I could get rid of that rollback button because I don't like it and seldom use it but as an administrator it can't be turned off without giving up being an administrator. GBfan04:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies. There's general agreement that the rollback function presents problems in multitouch devices. Why this problem hasn't been addressed yet is puzzling. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I don't mean to tell you how to do your job (I guess I'm doing that anyway), but don't you think you've been awfully patient with WinEuro? I'm not saying he necessarily needs to be blocked, but shouldn't there at least be a very clear explanation that his/her page ownership is highly disruptive? S/He also continues to redirect and manipulate his/her talk page in such a way that previous warnings are whitewashed. It would be nice to see this user acknowledge the community's concerns ... --Jprg1966(talk)05:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Y o u v a n
That notability banner discussed on VP apparently went up while he was presumed dead. No kidding. Also, on a positive note, if you are a fan of Einstein, please see: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006SA3KIA/ref=docs-os-doi_0 , all of 99 cents! That already has secondary referencing on sites where the number of mathematicians proposing P=NP versus P!=NP is counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.133.196 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
ITF - Error
Dear GB fan
I am stupid - under the "International Thai Foundation" I included some text and then tried to edit it, but now I have a duplicate text.
You're welcome. The problem is on the search engine side and Wikipedia has no control of that. The problem will fix itself as soon as the search engine you are using re-indexes Wikipedia. GBfan15:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Empty reference sections
Hi, I find the addition of an empty section kind of silly. Is there any rule prescribing this? All I've been able to find is this part of MOS, which says "The first editor to add footnotes to an article must create a section where the text of those citations appears", implying the absence of such a section in the absence of any references. It's not a big thing, but I routinely remove such empty sections and would like to know whether I should stop doing that. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know of any rule one way or the other, I routinely add them to the article, especially on articles created by new editors. What I have seen is new editors add a reference and then complain because it doesn't show up. I guess it is just a preference. GBfan20:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
GB fan, I realize this may qualify as a dispute, but I don't want it to be as such. I am writing in reference to your "Who?" comment. The next line discusses that. I removed the word "commonly" as I think it was fair in saying it was too much for my reference to just the one article in the next sentence, but to say it is cited as such and then in the next sentence reference the article where it was in 2011, only one year removed, seems fair.
They are the leading association within the dental community, and the William J. Gies Award was what they awarded to Tufts Dental in 2011, "for Outstanding Achievement by an Academic Dental Institution recognizes leadership in teaching, research, community service, and diversity."
If you would like, I can link to the article twice: once after the word cited, and once after the next sentence. I can find other articles with other awards, but the award from the ADEA is obviously the most prestigious and embodied what I was saying as "cited." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Today2 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If that is who says it then that sentence is not needed at all. It is just fluff. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for the subjects of the articles. State the fact as presented in the paragraph and remove the commentary of what you believe it means. GBfan16:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of Adobe Shadow and others by Sock Rolandhelper
Hi- when you deleted the Adobe Shadow article, you cited it as "One author whose has blanked the page". This isn't actually the case- after their sock wrote a stub like article, I contributed to it and added a logo ... So why delete it under the 'one author...' criteria'? Just wondering... Thanks a bunch! Theopolisme TALK11:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked back through the history of that article. It was originally created by User:Rolandhelper 3. You contributed to the article, then it was tagged and deleted as a G5. Then User:Msiexe created it again and then blanked it without anyone else editing it. That is when I deleted it. Hope this explain what happened. If you have any additional questions let me know. GBfan14:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
About a month ago, around the 22/23 June 2012, you deleted a new entry page for "Forest of Peace". The entry was made by the founder of "Forest of Peace", a NGO legally registered in Thailand. I volunteer for the NGO and have been asked by the founder to follow up with you.
The criteria given for the deletion was "A7". I reviewed the definition of A7 but was looking for additional guidance from you, what we would need to do in order to rectify the situation. I do not get the feeling that the mistake made was egregious, so I am hoping that with the required corrections we may resubmit our page.
"Forest of Peace" is an international non-profit initiative for the balance, understanding and friendship between all cultures, religions, philosophies, economy and compatibility of environment all over the world.
”
With one reference to what looks like a site that promotes the organization. The text only told me what it is not why the organization is significant. Generally we need to see that organizations that are not affiliated with the subject of the article have noticed them and written about them. Here are some links you should read that should help you.
