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.
I knew there was probably a backstory but wanted to get the block done to stop the disruption. I could block for username without any investigation. -- GBfan11:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you GBFan for declining speedy delete. I have contributed some editing to the article which I deemed promotional and provided 2 extra independent links in the External links category. One of it is by SBA, a federal government entity that talks about Avani Tech Solutions Inc as an independent article, so is with OdysseyOnline.
I am not interested in reviewing the article. There are plenty of eyes on the article and you need to discuss it on the AFD for the the article. -- GBfan12:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for moving my article to the draft, can you look at it to see if it is coming alone good, I want to do the main foot work then hope people will add onto it.
Yes, I know it's not ready yet, i didn't put the references and stuff, I'm still reading the history book and speaking with people ( Old school hip hop rappers). I just wanted to make sure that i'm doing it right the way it looks and the articles i have so far, you should see my desk, all these papers i have and notes.
It is hard to review to see if it is progressing in a path to becoming an article without the references. -- GBfan12:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi GB
I think am ready to move it, I spoke with Busy Bee and D.J Jazzy Jay from the old school two of the great Hip hoppers they said it was great and a great meaning of exactly what it is. I feel so honored.
It is not ready and I have moved out back. Without even looking at the sources I can tell it is not ready. I have also removed some of the references that you listed. Wikipedia articles can never be used as references. There are pages you have listed as references that are not good either. The web links that are to the main page of a website are probably not useful. I can tell from the quick look that I took, you did not read any of the links I have you above. -- GBfan00:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I added the references that i read and took my resources from, when speaking to other rap artist that have wikipedia pages (bio) on here they did tell me my first ref's were fine because they have simpler on theirs and ask me why does he think it's not ready because what they saw was great and they been on here for years, but whatever
After you read those and if still don't understand the problems with your article and why some of your references are not appropriate then come back and ask specific questions. You should also compare the look of your article to other articles in Wikipedia to see how the article should look. -- GBfan10:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
so can you please help and fix the refs you talking about so i can move it, everything is there for you and it is more then one ref that supports what i said that is in the article, that would be a big help, even Steven Hager that i tracked down to begged him to look at it said it was fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Street sting (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I will try this a different way. Have you read the links I provided above? If not, do so. If you have and you have specific questions about how to do something ask them. -- GBfan21:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
ok I changed it and took other links that i got my sources from and i read the links that you gave me and added This article talks about samples of Hip Hop Movement as the new Civil Rights Movement taking quotes from known authors. which was given to me by a respected hip hop artist who is on wiki as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Street sting (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you want a second opinion? If you do copy and paste {{submit}} to the top of the article and then save the edit. This will alert other experienced editors that you think it it's ready. -- GBfan00:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi GB Fan, I saw a complaint on bio deletion [1], and see the deletion was done by you last June.
14:30, June 16, 2016 GB fan (talk | contribs) deleted page Charles Hugh Smith (Expired PROD, concern was: non-notable blogger; no significant coverage of Smith as an individual.)
I see one copy of the bio at web.archive.org in 2014. [2].
There has been a claim this deletion was done for political reasons. [3] Is it possible to show the delete-proposal discussion for this article? What sort of citations would be needed to restore a bio in a way that would be defendable as notable? Tom Ruen (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Tomruen, since the article was deleted via the PROD process there is no deletion discussion. It was proposed that the article be deleted and no one objected for 7 days. If you or anyone wants the article restored all they have to do is ask. That is the way PROD works. -- GBfan16:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, why did you delete this page? The article certainly did contain a claim of notability and some references from national media. If you want to start an AfD, ok, but it's not a speedy case. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
No it did not have a claim to significance. It said he was born, and died. It also said he was a horse whisperer. It didn't say he accomplished anything or even did anything. The two sources said he died and that he had been on talk shows and a documentary TV show. The documentary has an article that is around right now because A7 does not apply to TV shows. It is written without a claim to significance either by the same editor that created this page. -- GBfan12:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The way I understand it, he hadn't just been on a documentary TV show, but had been its central subject for several years. That's a difference. The fact that there's a more substantial German article also shows there's more to say about him. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
That isn't what the article said and the two obituaries did not say much either. If you want I can restore it to a draft for further development. -- GBfan12:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I still think that, with articles in four languages already existing before his death and with me already in the midst of expanding it, you really shouldn't have deleted the article. I'm not even 100% sure he would be considered notable in a deletion discussion, but the claim to significance and at least some references had been there. So I'm asking you to restore the article in the main namespace - otherwise, yes, a draft would be ok. Thanks, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Btw, here is a more extensive obituary in another national newspaper. It also says his other documentary show had had an audience of 1.5 to two million viewers. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi GB Fan, I see you declined the A1 speedy for Eurovision Asia Song Contest. The reason a speedy was placed is because the contest is still only in the "pipework" stage and no official name has been given for the contest. Even the source states it is "speculated" that the contest may be called "Eurovision Asia Song Contest" and even "Asiavision" to "Asia Eurovision". As there is no actual article to be able to redirect the page to, then CSD is the only option. And not only that, the creator has also done the same for other articles in the past for contests that are only at the "drawing board" stage and being discussed with CEOs etc, which is evident from their talk page. The contest albeit looking like an Asian version of Eurovision, cannot be redirected to ABU Song Festivals either, as it is unknown if the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union are the organisers or the European Broadcasting Union. There is just not enough sources out there to warrant a standalone article at this WP:TOOSOON stage. Wes MouseT@lk12:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
A1 has nothing to do with the information that is available on a subject, it has to do with what is in the Wikipedia article. The question wee need to ask to determine if A1 applies: Is there enough content in the Wikipedia article to understand what the article is about? In this case there is enough content in the article to know what the article is talking about, so A1 does not apply. What I could not determine is whether this is a TV show or an event. If it is a TV show then A7 does not apply as it is not an eligible subject matter to delete under A7. If it is an event then it is an eligible subject to be deleted under A7. -- GBfan12:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah thanks for clarifying the A1 meaning. As for A7, well that is a good question. As I said, the contest is still in the boardroom and early planning stages. It is unknown if it will be an event or a TV show; although the latter is probably likely - but it is too soon to even speculate that. User:Gregjarlot has been warned though from CT Cooper about conduct etc, after the user created ABU Cup TV Song Contest 2017 too soon; which again is rumoured to be the Asian version of the Eurovision Song Contest. The same user also created Eurovision 2016 Family Travel which was speedy deleted under A7. I had spoken with admin NeilN over the ABU TV Cup issue a while back who did agree that Gregjarlot appears to be acting in hastily disruptiveness, and that if the user created articles too soon again to just CSD them - which is what I have done. I get the sense that the user is not fully understanding what Wikipedia is all about and is only here to cause mayhem. Wes MouseT@lk13:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleting my Wikipedia Page
Hi,
I'm not just a normal guy writing about myself. I have founded 3 startups. Selected for Forbes 30 under 30 2017. Have worked with TEDxDelhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raobharathr (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Since my nomination was just a joke, recalling the rationale was 08251985, would be appropriate to use a warning template on him for behaving like this, triggering other user unnecessary work. --Osplace16:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
looking at other edits they made, I don't think the "08251985" was meant as the rationale. It looks like they put that number in as their signature. At this point I don't see any need to warm them for anything. -- GBfan00:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You have been reverted by three different editors now. You need to start a discussion on the article talk page. If you keep inserting it you will be blocked. -- GBfan13:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
generative art
Yes, I dispute your edit. You and freshacconci seem to be committed to keeping the generative art article as irrelevant as possible. Everything there is ancient history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John alexander greene (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
ok, the proper place to discuss this is on the article talk page and to get consensus for the external link prior to inserting it again. -- GBfan00:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Backer, Spielvogel & Bates
Hello, you deleted the article I just created on Backer, Spielvogel & Bates. I realize that there was limited content, but I intended to revisit this page shortly to expand content. On inspection this is, IMHO, a notable entity and is subject of numerous academic articles and, as such, IMHO should be part of the content of Wikipedia. Since this organization has, more recently, been acquired by Saatchi & Saatchi (as best I recall), this should be connected to that page as well as various others. As I am sure that you will appreciate, it takes time to build out and fill in a page of notable content ... something that can be done given sufficient time.