If after reading those you think the organization meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article and you think you can be neutral then I would suggest you start the article in your userspace such as User:Korat55/Forest of Peace. Then when you think it is ready have an experienced user look it over and give you eedback. If you still have questions let me know. GBfan15:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
2015 Pan American Games and Parapan American Games
I am not sure when they were ever acceptable. As far as I know the criteria for speedy deletion have always been limited to what can be deleted. A redirect that is "Generally unused redirect that has a similar title to a better primary use of the title" is not within the listed criteria. Also it was a useful redirect (now disambiguation page) as someone looking for pancakes might type in hot cakes. GBfan20:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not appear to be in any decent usage internally. I found one link that used the term in an old idiom, and one was unrelated and better piped to pancake. I only caught this because Hot Cakes had been unnecessarily disambiguated because of the capitalization issue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It might not be linked to from any articles but it appears that it is a useful link since it has been viewed 11289 times in the last 30 days. Another option would be to redirect it to Hot Cakes and put a hatnote on that page saying that Hot cakes redirects there and if they are looking for Pancakes to go to that page. GBfan23:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You deleted my "Tennyball" page. I would like the text as it us the only record we have. I don't know how to go about getting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharns (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Will you please undo the move of Jim Crane (Businessman) back to the primary Jim Crane article? There is a fairly prominent Old West outlaw by the same name and I'm working on an article for him. - Balph Eubank✉14:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not see any reason to move it back at this time. There is one article about a Jim Crane at this point in time. Even after you do create the article about the outlaw, Jim Crane, owner of the Houston Astros, probably has a fair chance of being the primary subject. Usually we don't create a disambiguation page for two people. We definitely don't need one for a person with an article and a person mentioned in an article. If you disagree you can start a requested move. GBfan19:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There are in fact two other people besides the Astros owner and the subject of my article, one is a former American football coach (who already has an article at James L. Crane),and the other is a professional footballer in England who does not yet have an article. Nevermind though, I'll just delete my work on the article about the Old West gunfighter and any planned work on the footballer since you and Wikipedia don't want those or an informative disambig page. I'm not interested in wasting my time with WP:BURO. - Balph Eubank✉16:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Really? You are going to drop working on articles because you were bold, I reverted your change and suggested a discussion? Isn't that the suggested way of dealing with things? I was basing my numbers on the articles that you added to the disambiguation page you created and that was two. If there are more than the two then we probably need a disambiguation page. But per your post there still are only two current pages, Jim Crane and James L. Crane. They both have disambiguous titles as they sit right now and we don't preemptively disambiguate titles in case something might be created in the future. I am willing to discuss my position, there is no reason to leave in a huff. Hopefully you will continue to work on the articles even if you don't want to discuss things. GBfan19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey I know this is 4 days late but I should let you know that Zach/Status has my permission to do whatever on my talk page. I usually talk to him via email and let him know. I am sorry for the conflict it caused but I thought I'd make you aware he did have permission. ^_^ Swifty*talk18:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello GB fan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sonora Energy Group Hermosillo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: suggests significance - producing a large amount of electricity and will be the largest solar project in latin america. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, it is producing nothing and when it is completed it will be the largest if nothing is done before it. This is a news report nothing more. But that is why I tag it rather than deleting it myself. GBfan03:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Quicksilver (song) deletion proposal
I noticed that you had declined the deletion proposal per a policy, and was wondering if there was any other way to delete the article? I thought that it was no longer necessary after I manually changed all links to it to the proper target. A few months ago I successfully had a redirect deleted through a deletion proposal, so I am uncertain what invalidates this proposal. Shirudotalk01:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction, it now looks like a good idea to read the policies closely before I try to use them. Shirudotalk19:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. There are so many different policies that it is hard to know all of them. It is a continual learning experience. GBfan19:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Uh, you might want to double check the link you keep posting to show Courcelles comment on the socking issue. It shows the difference between Altfish's talk page and some IP talk page... very weird. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads, up the first diff # was missing a 3, it read 50963023 instead of 509630233. I think I fixed them all. GBfan17:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I had actually never seen anything like that before and didn't know you could even have a diff of two separate pages. There's always something new to learn here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
You Prodded the article and then 192.101.136.224 effectively removed the Prod by commenting out the Prod. You then readded the prod. According to the Prod policy once a Prod has been removed for any reason it can not be readded. The only option if you still feel that the article should be deleted you can take it to AFDGBfan03:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I figured that something had to be done to improve the article, or an explanation given. I should have read more carefully, apparently that's not the case, which makes PROD a fairly pointless thing to do. :) Thank you for the explanation. heather walls (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It isn't pointless a lot of articles are deleted by Prod and stay deleted. There is a low threshold to delete and a low threshold to stop it. The biggest benefit of Prods is that if all them were brought to AFD they would overwhelm the system. Right now there are 28 Prods that expire today and if all those were added to the AFDs it would put a bigger strain on the the AFD process then we have right now. Of the Prods that are created only a few of them are added to the AFD process because they are contested. GBfan03:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change to the title of this article. Should I leave the "talk" on it there (and on List of Dog breeds) so people can see the reason for the change? What is Wikipedia protocol on this? Still learning these things... OnHawkspur (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yes that should be left for a record of why things were done. I even mentioned the talk page in my edit summary when I moved the article so someone might go there for a further explanation. GBfan21:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Help request on RoslynSKP talk page
Hi, two things; its not a dispute over the interpretation of an article but the quality of edits on a number of different articles.
About one third of Jim Sweeney's edits involve cutting information from the articles and infoboxes; a second third of his edits are rude and just plain wrong like his claim "Not mentioned in text - so what did he command?)" The other third are great, clarify things, add links and etc. That is what is so frustrating about all these wrong edits and cutting relevant information; the rest of his work is great.
You say I "have not asked for an admin to do anything." I have asked, and ask again for advice on what can be done in these instances where the edits are wrong and information is wrongly cut; aside from reediting the articles (that I already know I have to do). I don't want to stop Jim Sweeney from continuing to value add, I just don't want to see the articles destroyed in the process.
Twice I have posted to his talk page about these problems; the first time he simply denied they were wrong [10] and the second time he cut the post [11] without any discussion.
I need advice from someone who is experienced on Wikipedia how best to proceed. If its not an admin problem, can you suggest someone who can help me? --Rskp (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again, it is a content dispute. You say you are right he says he is right that is a content dispute. Now as to what to do, go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There are many options on how to handle this.
Hello, you recently restored the above article. Based on the fact that the creator of the article has been blocked due to edits that needed oversight [12] and the article was previously protected before before it was PROD deleted [13] and the IP who requested its restoration has had no previous edits, can you restore it to semi protected status? -- The Red Pen of Doom17:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to change Justified/Stripped to Justified & Stripped, which the article is now named. I would like to add info into her life and career, especially add new thing and correct. Lotus is already confiremed for release in November 13, but nobody has change that. Sing for me, is a song that was confirmed by Aguilera during Ryan secret interview to appear on Lotus, but hasnt been added. The introduction, should mention Your Body will be released as the rist single from lotus and the album released date. WW sales from the album are wrong and should be changed. Many other thing should be done there..
I want to have a space between in the introduction. The release date should be edit, to November 13th, because it has been confirmed. Also in the introduction, there should be written about her new album and that the Your body is released as the first single. I want to add more sources and i have correct sales for BTB which has sold 5m ww. Many small edits to do more there..
Inrouction should have more info, wich can be taken from info on the YB page. Genre should be to Electropop, R&B. Artwork info should be moved with composition. While i have soruce that Your Body has been is set to be released to rhythmic radio on Sept 16th, which hasnt been editied in. I can provide more info in it, and polished the page. I want to add more release dates for example the UK and Australia. Many other things to to do..
This is just some.
Thank you, can i have access to edit semi protected pages.