I appreciate if you could either restore that page and allow sufficient time to expand the content (and, I am sure augmented wo=ith other constructive input from other Wiki editors) to make this a valuable reference page. I particularly need the EL that I had placed in this page in order to do so. Otherwise I am tempted to give up contributing to Wikipedia. Please note, I am currently in China, and so access to Wikipedia is spotty at best. Enquire (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
If you need additional time to create an article that is ready for the encyclopedia you can create it in the draft namespace. It can sit there and you can come back and work on it as you have time. Then when it has enough to be an actual article it can be moved to the main article space. You can create it at Draft:Backer, Spielvogel & Bates. -- GBfan02:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I proposed such a draft namespace some years ago, so happy to see that we have that now. If that is the case, would you be kind enough to reserect the page I created, with EL? ... since I did not bookmark them, TIA.
Confused why you feel the subject of Sandwich Belt High Angle Conveyor has no substance. This is important information given around the world for the mining industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyDos (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The whole prose of the article was "Sandwich Belt High Angle Conveyors". There is no context in repeating the title of the article. The list of 6 references do not provide context either because they do not say anything about what a Sandwich Belt High Angle Conveyor is. All they do is send someone to some other resource. If you think this topic needs an article you need to actually write an article that describes what a Sandwich Belt High Angle Conveyor is. You can use the references to allow others to verify what you have been written but the references by themselves is not acceptable. -- GBfan17:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
You are right, I wasn't specific enough on the edit summary. You nominated one article for speedy deletion, then changed an older article to redirect to that new article and then when it was deleted asked for the older article to be deleted as a broken redirect. That does not work either. You should have reverted the redirect and requested the article to be deleted under A7 as I did. -- GBfan13:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I found the problem there was an invisible character between the e and the s in the word states near the very end of the quote where it says "states security" -- GBfan00:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed it because the article you linked to, James Callaghan, does not mention that he is known as Big Jim. All entries on a disambiguation page must be linked to a single article that mentions what is being disambiguated. In this case, James Callaghan, must mention that he is known as Big Jim before we can have that entry included. You can update the article, with reliable source, to say he is known as Big Jim then add it back. -- GBfan22:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Magee Marshall & Co Ltd
Hi ,
I own the company, and would appreciate some degree of accuracy in the contributions of others to this page.
The company was founded Circa 1853 by David Magee ( born 1829 in Bolton, Lancashire) {ancestry.co.uk , and Public records}
He was the tenant of the Good Samaritan beerhouse on Derby St by 1853 , and moved to the Crown Vaults, Derby St by about 1864/5 .
It's not certain at what point the original brewhouse was built , David Magee died in 1875 , with the brewery and other commercial property being inherited by his wife , as stipulated by his will { public records , , copy of his will in my collection}
The company amalgamated with Daniel Marshall's Grapes & One Horseshoe Breweries in 1887/8 , , being registered as a limited company on March 22nd 1888 {Companies House} the Magee family owning the majority of shares { companies house ,documents in the possession of the company}
Alfred Barnard , in his exellent book ,
{The Noted Breweries,of Britain and Ireland } described a 'new brewhouse' as being in operation alongside the old brewhouse .
The company aquired the Wigan Brewery of Henry Robinson &Co at auction in 1894 it is unsure when this site ceased production , but it was used as a depot by Magee's until circa 1906/7 {company stock records}
A new Brewery, designed by William Bradford was built circa 1900 .
The brewery of Bell & Co , Burton on Trent was purchased in circa 1902/3 ,with brewing continuing until 1906/7 {company stock records}, after which the company transported water by rail in its own tankers up to the 1960's {company archives }
In late 1950's an offer for the company was made by Greenall Whitley & Co , Wilderspool Brewery, Warrington , with Greenall's completing their acquisition by 1959{company archives }.
The Crown Brewery mashed for the last time on Monday 21st September 1970 (Best Mild) {company archives, Brewhouse Book}
Noted beers included IPA , Crown Ale(bottled), B.B , a mild , NOT a bitter!!(the initials stand for best beer), Oatmeal Stout amongst others .{company archives }
The place to discuss this is on the article talk page, Magee Marshall & Co. I don't know anything about the company and really don't care. You need to stop removing the content. That is not the way to fix an article. If you continue to blank the article you will be blocked and the article will be locked so any new editors will not be able to edit it. -- GBfan21:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is a very tight deletion process. Everything deleted using CSD must fit into one (or more) of the criterion. A7 has two pieces and the article must fit both pieces of the criterion. First, it can only be used on the types of articles that are listed in the criterion; real people, individual animals, organizations (not educational organizations), web content or organized events. Second, it must not have a credible claim to significance in the article. I see articles nominated for A7 regularly that miss one or both of the pieces. I have seen all kinds of articles nominated for A7, movies, tv shows, cartoon characters, software, products to name a few. Since none of these are one of the listed types of subject matter they are not eligible for deletion under A7, even if they show no claim to significance. If an article shows a credible claim to significance it is not eligible no matter what the subject matter is. In this particular case, Extension Mobility is not one of the eligible subject types. It is a software extension that is programmed into a VOIP phone system. Since it doesn't meet the first piece of the criterion, the second piece doesn't make any difference, it is not eligible under A7. -- GBfan18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
G7 can be used to request deletion of any article where you are the creator and only significant creator. An admin will then look at it the article and your history and decide if they will honor your request. Is there a reason you are contemplating having all the articles you have created, deleted? -- GBfan00:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I am the creator of most of my articles and 3,418 editions. I think it's time to leave wikipedia and destroy all my ediiones and pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford489 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
You can leave anytime you want, but why would you want to remove the articles? Is there something wrong with the articles? Do you think you created articles that are about subjects that are not notable? -- GBfan01:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. I am not saying the articles you created are not notable. I am asking why you want them deleted. I am wondering if you think they are not notable or there is something wrong with the articles? I am trying to understand why you want the articles deleted? -- GBfan01:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for using the wrong protocol for moving articles
Thank you very much for correcting my error with shifting the information from Namco Bandai Partners to Bandai Namco Partners. I was unaware of the move page function beforehand. Thank you very much for making me aware of this feature. I did not intend to make a copy and paste move, rather, I was simply unaware of how to best transfer information as I did not know how to rename the article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Iftekharahmed96, I understand. Most people at the beginning don't know this. That is why we have that message when we find that a cut and paste move has happened. Everything is fixed. -- GBfan14:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, a clarification requested
Hello GB fan... Just a query. Your deletion here on A1 mentions "Short article without enough context to identify the subject". As much as I can see, the subject is easily identifiable as an individual with the said name. The A1 criteria mentions, "If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate." The article in question had a title (the name of the subject) which could have been used to find further information. In my opinion, the A1 tag is not appropriate in such cases, where the title is contextually identifiable, irrespective of whether it is significant or not. However, I'll defer to your judgement on this; and thus the request for clarification from you. Is the A1 appropriate in this particular case? Thanks. Lourdes17:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I could not identify the subject. The entire content of the article was:
| name = Mary Rose Limpiado | birth_ name = Sweety Marru
Based on this information is this a real person that had the birth name of "Sweety Marru" and later changed it to "Mary Rose Limpiado"? Is this a fictional character? I don't know based on the information in the article. When I searched for, "Mary Rose Limpiado" "Sweety Marru", I found exactly one link (the software won't allow me to include it here, it has been blocked), a forum post that has those two exact phrases. While the post does use both phrases it doesn't use "Sweety Marru" as another name for "Mary Rose Limpiado". I couldn't identify the subject of the article from the information in the article. That is why I think A1 applies to this case. You had tagged it as A7, how did you know this was a real person based on the information in the article? -- GBfan17:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The user who created this article is named User:Maryroselimpiado835. Her page contains the words, "Mary Rose Limpiado is a Doctor Child in Philippines...". Searching for "Mary Rose Limpiado" gives links of various real people named the same, none apparently notable. In my opinion, that identifies the subject of the article as a real person. I also get your point about the fictional character thing. Lourdes18:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't go and look at the user page to see what it said. I looked at the article and could not figure out what the article was about. I thought A1 was the most appropriate criterion of those listed on the article. This is the problem with all the criterion, there can always be interpretations. The page did not belong, it is gone with an appropriate, imo, criterion for the reasons I outlined above. A7 might be appropriate also if you include info that was not included in the article itself, but considering the info in the article itself I don't think it is appropriate. -- GBfan18:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking more about what you said above. If searching for the name gives links to various people with that name then it adds to the argument that there is not enough content to understand what the article is about. Which one of the various people that show up in the search is the editor talking about? -- GBfan21:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
"I was thinking more about what you said above." I appreciate that. Talk:Mary Rose Limpiado will give you more inputs I guess on the current subject. Would be good if you can salt the same after deleting it. I understand what you're referring to by saying these can be interpreted differently. I also understand that the crux of your argument lies in whether the subject of the article can be definitely singled out as identifiable versus my argument that the subject of the article need not be definitely singled out, as A1 does not talk about the subject but about the context. In other words, even if the contents provide a fair approximation of the subject, you cannot apply A1 as the context (the relatively wider area of the article) is not invisible. My opinion is that one should not use A1 if one gets a fair idea (even if not an exact one) that the subject may be an individual. For example, if there's an article John Celina, which contains stuff like the current subject (e.g. Name: John Celina, nickname: Johny boy), and if a web search throws up real people named the same, even if none is notable, then there's sufficient good faith argument that the subject is an individual, and the A1 cannot apply. The context does not have to be crystal clear; that is why the A1 policy mentions that even if a web search gives the possibility of expanding (only the possibility, not the definiteness), then A1 is not applicable. This is my interpretation. You of course have more experience in the same and I've learnt from your interpretation too. Lourdes03:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That explanation does explain the difference in the opinion each of us hold about A1. If there is not enough information in the article to accurately identify what the article is about it is deletable under A1. Consider an article called "Jones Elementary School" The text of the article is "Jones Elementary School is a school for K-6" Would you consider that as eligible for deletion under A1? My guess is you would not, as there is enough information to understand that this is a school and that they teach kids from kindergarten through 6th grade. My opinion and I believe most, if not all, admins would say yes it is eligible as there is not enough information to understand which school we are talking about. I can't even determine what country this school is in. A1 is to delete those articles that a reasonable person can't help expand because there is not enough info to say this is what they were talking about. We might be able to understand the general subject area but not the subject of the article. That was the case in Mary Rose Limpiado. We knew the general subject area, a person. From the context of the article itself we didn't know the if this was a real person or a fictional person. From other clues we could probably surmise this is a real person but still not enough to identify the specific person as google searches show multiple people with that name. This is the classic A1 case and is eligible. I also need to thank you for pointing me to that talk page as it lead me to suppress a bunch of edits where she added information about herself that she shouldn't be adding. -- GBfan11:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the wonderfully detailed note. The school example is quite vivid. Gives me a lot of material to understand your viewpoint, and I'll try and incorporate this into my tagging. Thanks for the time. Wonderful chatting with you. Lourdes12:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Ta for the edit here - I've reposted the album that was removed, but now with a non-primary source - I'm a fairly inexperienced Wikipedia editor, so am still learning about reference rules, syntax etc. I left the other one that had been removed as it was by another user, so up to them I guess. Anyhow, just thought I ought to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshubble (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, GB fan. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Besides, do we really need a page for every subsidiary of every company? Is igt notable outside of the main article for the company? Can't it then be just a subsection in gthe main company's article? -- Alexf(talk)13:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I have tried multiple times to open any of those pages. It just sits and loads but never gets to the point where I can look at them to evaluate them. -- GBfan18:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I already had the ability delete them, that is simple. I can use twinkle and do a batch delete. The problem is that I can't open them so I can evaluate them. I might have some time later that I can get on a device to look. -- GBfan00:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a huge political edit war and helped get the IP vandal blocked. Here's a link to my response to them after the edit war, after they were blocked: [[5]]
Also when you go to this page please scroll up to see their many warnings and block notice.
Is it good? I didn't say anything mean, just quoted them and gave them a more detailed description of why they were blocked. I just want to make sure it isn't too harsh or mean. Thanks, Adotchar| reply here01:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with what you said. It was unnecessary but nothing wrong. The blocking admin linked to why they were blocked, nothing more was needed. You wasted your time. -- GBfan01:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. Mike V • Talk20:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
You can not move because the title that you want the article moved to now has history attached to it. An admin must move it as it will take deletion and restoration of articles to do it. If I get a chance I can do it or you can make a request at WP:RM. -- GBfan17:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Not being vulgar - it's an alternative form of sackbutt (which also sounds rather rude). Trombone sounds far more polite. Anyway, they are a well-known group who are heard often on BBC Radio 3. I've tagged it for refimprove and needing independent coverage. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
ok. I saw no claim to significance in the article, so I tagged it. That is why we have multiple eyes on speedy deletions. -- GBfan19:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Please explain how you see "nothing to do" on this SPI. You have five IPs and one registered account, all editing the same otherwise-rarely-touched page in the same place in almost the same way within weeks of each other. What am I missing? I don't intend to drop the matter without a satisfactory answer. —swpbT18:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, "The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction." There is no block evasion, I do not see anyone trying to mislead or deceive. I do see one off vandalism edits from the IPs but based on my analysis it does not appear they were purposely changing IPs to do it. They just had different IPs everytime they edited. This does not meet the Sock Puppet definition. -- GBfan18:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
A warning is a sanction, no? Are we supposed to let the same person keep changing IPs and receiving level-1 warnings on clean talk pages, never getting the block they are working towards? No, I don't think I find your reasoning satisfying. If this is indeed the same person, it's textbook puppetry. I am reopening the SPI. If a thus-far-uninvolved admin provides the same rationale, I'll let it go, but you haven't convinced me yet. —swpbT18:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Who would we warn?
An Ip that hasn't edited since 12 September and when someone edits from there the next time will probably be someone else?
An Ip that hasn't edited since 30 September and when someone edits from there the next time will probably be someone else?
An Ip that hasn't edited since 24 October and when someone edits from there the next time will probably be someone else?
An Ip that hasn't edited since 26 October and when someone edits from there the next time will probably be someone else?
An Ip that hasn't edited since 10 November (blocked until 25 November) and when someone edits from there the next time will probably be someone else?
A named user that is indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account?
To me, warning any of these is a waste of time. If they come back they will be evading a block and should get blocked easily. People change IPs all the time, most IPs are dynamic (some more dynamic than others). This is not sockpuppetry. It is a normal occurrence in the way ISPs work. If you feel it should be reopened, I won't reclose it but I do not believe anything will come of it. -- GBfan19:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The "shared IP" argument is stronger than the "there's nothing here" argument; maybe lead with it in future. —swpbT19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe accept no as the answer in the future the first time rather than the 5th time when it gets closed again. -- GBfan19:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
If you are satisfied with how the first admin handled the first closure, you're part of the problem. Admin powers don't entitle anyone to act that way. The next time I find puppetry, I'll proceed in the exact same way: I'll stop as soon as I get a decent explanation. Not before. —swpbT19:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I am satisfied that Bbb23's closure was appropriate. As was the removal of your attack. If more than that happened I know nothing about it and can not comment on it. Like I said on your page, if you had asked for an explanation rather than attacking the closer you probably would have received an explanation. -- GBfan19:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Swpb: This is a warning. If in the future you behave in a similar fashion to the way you have done in this case, you risk being blocked for disruptive conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Swpb, looking even deeper into this, I do not see anything wrong with the way this was handled except by you. You create an SPI, it was correctly closed. You attack the closer on the SPI page. The attack is reverted. You go to their talk page and attack them there. That is reverted. You then create a new SPI naming all the same parties just with a different master. That is deleted as disruptive. You then create it again. It is closed by a clerk. You ask for a reconsideration. The clerk responds and asks you what you would like done but you never respond. You reopen it, I close it. You ask me for an explanation. I give it, you don't like the answer so you reopen it. You don't ever even try to discuss the SPI before reopening it. You think your interpretation is the only logical one and everyone else is wrong. There were mistakes made that could have alleviated all of this and they are on you. In the future if you don't like the answer consider actually having a conversation with people and try to understand why they did things. -- GBfan20:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Reuven Bar-On
Hi GBFan, I am hoping you might be able to help and provide some guidance? it looks from the history of the page that you stepped in a tried to stop PaulSheer from deleting large parts of the page and over tagging.