I guess I wasn't specific enough. Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests. Then go to the articles you believe need some changes. On those article's talk page use {{edit semi-protected}} and explain the changes you think should be made. I do not know enough about Christina Aguilera to evaluate your requests. GBfan19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
W3leaf
Just a small note--W3leaf can't be deleted under G4, because the last closure was done under the speedy deletion criteria (as you know, since you closed it). You can continue to delete it under G7 if that still applies, but G4 can't apply unless there was a full 7 days AfD. I believe (Lord knows I've been wrong before). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess I see the G4 criteria a little different than you. I don't see anything in that criteria that says the deletion discussion must run a full 7 days for the criteria to apply. I assessed the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W3leaf.com and determined that there was as much chance of the discussion turning around to keep as a snowball surviving in an active volcano, so I closed it early. I do believe that G4 is a valid criteria along with A7 and G11. Maybe next time I see it, because I am sure it will show up again, I will just quote all 3. GBfan16:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had understood how the tags work... I appologize and I will get back to reading more. The articles I edited absolutely need nomination though and there are more of them out there. Thank you for your indications!!MusicPatrol (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Just saying, this suggestion of the move i wanted to do now was on the discussionpage of Chicken Cordon Bleu since march, but nobody opposed to it. So i finally wanted to correct it. However i commented there that im the opinion as him and lets wait another 6 months or so, maybe than somebody will take a look at the discussion board... --Fundriver (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sir. My name is Garett. Due to unconfirmed user , I'm unable to upload a picture on wikipedia picture. So could you help me to register me as confirmed user Sir? Because I would like to upload a picture on Vanya Mishra profile to make the page better and i would like to add more information on the page. So is there any way I can do this Sir? By the way thanks for your concern on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastergarett (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
A little more info. Since you want to upload a picture of a living person, Vanya Mishra, that image must be a free image. Currently you can upload free images at the Commons. You do not need any special permissions to upload images there and can use the same username and password you use here. I can't stress this enough though, the image must be free. So now you have two options Wikipedia:Files for upload and Commons to get an free image uploaded. GBfan18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I have undone your block on the IP. The account they were using was soft blocked for a username violation. While the blocking admin did not bother leaving a notice explaining that it is reflected in the log, meaning the IP was not socking and in fact was exercising an option deliberately left open to them by the blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
No I was wrong the first time. The weren't socking, the original block of the username was only because of a bad username. When that kind of block is given the user is given the option of just creating a new username, but editing as an IP is OK also. They were not trying to avoid scrutiny since they were editing under the same IP address as their username. GBfan00:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Didn't say they were avoiding scrutiny, said they were avoiding the sanction (against use of improper account name). Sometimes ya gotta trust your gut. Nobody Ent10:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I know it is not real.
These are not real events, I know the world will end on 2012 12 21, I'm just making up my own events based on the film. It does not need to be nominated for deletion. I'm just thinking of my own sequence of disasters. UsefulWikipedia (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It already is nominated for deletion because you said you would not discuss it with me. Please do not blank it while the discussion is ongoing. GBfan04:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Surely, I can discuss right now. I just did not want to share the sequence of disasters with anyone else. I don't recommend deletion of my sandbox. UsefulWikipedia (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Besides, I just started seeing the discussion, and I feel super afraid you will delete it. It will make me feel more upset, and I want to see the old history to revert to those versions. I would appreciate it if you do not delete. I kind of feel upset and worried you're gonna delete it. I actually know those disasters did not happen, It is just me thinking of them. I will actually post information more worth it next time. Thank you. If you can say anything about it, feel free to give me a reply. Thank you! UsefulWikipedia (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Why did you delete the page that I created. I mean, its not inapropriate, so I really don't see the point. Ham-Hamm is a cartoon. I just made my username Ham-Hamm because I made the cartoon Ham-Hamm. I just wanted my creation to be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ham-Hamm (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I replied to you there, but wanted to also do so on your talk page. All day, my internet connection has been spotty and slow and, around the time I thought I notified the user, I reset the connection. It's likely that when I did this and subsequently closed Chrome, the edit was still in progress and thus wasn't made. I apologize for this, as I am fully aware of this policy. I just wanted you to know that it wasn't an intentional oversight. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I want to thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding, and for clarifying your explanation. It does not go unappreciated. Sometimes the written word does not translate well, and when that happens, it's easy to get our wires crossed. When I feel the article is complete, would you mind too much if I asked you to take a look at it before publishing it to regular wikispace? I can't think of a better person to make sure that it is well sourced, etc. Thank you again. --C Coligniero (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome, I was thinking one thing as I was writing things and you were reading something else. I can see how that happened now, but as I was writing I thought I was clear, but obviously I wasn't. I will take a look at the article anytime you want. GBfan21:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
UsefulWikipedian