Is there a mediation process within Wikipeadia when somebody is trying to close/merge the page and removing most of the content. He doesn't agree with the page and I dont agree with his removal and edits, so we are at a bit of a stale mate. I received some emails from him, and based on these, I dont think talking to him is going to be very fruitful, if there anything else that can be done?
You reverted List of black NHL players to a state in which it isn't properly sourced or sourced at all
you reverted to a state where an entire section is unsourced and many of the removed players haven't been properly sourced. their links don't mention anything about their race. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't look at anything I reverted and at this point, really don't care. I reverted back to before the edit war started and protected it. Every one involved needs to go to the talk page and discuss the article and decide what will happen. I could have just as easily blocked you for an extended period for edit warring but did not see that as the right thing to do. -- GBfan13:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
you don't get it.
you probbly didn't even read the noticeboard. User:Marc87 outright REFUSED TO TALK! I bet you can't find a SINGLE instant in which he justified reverting. The information on the page is not properly sourced. A whole section ISN'T SOURCED, and he blatantly said in his last revert that he will keep reverting. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I do get it. You are both passionate about this and neither one is calmly discussing anything. There are options on how to get other input into the discussion. Some options are listed at WP:Dispute resolution -- GBfan13:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
just look at what i wrote. of course i'm passionate, User:Marc87 refuses to give justification or proper souring to the edits he made. most links don't even mention the background of the player only his hockey stats, also one section is fully unsourced, that;s why i removed, yet he reverts without explanation. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
oh.. yes. keep ignoring it, then proceed to tell me to talk about it. I made attempts at least 5 talk pages to talk about it, yet everyone pussyfooting. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I could have fixed this the other way and blocked both of you. Is that what you want me to do, or do you want to try to fix it? Also you need to stop the comments about editors and focus on the content. If you don't you will end up blocked. -- GBfan14:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I did focus on the content as well. I told you as a did the others and I'm telling you again, the page is not properly sourced. Most of the links have nothing to do with the topic. it doesn't say anything about the players race or self identity. that's why i removed them, and User:Marc87 reverted without explanation. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Pre 1880s time zones
Please understand the history of time zones. A whole wide area using the same time did not happen until the 1870s or the 1880s. Before that every city has its own solar time. Timeanddate.com is not a website authoritative for time zones and time zone boundaries, but it displays the history of standard time for each city (not whole provinces, states or countries). Therefore creating "time zone" articles about a particular city before standard time zones were established is essentially a hoax. Only a few places that refuse to synchronize with Greenwich well into the 20th century get notable mentions and articles as listed in Template:UTC time offsets. Things have been stable for a few years not because of a lack of editors creating extra articles, but because each city's local time before the 1880s is simply not notable. Every city listed in timeanddate.com will probably have a history that traces back to a local time offset. We can't allow every one of these offsets be created as an additional article. HkCaGu (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Everything you say may very well be true, I don't know. I don't know that much about the history of time zones. I do know that based on the content of the articles those are not blatant and obvious hoaxes. That is the speedy deletion criterion, the hoax has to be blatant and obvious. Since they are not, they are not eligible for speedy deletion. You will need to use a different process to have them deleted. -- GBfan10:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Which means that not all revisions were infringements. Not that it matters if it was a valid A10 or R3. Maybe I'm being bureaucratic, but the situation doesn't make any sense. I don't even know what Ohfact is... Adam9007 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
You can consider the last version an R3 then. I don't understand what the problem is. Someone copied an article to a new name, I made a mistake in redirecting it and then deleted it. -- GBfan19:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
If someone copies something word for word, unless it is released under a compatible license and attributed according to the license, it is a copyright violation. -- GBfan19:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I chose what seemed to be the closest reason on the first attempt. It really is a housekeeping issue, since 1) it was created during a move, 2) because the article title did not need to be disambiguated, and 3) it is not plausible that someone would type in Nina Browne (archivist) to get to the article about Nina Browne.
If I've missed the mark again, would you mind telling me what the right tag is that I should apply?
There isn't any valid speedy deletion tag. WP:R3 is the closest but that specifically excludes redirects as the result of a move. If you feel the redirect really should be deleted then the only way is to take it to WP:RFD. There isn't any real reason to delete as it does not hurt anything, see Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. -- GBfan09:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
NP, revdeling the edit does not help much if it is still in the current version LOL. That was definitely worthy of suppression. I left a warning for AKS.9955. - GBfan20:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting Sadzid Husić but can you please salt it to prevent recreation? Note Sadzid Husic was salted in 2013. This is part of a very elaborate Internet-wide hoax that goes back at least four years. German-language Wikipedia article (de:Sadzid Husic) was salted for same issue - hoax profile created in 2012. See issue on IMDB from two years ago regarding his hoax profile. Thank you! —МандичкаYO 😜 12:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I was working through the sock puppet investigation and salting that article plus another one. This is the third different name an article has been created under. - GBfan12:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Anyone can close it, WP:AFDCLOSE for instructions, or it can wait until I get through the more pressing matters of the sock puppet investigation and salting articles that need to be salted. - GBfan12:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Those instructions are specifically for Administrators. The instructions for non-Administrators state that only uninvolved editors should close an AfD discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Then it can wait until I, another admin, our an uninvolved editor gets around to closing it. It isn't a pressing matter. - GBfan12:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Shawn in Montreal closed it but something weird is going on if you look at it - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadzid Husić - the template is being cut off, something to do with how the previous nominations are listed (If you remove them, the template closes fine). Any idea? Thank you so much. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Please take a look at the edits to my Talk page and take any action you deem appropriate. I left a message on the poster's Talk page. I'm not sure if it was strong enough. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks (again). And you'll note that I can delete things properly if I slept the night before (which I did).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Contest deletion of article
Hi GB fan, I would like to contest the deletion of article Paradise (A-Reece album). I have read A9. It seems to me that the article has been deleted because the recording artist himself doesn't have a stand alone wiki article which in that case it clearly states that on Wikipedia:NALBUM that an album doesn't have to be by a notable artist. The album has produced 4 singles that have charted on South Africa's musical charts and the album itself also charted at no. 1 on itunes just under 24 hours after its release. Please reconsider your decision for deletion. Thank You Xdigionwiki (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I am always open to reevaluating my decisions. Can you look at Wikipedia:NALBUM and tell me which of the 7 listed criteria the album meets and how the album meets it? -- GBfan22:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The album has produced 2 hit singles that have charted the EMA chart. I would also like to noted that the article was deleted under Db- a9 which it doesn't qualify for anymore since its artist has an article now. Xdigionwiki (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you are saying that some dashes need to be changed to a different type of dash? If so, you can fix that yourself. If you need an admin to help with something, you will need to be more specific. - GBfan12:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
They do appear to be here for something other than working on the encyclopedia. LieutenantJames20 it's the only account that has any edits outside of user space. All of their article edits are before mid November. None of the accounts have been used since the one user page was deleted. Right now it is a wait and see what they decide to do. - GBfan10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
Hi GB fan, I added a sockpuppet investigation for the IP address 92.9.3.159 which was using 92.9.3.159 as its puppet. I believe it is now using 92.9.0.157 as its new puppet. I am not sure how to add a new sockpuppet, do I create a whole new sockpuppet investigation or do I edit the existing (archived) page? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I finally figured out what you are talking about. This isn't sock puppetry. I blocked 92.9.0.157 because they were evading a block. At the time 92.9.3.159 was blocked and they came back using a new Ip address. This time the ip is not evading a block. If they are vandalizing the place to report them is at WP:AIV. - GBfan12:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you removed my A3 tag on the aforementioned page. Twinkle mentions that A3 covers an article that is just full of links to other pages, and in this case, none of the articles exist, and they all seem to link to the same page anyway, in which the intended county name is actually missing from the link. I'm curious about what actually makes this allowable. -- numbermaniac (talk)11:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A3 does not say an article that is just links falls into the criterion. It says that an article that just has external links is eligible under this criterion. The article did have one blue link to Numbered highways in Lake County, Ohio. I started to clean up the article, but decided to just move it to the draft space so that it can be cleaned up and then moved back to the mainspace. It wasn't really helpful in the state it was, but it did have content, although not much. - GBfan12:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. Do any of the other not-yet-properly-linked ones actually exist? Because it seems a bit weird to have only one blue link on the page, if all the others are red. -- numbermaniac (talk)12:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, that is one of the reason why I decided to move it to draft so that what is actually linkable can be determined. - GBfan12:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Speedy delete