Your message to UsefulWikipedian about [15] confuses me. If the image is non-free, shouldn't be removed from the Commons? (Actually, the question is rhetorical and a lead-in to another concern.) What really concerns me is the guidance WP has given about permitted usage of non-free images. It seems they are allowed in articles -- but not elsewhere. Well, the non-free use guidance does does not mention sandboxes, either in the context of restricted/permitted usage or usage in sandboxes. The message to Useful two weeks ago talked about images in his/her userpage. But the userpage guidance does not say "a sandbox is a userpage and therefore non-free images are not permitted" or (more simply) "do not use non-free images in your sandbox". Indeed, the description of the sandbox says they may be used with less restrictions. Am I clear on this? E.g., that the non-free restrictions do apply to sandboxes, but that clear guidance is missing? Or what am I missing? Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The image I removed from their sandbox, File:AtlantaPopFestival1969.jpg is not hosted at Commons, it is hosted right here on the English Wikipedia. So it does not have to be removed from Commons. One of the links I provided to them 2 weeks ago, WP:UPNO, talks about things that are not supposed to be in Userpages. At the top of that page it says that: "User pages are pages in the User and User talk namespaces". Their personal sandbox that we are discussing is in the User namespace. So the policy applies to that page. In the table in the WP:UPNO section it says: "Images which you are not free to use" may not be used. Direct link to that statement, WP:UP#NOTSUITED. They have been told multiple times about these restrictions but they continue to add things that are not suitable to their sandbox. THey do not seem to get it even after being blocked a little over a month ago for continuously adding categories into their sandbox that do not belong there. I think the guidance is clear and it has been spelled out to them. GBfan04:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
My concern was more directed towards the clarity of the published guidance and not where the image was hosted. Experienced editors might or should understand the term "namespace", but it is jargon and a new editor can easily be confused about the more liberal rules that seem to apply to sandboxes. E.g., they would not know or understand that the sandbox is a userpage/user namespace. I've added some clarification to the rules, specifiying that sandboxes may not have such images. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It is somewhat ironic that SS did this since one of the last straws was SS complaining that he was being outed by noting his IP address. You may just want to permablock the IP for an extended period of time. Arzel (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I will watch the IP after the block expires to see what happens. Right now I think 48 hours is enough. GBfan21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I find it supremely interesting that Little Green Rosetta, with a known history of wikihounding, gets a free pass from you as well as having things wiped from view from Wikipedia while the user he hounded is still stuck with an insanely inappropriate block - and then LGR's tag-teaming bedfellows come along advocating even harsher action. How partisan has Wikipedia become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I know nothing of Little Green Rosetta. I don't even think I have heard of them prior to this incident. I do not know if what StillStanding24/7 posted was an actual email from Little Green Rosetta to StillStanding24/7. All I know is that StillStanding24/7 says that it is and that they were evading their block to post that here on Wikipedia. I dealt with what I know to be the facts of this incident. If more is going on that is a matter for ARBCOM to take up not an individual administrator. GBfan03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the way StillStanding was systematically cut off from appeals process and treated in kangaroo court fashion, I'm hard-pressed to see where anyone would want to do anything else but publicize what they had received. I would suggest it needs further review as well, save that I have zero faith in those who protected the harassers in the first place to be involved in the process in any fair way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 November 2012do not know the specifics of why they are blocked in the first place. This does not help their case to become unblocked. GBfan03:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
If they were cut off from the appeals process, I had nothing to do with that. I am here because I saw a place where StillStanding24/7 was posting the content of what they claimed was an email from another user. That is only allowed if the other editor says it is ok and I could not find any evidence of that. I dealt with that incident and that incident only. GBfan04:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I also note that another person - "The ed17" - has started creating redirects and blanking pages to make it even HARDER to follow the misbegotten and unwarranted actions of people like you who hound anyone who isn't a screaming conservative. It's a sad state of affairs watching the redneck Teatard fringe invade Wikipedia like a mongol horde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
If The ed17 is doing things they shouldn't be doing then you should bring that up on an Administrator's Noticeboard. I have no idea what they have done. Also I don't know who it is that you think I have hounded but as far as I know I haven't hounded anyone. If you can tell me who you think I have hounded I would appreciate it. GBfan03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Locking the user's talk page when they edit there seems rather mean and meant to hound. The fact that Toa Nidhiki and Arzel - both members of the POV pushing group Wikiproject:Conservatism - are lobbying you for harsh sanctions indicates they think you are on their "side." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 November 2012
I was not hounding StillStanding24/7 by locking their page so only autoconfirmed users can post there. I locked it so that non-autoconfirmed users can not post things there that they are not supposed to post. I don't know Toa Nidhiki or Arzel and the only part of their comments that I listened to was that an IP had posted the supposed email in a different location. I removed it from there also. Unless the IP does something to deserve a longer block after the current block expires there won't be any more action taken against them. GBfan03:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
If you look at my talk page, you will notice I was compiling evidence of Little Green Rosetta tag-team editing with other users to POV push when I was blocked on entirely false charges of being a "sockpuppet." As for the rest, I've learned the hard way never to assume positive of a wikipedia user, no matter what "policy" says on the matter. As for your claim that there won't be "any more" action against StillStanding, your actions are one part of the large pattern of harassment and if you can't open your eyes to see it, then I feel sorry for you.