Hi, you refused the speedy delete for Talin Seik the village as far as I could see doesn't exist or is so small that there are no sources available. What would be the best way to deal with this kind of article. PROD? --Domdeparis (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
PROD is probably the easiest way to deal with it. I looked for sources also and couldn't find any. You had nominated it a1, which means from the content in the article you didn't understand what the article was about. I understood what the article is about but it does not appear to be notable. - GBfan09:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Reverts
I was filing a report at aiv but Dr. K keeps deleting it. I tried to go to her talkpage and ask her why she keeps doing that but she just deleted my message. Could you please do something about this? 66.87.77.73 (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any obvious vandalism so it should be declined. You will need to make a case at ani if you think a block should happen. It won't happen with a bare report at aiv. - GBfan03:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi GB fan. What is going on? Huon is an admin. Also the IP report did not give a reason for reporting Huon. I checked Huon's latest edits and the account does not look compromised to me. Dr.K.03:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what the ip is thinking the vandalism is, Might not have been clear in my response to them, but that is what I tried to say. I didn't see any vandalism com Huon and if they could slow the vandalism they would need to go to ani and make their case. They can't just give a bare aiv report with no evidence and expect anything to happen. - GBfan08:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you GB fan for the clarification. The report of the IP was without any details to justify it. I think that reporting any editor in good standing at AIV, let alone an admin, using a report without details, is basically a CIR issue or trolling. Dr.K.15:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't tell what this might be about. The IP's other recent edits mean nothing to me, but I assume some of my actions might have angered them. Huon (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It is a strange incident. I can't decide if the IP was someone dissatisfied with you, a vandal, a troll, or simply incompetent. But in any case, I can't think of anyone, even marginally competent or even a troll, not understanding that an AIV report without any details is simply not done. So I lean toward a CIR verdict. Dr.K.00:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
PaRappa
Hello. I note that you added the redirect on PaRappa (singer). Having been involved in the case, which is listed at ANI, I can confirm that the 2 subjects are entirely different, and the sharing of a name is coincidental. The user has been removing CSD tags and re-creating the article. I have therefore reverted the redirect - but feel free to discuss further. I feel another block for the user is also warranted to prevent from further recreation of articles. Thanks. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
It is a valid redirect. I declined the speedy delete as an admin, do not add the speedy deletion tag again. - GBfan13:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
List of Systems Engineers webpage
(cur | prev) 15:16, 22 November 2016 GB fan (talk | contribs) . . (17,179 bytes) (-493) . . (Reverted 4 edits by MultidisciplineSE&D (talk): This looks like someone trying to spam their name into Wikipedia. (TW)) (undo)
GB fan:
Here we go again. I was the one who added a contribution to the List of SEs page - not some hacker trying to spam a webpage. If you know anything about Systems Engineering, you should be cognizant of my Systems Engineering Analysis, Design, sand Development: Concepts, Principles, and Practices textbook published by John Wiley (New York) - not some fly by night publisher - is one of the leading SE textbooks world wide. I have ESEP Certification from INCOSE, and championed paradigm shifts in industry, government, and academia who are still practicing SE that has been outdated seance the 1980's. That is why Engineering projects continue to have cost overruns, slips, and risks.
If you go to the webpage below, you will further find authentication that the 1st Edition of my SE text received the 2006 International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) Engineering Science Book of the Year award. <http://iaaweb.org/content/view/144/244/>
I trust that we can establish these credentials for several Wikipedia SE webpages and move on. Being new to Wikipedia, if there is something I need to do to correct my contributions, please kindly advise. I would sincerely appreciate it.
You telling me that your textbook is one of the leading SE textbooks world wide does not help at all. It just shows me more that you are trying to get your name in Wikipedia along with your textbook. If you and your textbook are that important someone else will notice that and write an article about you and include your textbook in appropriate articles. - GBfan18:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
GB fan
FURTHER READING - As I am learning to understand the context of Wikipedia and "articles", may I suggest this. Although the 2nd Edition textbook update has only been out for a few months, according to Google Scholar, which tracks academic citations to referenced works, indicates that this text has had 207 citations for references as authoritative work. Additionally, this text is referenced in technical papers accepted by the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) and the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). What is important is the "acceptance" of this text as an authoritative work world wide. The notion of "writing and article and referencing it" would be self-serving, which seems to conflict with guidance you provided. I find your presumption of me trying to get my name into Wikipedia as inappropriate. Objectively, what do we need to do to correct this issue?
EXTERNAL LINKS - Lastly, the PPI SE Goldmine in a commercial business promoting their courses and collecting login email info. What seems to be the obstacle to removal here?
I can't tell you what the obstacle is with removing PPI SE Goldmine from the article. I removed it and Izno restored it. You will need to talk to them about, and the best place to do it is on the article talk page. As for your book and your name in multiple articles, they were removed because you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be adding them to articles. If you or it is important enough to be added to the article, someone else will agree and make the additions. You can suggest it for inclusion on the article talk page. Above you put in quotes "writing and article and referencing it". That makes it appear that I told you to write an article and reference it. I don't believe you should be writing an article about yourself or your book and as far as I know never told you to do it. What I did say was "If you and your textbook are that important someone else will notice that and write an article about you and include your textbook in appropriate articles." This time I added bolding on the important part, someone else. Some one other than the subject or closely associated with the subject is who should write any article on Wikipedia. You as the subject and the author of the book should not be adding your name or the book to any article only suggesting it on article talk pages. - GBfan20:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
for that edit/reversion re: Oluwa2Chainz' archiving someone else's talk page. I was stunned when I saw the edits, thanks for stepping in. Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking through your recent edits, I believe you have demonstrated that the concerns that I had are gone. I did not look at just CSDs and AFDs but at your recent edits. - GBfan11:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for messaging me. If you want to help improve the description of their scores, I would gladly welcome that. I believe the issue to which you refer is that I said "voting record." I think that must have been spur of the moment as, at other times, I said "record" more generally as can be seen via the edits I made. It's so easy to connect their records with only "voting", but you are absolutely correct and I thank you for reviewing that and fixing it!. I have read their description and if you can help edit where it is needed, please do! I have also added "publicly available data" upon which they also based that score. So, thank you for the message and for helping to edit. Responding to your question, I think they are fairly notable at least as notable as Americans for Democratic Action and American Conservative Union which are also regularly used to describe how candidates are rated and what ratings they received. I also did not first cite them. Someone had cited them on the "Susan Collins" page and I helped to correct their description of the score. I checked it out and, having heard of them before, felt it was good. In fact, CNN featured Crowdpac scores for 2016 candidates.[1] Again, thank you for your message and if you can help improve a statement or source please do so.
P.S. I have added "watch this page" per your request. Happy Holidays!
Actually what the message says is that since the conversation started on your page, that is where it should continue so that everything is together. I don't believe what you put is correct. It is not publicly available data and contributions. It is publicly available contribution data. - GBfan00:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for responding again. I did leave a message on my page, but also here for your convenience. I'm only quoting the source itself in how it describes the rating. So, it is not my intent to state something incorrectly. That's a direct quote, but I do not mind one bit if you, or anyone else, wants to paraphrase that quote. That's why this is a community effort and why it works so well! It is definitely a benefit to have multiple editors making sure it can be phrased in the best understood way and helping others. Once more, thank you for the message and edits! I made sure to send thanks via the wiki pages as well. Please feel free to respond on my page as well. I just wanted to make sure to respond in the best way possible. Again, have a Happy Holidays!
Hi, I just noticed that you have removed the deletion tag that I added to Phulbani Odia. May I ask why you think that article should exist? Can you share some citations that can explain why this article should exist on Wikipedia? I am a native speaker of the Odia language and I can confirm that there is no such thing called Phulbani Odia. --Psubhashish (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
May I ask why you think that article should exist? I never said the article should exist, I have no idea if the article is true or not or if it should even exist.
Can you share some citations that can explain why this article should exist on Wikipedia? No, I can't.
Now, to answer the question that really should have been asked. Why did you remove the deletion tag from the article?
You tagged the article for speedy deletion with the reason "there is no reference in authentic sources like Ethonologue nor this is written with Wikipedia's MoS." Speedy deletion is a limited set of circumstances that an admin may delete an article without waiting for any discussion or waiting period. Any article that is deleted using speedy deletion must fit into at least one of the specified criterion in the policy.
I am going to break down your reason into two pieces and address each of them; 1. "there is no reference in authentic sources like Ethonologue" and 2. "nor this is written with Wikipedia's MoS".
I am going to take the second one first because it is easy. Not complying with the MOS is a reason to edit the article to comply with the MOS, it is not a reason to delete an article. If we deleted all the articles that don't fully comply with the MOS we would shrink the encyclopedia dramatically.
The first one is a little more involved. The basic answer is not having references is not a speedy deletion reason. You could have been implying the article is a hoax (speedy deletion criterion G3. This criterion only "applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation." The article might be misinformation but it isn't blatant and obvious. To me criterion A7 comes the closet to what you seem to be saying but that does not apply either. A7 has two parts and the article must meet both; 1. it applies to articles about a "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event" and 2. it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The article meets the second part as the article notes nothing significant about the language. It does not meet the first part though as a language is not one of the eligible subject areas.
I don't believe any of the speedy deletion criterion fit this article. Since you truly believe the article should be deleted you have two options, WP:PROD or WP:AFD. PROD is simpler, you tag the article and as long as no one removes the tag it will be deleted after at least 7 days. It does have its down side, if the tag is removed it can not be restored and then you will need to take the article to WP:AFD. AFD is more involved. The article has to be tagged, a separate page has to be created and it has to be listed. A discussion then takes place and if the consensus is to delete the article an admin will delete it. In most ways this is the final answer if an article should exist.
If you decide to PROD the article, you should be able to easily do that. If you decide to use AFD and you need help, let me know. AFD can be a little confusing the first time. - GBfan12:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Disambiguation pages are a navigation aid to direct people to pages that might be known as an ambiguous title, in this case CHC. If there is no article that discusses cold hard cash then there is nothing to disambiguate and it does not belong on the page. - GBfan20:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello GB fan. 36hourblock has recently reverted edits that I made to the article Missouri Compromise, which he or she has been working on, with the edit summary: "Qualified editors only: please post comments on talk page". The use of the words "Qualified editors only" once again implies that I am a sock puppet. These accusations continue to be made with no SPI having been filed, and little evidence presented.
Also, I would appreciate you taking a look at the message that I left on 36hourblock's talk page under "Personal Attacks". Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
How come you contested the Bandai Hardware template
The reason as to why I requested the delete was because all the Bandai Hardware pages are on Template:Bandai Namco as Bandai and Namco have combined as a singular conglomerate for a while now. Surely, there's no purpose of having this template anymore? it's a wasted duplicate. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't actually contest it, I removed it because it had already had been contested by someone else. That makes the deletion of the template controversial. Speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. Another reason is that anything deleted by speedy deletion must fit into one of the speedy deletion criterion. You originally tagged it as This template is no longer required because all the contents have been transferred over to Template:Bandai Namco. An IP came in and tried to shove it into one of the criterion, G6. It did not fit that criterion or any criterion. If you believe the template needs to be deleted you have one way to go, nominate it for deletion using Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. - GBfan10:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Instead of only reverting changes of others, please start talking. Waiting for your points for letting the article stay at Talk:Akshar_Pathak . I get it that you only removed "speedy deletion" request. I want a discussion about its existence on wikipedia. My argument for its deletion still stands. Would love to see your views in articles talk page --182.75.175.230 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposed Nestle Bear Brand to more languages
I have seen to be proposed this article Nestlé Bear Brand to make more than 50 languages to make an encyclopedic article, and will back my deleted Bear Brand article from some languages.
what, if any, would be appropriate for Draft:Paxful considering the mainspace article was deleted Paxful by you as A7, and the page draft page creator was blocked UPOL violation? I did some cleanup of the mainspace article, and if left it very empty. Additional research support that it is very unlikely this will reach mainspace status anytime soon. TiggerJay(talk)23:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
It isn't hurting anything to exist. There isn't any speedy deletion criterion that applies to the page. You can nominate it using WP:MFD if you would like. It would probably be deleted. Personally I would just leave it alone. - GBfan23:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are looking for. It is a userspace draft article that is not ready to be moved to the main space as it does not contain any sources. The editor is actively working on it. Why are you asking? - GBfan00:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Well since you freely admit you are a bot and I don't see any bot flag, you are obviously an unauthorized bot. That means I should block you indefinitely. What do you think? - GBfan12:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd think you are faced with a an Occam-ian dilemma: Am I joking or has an unapproved bot with no identifiable purpose achieved an unheard of 99% on the Turing test?
Re our friend at Talk:1986, I would suggest that we are very near the point where it is reasonable to ask if the good faith assumptions that they are not a troll and are are competent are becoming questionable. Their next answer should ring the bell. - SummerPhDv2.016:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
You make a good point, you are either a very good bot or a human. Guess I won't block either way. All kidding aside, I don't know what to think about them. - GBfan16:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Please close
Please could you possibly perform a non-admin closure of This? If you account for votes that should be discounted, delete is slightly ahead but if you don't it should be kept. I would relist, but it would just come to the same conclusion of people making bad arguments on both sides, I don't see a point in continuing it and it has been discussed for over a week now. I ask you because you closed an intertwined article on /r/TheDonald, which had a similar consensus. The reasons I can't close this myself are
1. I have voted in the discussion and created the page originally
2. I don't even know how to do so...
If I were to close this, it would be an admin close. AfDs run for 7 days unless there is a compelling consensus one way or another. This has been open only 4 days and there is no consensus so it is not ready to be closed. - GBfan21:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
no problem. You didn't need to undo, It stops the disruption. It happens every once in a while as two admins are working on the same thing. It probably wasn't protected when you started, I protected it and then you did. - GBfan11:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I tagged U5 / G11; they have now removed the tag twice. I left an explanatory 'note' on their TP. No response. Blanked it again. If I tagged wrong I will apologise. But I don't think so. On a lighter note, Happy New year, GB! Take care, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi.15:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You tagged it right, Clear COI as the username and the person being written about are the same name. Thank you and Happy New Year to you also. - GBfan15:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You might want to reconsider the speedy deletion of that article. The author of it contacted me on my talk page and said "he had no playing time". WP:NFOOTY requires having actually played. I did a search for this individual, pairing it with "football"...and got nothing. Food for thought. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I am contacting you regarding article on celebrity Sonya Berg you deleted July 30th, 2014. I am inquiring on the basis of deletion? I am Sonya's assistant and before updating the article with credible sources, I just wanted to verify that was indeed the issue for removal. I appreciate your feedback, and time.
Twarfield, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. The article was deleted because there was no claim to significance. The whole content of the article was:
Sonya Berg is a TV Host, Fashion Show Production, Stylist, Designer, Inspirational Speaker, Branding Partner, Polo player TV Personality, Self improvement Fashion and Lifestyle blogger, Industrial Engineer & Motivational Speaker
It had a single reference to http://zenfashionista.com/ It just said what she is, it does not say there is anything significant about her.
Hi, warm greetings, we been notified that the artiste Eazzy has been deleted and will gladly like you to restore it since fans will like to view stuff about her and kindly notify the reasons for deletion for future validations
www.twitter.com/eazzyfirstladyCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
www.facebook.com/eazzyfirstladyCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/kpakposhito-single/id1049035252Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
1 May 2012 GB fan (talk | contribs) deleted page Eazzy (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)
Eazzy firstlady (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Requesting unprotection of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Main_Page
Hello,
I think that the Main Page should be moved to Wikipedia's Home Page to be more consistent with other websites. To ensure that people do not rely on a redirect. I think the original page should be deleted.
I will not unprotect it. Main pagewill not be deleted so there is no reason to unprotect the AFD page. If you believe the Main page should be moved then you need to initiate a move discussion and that does not require deleting the main page. I think you would be wasting your time to start the move discussion as I don't think it will ever happen.