Someone is going to great lengths on Wikipedia to make it so that "conservative" editors don't have to play by the same rules that everyone else does, and to ban anyone who questions them or stands against that sort of POV pushing, and it's beyond disheartening to watch in action. NPOV has apparently stopped meaning anything here.
As for the "supposed email" as you call it, are you scrubbing it because it has an email address for LGR, or did you scrub it for content? Again, LGR has a history of POV pushing, WP:OWN behavior, tag-teaming, and general disrespect for wikipedia's rules. I wouldn't put it out of the question that he is harassing StillStanding over email post-block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how I can be any part of a large pattern of harrassment against StillStanding24/7 since as far as I know I have never interacted with them before. I came across an incident and took the actions that I felt appropriate. If you disagree you are more than welcome to ask for other opinions and if others disagree I will reverse my actions. I did not remove the email because of the email address or the for the content. I removed it because it is not allowed for the receiving party to post an email here. It can only be posted with permission of the sending party. GBfan04:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I received the emails from StillStanding-247 now. The headers clearly indicate they were directly sent using Wikipedia's email-user function. I think you're just engaging in protection of someone you agree with ideologically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Well since you have made up your mind that I have other motives concerning my actions than what I have stated then to be, there is not much I can do. I do not know LGR nor SS247's ideology as I have never dealt with either of them before. So I consider this conversation done as nothing I say will convince you otherwise. GBfan14:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
You just-so-happened to remove the info from StillStanding's talk page, unprompted? How did you even see it? And then you cleaned it off of another page and issued a block at express request of the WP:Conservatism users. I think that is ample evidence you operated in bad faith and have ulterior motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I saw the edit on the recent changes page. Someone else who I have not interacted with before told me that the IP had posted the email somewhere else so I removed it there also. No one requested that I block the IP or protect the page. Another user I have never interacted with before tried to get me to increase the length of the block on the IP and I told them I would not without the IP doing something else. But once again you will not believe me so I don't know why I am even bothering. You believe you know the truth and I won't convince you otherwise. So why don't we agree to disagree on this and move on to other things. GBfan14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI to 98.196.232.109. I am not a member of the WP:Conservatism project. I only suggested an increase on the IP block because SS made such a big deal about a previous incident where he claimed he was being outed because someone mentioned his IP number. The fact that he is now using that IP to list the email of other user seems to me that he is only going to cause further disruption in the future. What GB Fan does is up to them, I have no other imput on this matter. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, your edits seem to indicate you as a member. Beyond that, StillStanding did not use his IP to "list the email" of a user; he apparently copied the email sent to him by Little Green Rosetta using the Wikipedia email-this-user function. That is pretty strong evidence that Little Green Rosetta did in fact send harassing emails using Wikipedia's system.