Cyrus_noto3at_bulaga, I see samtar has left you a message on your talk page about this. That message is spot on. If you did apply for Adminship right now you will not become an administrator. Not only have you only been editing for 3 months and have just a little over 1000 edits there have been recent concerns about edits. I see recent comments about inappropriate CSD tagging and articles you have created that were deleted. These two indicate that you do not understand our content policies. You are not ready for adminship at this time. You probably need to wait a year before you even think of applying for adminship. - GBfan12:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
R3
Hello GB fan,
Is there any other option? I nominated the redirects for deletion because even though the show exist, the seasons don't exist. To me, the redirects don't make much sense. -- 1989 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There is always an option. in this case since these are redirects, the option is WP:RFD. A single grouped discussion should be able to be used for all of them. If you need help with the nomination, let me know. - GBfan11:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi GB fan (and a continuing predicament)
Just dropping by to say warmest cheers and a hello for the new year. Wanted to share a continuing predicament with you. While tagging pages like Ravirawat85, after your detailed guidance, I would have wished to tag the same with no context. Unfortunately, I suspect that some administrators might not understand the no context tag as clearly as you do; therefore, I end up tagging such articles with A7 speedies.... which is ironical, because A7 is almost bipolar to the no context tag, so one can't even use the multiple tag criteria, combining A7 and no-context. Just sharing the predicament :) Hope you're doing well. See you around. Lourdes09:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You are correct, A1 mostly excludes any other tag from being applied with it. If you have enough understanding about the article to understand that A7 applies that means A1 does not. The same with G11, if you know the article is advertising something you can't say you don't understand what the article is about. - GBfan11:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I was trying to ask a question on some sites and it was a surprise for me that some sites are paid (on transtutors.com I was billed only after asking question, so a lot of time was kelled). I think that at least warning must be in table , if you don't like amounts. 37.52.42.124 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
A commercial tattoo company is not a reliable source
Hello GB fan, long-term disruptive editor Smoore95GAGA looks to be back under various IPs (usually beginning with 73.81), similar editing patterns (targeting recent music releases) and similar edit summaries ([8] and [9]). They have been reported by Kellymoat, Jennica and myself since earlier this month at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeopleEater143, but no action has yet been taken. Not exactly a smoking gun, but one of the IPs reported and blocked on Smoore95GAGA's archived SPI begins with 73.81 as well, and as pointed out in the most recent report by Livelikemusic in November of last year, they edit recent music releases, and lately have targeted List of 2017 albums, Ed Sheeran's recent releases, and SweetSexySavage just earlier today. (Just letting you know, I also posted this to Ponyo, who blocked the original account.) Ss11207:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears several of the blocked accounts (including Antonio Bononcinis (talk·contribs)) also edited Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz, and PeopleEater143 and at least one of the accused IPs have also edited this recently. Letting you know because this user's IPs have been getting away with hostile language in edit summaries and edit warring lately, and the SPI has not gone anywhere. Ss11208:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Revdelete
Can you please redact revision 762747512 on Norman Reedus? The long edit description is messing up the history page on mobile devices.
please read the page I linked, it describes how to write the article and reference it so that it is acceptable. If you have specific questions please ask. - GBfan15:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Everything has been removed as a copyright violation and I have left a warning. No reason to block yet as no one warned them about anything until now. - GBfan17:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for your help on the Image consulting page - a redirect does make more sense to be fair!
Hello, and thank you for noticing the vandalism on the page Alexander Grande, but i think it is very unnecessary to delete it, and i would therefore tell you to set it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetal99 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi , I am new to contributing. I linked to a Youtube video to add the trivia information that he plays the violin on Ben Shapiro's page is this against the rules ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneather (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it against the rules? Maybe depends on the YouTube video. Is it needed that he played violin when he was 12 years old? No, it is just trivia. - GBfan21:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was still active. I don't think they are still active and looking at the hours they are false positives. It can go away. - GBfan10:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, regarding your removal of the speedy deletion tag from the article, I want to say that the article is a hoax. No such announcement has been made by Karan Johar (you can confirm by gooogling), and the source attached to the article is non-existent, which the author of the article has also done at Anushka Sharma's article. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
A G3 (hoax) tag is a lot different than an A11 tag. I responded to the tag that was on the article at the time. There was a clear claim to significance in the article and that is enough to survive speedy deletion under A11. - GBfan15:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
There's no part of G4 which says that it doesn't apply with MFDs. There was a discussion about the subject's notability a year ago that decided they were not notable. True it's unusual for notability to be decided at MFD rather than AFD but that was because it was only sent there because of the endless rounds of AFC the article had gone through at the behest of paid editors. None of the sources are new. IMO at least, it's pointless bureaucracy to have an AFD, especially given that the editor who created it is obviously not a new user. SmartSE (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree but if you restore the G4 tag rather than taking it to PROD or AFD I will not remove it and let another admin decide. - GBfan11:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Alberto Frigo
Hi, I was recently contacted by Alberto Frigo. He was not satisfied with the Wikipedia article I wrote about him and asked me to either update it or delete it (which alas is not possible). I am trying to update it more thoroughly now. I noticed you deleted some text yesterday. I understand your point - I will base my future writings on more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turekka (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Turekka, you say you created the article Alberto Frigo. The page history says that Alberto Frigo created the article. Alberto Frigo also uploaded the image used on the article and said that it is his own work. So if you created the article and also created the image used on the article but are not Alberto Frigo, as you imply above, there is a problem with the User:Alberto Frigo account. First we need to have an answer to the the question:
Did you create the article or did Alberto Frigo create the article himself?
Hi, most of the article has been created by myself. I am planning similar articles on other media practitioners. We are now in touch so that Frigo can upload images from his own project (e.g. the one with his equipment and so forth and many more to come to explain the various components) and help me with sourcing (which I am now doing on my sandbox). If this, based on your suspicions, cannot occur, you ought to assist him with the total removal of the page as he initially requested and contact him here: http://2004-2040.com/30_we.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turekka (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what suspicions you think I have. I was trying to clear up the inconsistencies between what you said in your initial post here and the article history. You said you wrote the article about him and the history said that it was created by someone else. I asked if you created it? You answered that question. Was never suspicious about anything just confused. - GBfan15:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I figured that they probably would be unrelated, but when I came across this edit filter, titled "CheckUser Sock block", I thought it'd be good for someone to at the very least check it out... Thanks. 172.58.40.66 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Revision Deletion
Greetings,
I came across a sports page to simply correct an edit a friend had jokingly made, but I was not able to successfully retrieve the original information. I believe the page will be reverted in the next few days or so. Therefore, I deeply apologize for the inconvenience. If you could just permanently delete the latest two edits made on 13:49 and 13:34 February 12, 2017 (revisions) on this link below, then that would be great:
Understood, but there was identifiable information not supposed to be posted in that article (like that IP address), in which, I prefer not to be made public. As I was trying to make a quick fix, and did not intend for any vandalism. Was there somebody else whom I could contact to have the IP address removed from the article?
One criteria I found:
Non-public personal information about a real individual. This could be private information about you or others
This includes a telephone number, an address or location, the name of a workplace or school, other online and offline identities, a date of birth, accidentally disclosed IP addresses, and (subject to oversighter judgment) other information of an identifying nature.Broncosfan071858 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand now. I have removed the ip address so it is no longer visible. I didn't realise you did the first edit and then created an account and did the second edit. - GBfan22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Julen Edelman
Hello; I realized the person was not attempting to be Julian Edelman, but being only one letter off (and pronounced pretty much the same) it could be confused with him and the username policy states "Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person." Should they not at least post some sort of notice indicating they are not Julian Edelman? 331dot (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea. Not doing it or discussing it is not a reason to block them. The name is not a blatant violation of the username policy. At the top of WP:UAA are the instructions for the page. #1 says "This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked." The instructions, WP:UAAI, say "Real names are not violations. Unless a user is using someone's real name in a misleading way, there is no violation. Real names do not fall under the promotional criterion." In this case we have no reason to believe the name is not their real name as they are not using it in a misleading way. There is nothing to do at WP:UAA with this name at this point. If they start editing Julian Edelman then there may be a case. - GBfan15:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your explanation. I have observed in the past usernames blocked for being too similar to that of a notable person, even if they weren't impersonating them per se (I can't prove it) but perhaps occasions where I have seen that were done in error. Again, thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. This is my first new page creation (previously I only edited existed pages) so I need to figure out how to do citations better. Meanwhile I'd prefer if page be left offline (unpublished). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliguspedia (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the redirect page "Weixinism". Rightly so: "Weixin Shengjiao" did not exist, as it was a draft waiting review. Now "Weixin Shengjiao" has been moved online by an editor. I am recreating the "Weixinism" redirect page. Thank you
AidayoungAidayoung (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no way of reconciling the page that had references and citations to plausible media and credible sources. This seems to be a form of bullying as there's no justification or explanation. Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizulux (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The only page I deleted that you have edited is User:Vizulux. The entire content of the page was
Sorry, for some reason I was looking at an old diff and not the current version and hadn't realized it was already closed. --Tavix(talk)15:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You deleted my article of 'WorldLink Forums' without explanation. I'd like to ask WHY you deleted it because I went back and added some useful information about why it should be considered important. I would like a valid explanation of why you did it, please.