As far as the accusation that StillStanding would "disrupt" the encyclopedia, I see it differently. StillStanding stood trying to defend NPOV policy and ensure that articles respected the NPOV standard against an organized group who were trying to push their own political POV. As such he and other editors have been hounded quite mercilessly and repeatedly by that group in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Was he perfect? Probably not, but I would not expect anyone to be in such a situation. You betray your own partisan leaning by continuing to harass him and hound for further sanctions even after the unexplained - and unwarranted - locking of StillStanding's talk page that was completely unjustified by policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
If you feel the page protection, the blocking of the IP, or the removal of the content was against policy, you can go to any admin of your choosing and have them review my actions. If they feel my actions are not justified by policy they can reverse them and I will accept that. Since you are accusing me of violating policy or doing things that are not justified by policy, you need to back up the accusations or stop accusing me of violating policy. GBfan18:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I've already left a note to an admin per discussion on IRC, who says he will investigate your actions and those of the other admins involved later tonight. And yes I do think you violated policy, but then that's no surprise because you admins as a collective threw AGF and the rules out the window a long time ago and have zero respect for normal users any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.109 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
You make this sound so much bigger than it really is. All I agreed on was to take a look at what happened. The blocking admin (User:Reaper Eternal) stated that StillStanding-247 was blocked for "Massive battleground mentality, assuming bad faith, and worst of all, threatening violence. Enough is enough. Having looked through a number of edits by the user, I must say that Reaper Eternal was correct in blocking. What happened after this was more or less routine; User:GB_fan protected his talkpage and blocked the IP for evading a block, and User:The_ed17 revoked his talkpage access, blanked his talkpage and redirected to the block notice. Nothing really unusual there either. As for the threatening e-mails, I don't know, haven't seen them. (crossposting to your IP and as a reply on my talkpage.) Bjelleklang - talk19:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
You got things switched a bit on that last one. Ed revoked Still's talk page access and blanked the talk page before Still posted any e-mail. The basis for Ed's action was obscenely frivolous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Please delete member for his gross negligence in his comments
Yes and GB fan fails to understand the requirements as per there is sufficient coverage of this article by the various sources as provided, and since I made my debut with the Crew in 2007, thus the article meets the requirements. An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NSPORT. Here, I played for the West Virginia Chaos which is a major amateur competition and played division 1 soccer at Marshall University. Further, I played in the reserve league of the MLS which classifies as a professional competition. I won a significant honor by being the Conference USA Defensive player of the week which meets WP:GNG. Thus, the previous assertions to delete the article on all the requirements should be reprimanded for their gross negligence of the requirements. Just for anyone who is interested in the real requirements. Gregoryat (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no gross negligence here, there is a difference of opinion on whether you meet the notability guidelines. I do not believe the sources show significant coverage by reliable sources and you do. Some articles are cut and dry one way or the other and others fall into the grey zone in between. I will let the community decide if you meet the requirements. GBfan15:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly why creating autobiographies is discouraged. Mr. Terhune seems overly emotionally involved in this, to the point where he apparently believes another user can and should be sanctioned for making a deletion nomination. That is not going to happen. Dozens, if not hundreds of items are nominated for deletion every single day. There is nothing inherently disruptive about this particular nomination and no basis for any sort of sanction on this user. I would also remind him that the discussion is about the article. It is not about the other users involved in the discussion. I suppose it feels personal, but that is only because he chose to write an article about himself. For the other participants it is just another content discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not being overly emotional as you previously stated, the real point is that editors should follow the rules and the criteria given. This point is about the article and has always been about the article for Beeblebrox. Gregoryat (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It certainly looks like you are taking this personally, but if not then you are simply overreacting to a very common situation. Whatever the reason there is no chance of anyone having their account deleted over it for two reasons: One: GB fan didn't do anything wrong and even if he had there has been no good faith attemp at dispute resolution. Two: We don't delete accounts, ever. Users can be blocked or banned or even ask for vanishing but the account remains. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Tell Patken4 to not post comments if he is going to delete mine then. As for Beeblebrox, it really is not personal but just re-stating the opinion to a "common situation" Gregoryat (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I will not tell him that. He may post if he wants and he may remove any comments off his talkpage that he wants to. GBfan06:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
That policy or lack of policy is not fair. How can someone delete your comments but be allowed to post theirs without being deleted. #nojustice. Gregoryat (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Gregory, the standards are different on different types of pages. On you own user talk page, you may remove anything you like with very few exceptions such as declined unblock requests. On public discussion pages such as article talk pages or deletion discussions you may not remove any good-faith comment from any other user, ever. The only modification to your own comments that still stands is the striking of your extra !votes, which I have already explained to you is simply a procedural matter and the comments attached to them still stand. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Back_to_the_future.jpg){kind=link}