Also you didn't give me enough time to edit it and you could at least have allowed me to keep the information I put in it because I spent a while typing it!!!
Thanks and I really hope I get a response,
--Csprime (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I deleted it for two different reasons. First, it had no claim to significance and second it read like you were advertising the website. This looked like what someone would write on their own website, not an encyclopedia article. I see that you added that you feel it should be considered important because it is owned and managed by children. That is not a claim to significance. - GBfan17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Why are you keeping spammy articles?
Hi I noticed you are reverting my edits and keeping spammy content. Just the fact that someone worked for a notable company, doesn't make them notable.
References to the publications has been also deleted and not available anymore, which clearly indicates that references has been published only to get someone into the Wikipedia. What are the reasons you are protecting these articles?? Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed two speedy deletion tags you placed. Emily Chang (web designer), this was kept at a previous AFD. That means the only avenue to have it deleted is another AFD. I also removed a speedy tag from Nelson Balaban. This was nominated for speedy deletion as spam before and another admin declined the speedy deletion. Again, if you think it should be deleted, take it to AFD. - GBfan21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Lenovo Research
Just seen that this page which I'd speedied was recreated and redeleted. Apologies since I didn't see what happened, but was this by the same editor, Arcticview, or a different one? Arcticview has a warning from me on their page not to edit further without posting a COI disclosure, so they could be sockpuppeting from a different account if it's a new account. 14:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Could I take a look at whatever you'd nuked on HB? I think he might be workable into an article, if it's the same fellow. Anmccaff (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is the entire content of what I deleted.
Harry Brushett was captain of the Foundation Franklin from 1941 to 1947. He is referred to as "The Man From Burin" in Farley Mowat's The Grey Seas Under, which documents the exploits of the ship and its colorful masters.
Hello GB-Fan, I created the article "Geshe Tenzin Dhargye". Now I have to delete it because it causes a lot problems for GTD, which I never intended. You have refused my Speedy deletion request, now I added this Proposed Deletion Tag. What can I do to speed up this process? Is there anything you can tell me to help me? Thank you so much! Lucia --Luzilla Knapp (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone asking about deleted article
Hello. At the Help Desk, someone asked about an article on Diane Larsen-Freeman that you deleted on Dec. 13, 2016. That's all I know, but maybe you can respond there and explain what happened. Regards, DonFB (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring
I'm not going to template you but you're edit warring and FWIW just because you're an admin it doesn't mean you're exempt from WP:AN3 - All April Fools AFDs have stayed on all 1st April AFD logs for quite a few years so I don't see why this year needs to be any different however if you want them gone then seek consensus on the talkpage,
As you know edit warring will only go one way,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk19:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Davey2010, I initially reverted your post but I feel I need to respond to part of it. I know I reverted 3 times, no more. I would not have reverted you even if you hadn't left the message here. My problem with this is two fold. First, no where did I mention I was an admin. Did not allude to the fact that I was an admin. This had nothing to do with the fact that I am an admin. So there was no reason for you to even mention that. If another admin felt that three fully explained reverts was worthy of a block, I would have accepted it without question. I know the rules and would not try to use being an admin to shield me from anything. Second, it takes two to edit war and you only warn the side that you agree with. Looks kind of hypocritical. ~ GB fan19:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I apologise for Assuming Bad Faith but because of the reverts and the fact you hadn't discussed it I made the assumption you seemed to think you were exempt from it but I was wrong and I apologise for that,
I agree you did make explained edit summaries but so did the other user,
I agree it may seem hypocritical however in my eyes it was stupid to warn him when I myself have reverted you, Nevermind I've warned the user[11],
In short I would ask you go to the talkpage (Talk:AFD) and get consensus instead of us all reverting,
i am not calm, you got me riled up. i won't be discussing anything, it isn't worth my time or effort. The page will stay as is. i just won't try to pull up that huge page that takes forever because of all that unnecessary transcluded text. the initial reason i even looked at it was because KAP03 was relisting new AFDs from the page because they thought the page was to big. Their solution was to push AFDs out to 8 days all on their own accord rather than remove the stuff that was causing the problem. ~ GB fan20:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Davey2010, just so we are clear, I was completely calm right up to the point that you basically said I would try to abuse my admin powers. ~ GB fan21:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that earlier and I don't entirely agree with it however I didn't see much point kicking up a fuss over it, mountain out of a molehill & all that,
Atis Constant page has been deleted several times, it has been created by other people that may not know if they have to respect the Wikipedia rules and how to create an article please help getting the page back GB fan.--Itilite (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
You should talk to the admin that closed the AfD, MelanieN. She might give you the article text as a draft so that you can work on it. ~ GB fan20:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
sheesh
the tag at the front of 'Perth Link precinct' is a misnomer - the CFD is actually about 'Perth City Link precinct' - the first was created accidentally (which why I had tried to make it CSD), the second was intentional - but in the end, considering the mucking around I couldnt give a damn - the splitting hairs over whether a category means one thing or another is equivalent to wandering through talk pages with endless go around conversations - and some seem to enjoy that, I do not. JarrahTree12:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
JarrahTree, I deleted the talk page because you created the talk page, was the only contributor to that talk page and marked it for deletion. If you meant something else, I apologize. I do not work in categories much and do not understand all the nuances of the categorization schemes or CFDs. I will try to help, but I still do not understand what you would like to happen. ~ GB fan13:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
My apologies - not yours in any way required. I had created a wrong titled cat, then created what I thought was closer - another user put the modified correct version up for CSD - as they thought it was adequately covered by a cat which didnt have the word precinct in it - and in the end I dont care - this stuff drags out and is such a time waster. You are very wise, avoiding cat business is wise. I dont bother now if the revised cat is deleted - the ambiguity of categories meanings is frought with many CSD arguments and rearrangements well worth avoiding. As to your help - you have read my explanations, I think all it is waiting for the CFD to play out - and your help in the end is perhaps not needed. But, If anyone else chooses to conflate the Perth Link precinct with Perth City Link precinct as the single item - that is beyond me - the first one I had tried to get CSD, but the CFD tag was put on it (probably mistakenly) - I suppose it would help if you chose to read the CSD at Perth Link precinct as not what the tag says, and delete it - at least that is then out of the way... If you have followed what I have tried to explain - otherwise please dont bother about it any further. thanks JarrahTree13:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is only done on articles that meet one of the criterion listed at WP:CSD. The article already existing is not one of those criterion. ~ GB fan17:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
You are right the same goes, not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Read WP:CSD and start using valid speedy deletion criterion. ~ GB fan17:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Anita Rios prod
Hi there GB fan, would you restore Anita Rios so I can contest the prod? I only became aware of it when you deleted it. Thank you!--TM14:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello GB fan,
Reading around you seem to be someone with some authority and knowledge of the Wikipedia phenomenon. I am new to the business and I have a question.
I am, or I just made, a Wikipedia lemma about a Dutch musician/composer Laurens van Rooyen.
To my surprise somebody (Fortuna imperatrix mundi) added a reference to some publication which has Nothing to do with the subject of the lemma!
I then removed it but then later a certain Bonadea informed that my correction was reverted.
What is happening?
And can one do something about it?
MountainR, there is a way to do this and that is what you did here, talk to the people in involved. Also leave edit summaries to explain why you are doing something. In this case if you had left an edit summary when you removed the reference to the effect that the reference does not verify any information in the article, your edit would probably not be reverted. At this point you shuld go to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and explain why you don't think the reference belongs and find out why they think it belonged in the article. If the two of you can agree, it is solved. ~ GB fan16:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the note GB fan. @MountainR: This is a minor misunderstanding, only because, as you say, you are 'new to the business' here :) on wikipedia, the most important thing about the subject of an article is how verifiable it is (by the way, if ever you see a blue link like that <--- one, click on it- it will take you to a page with some useful information!). And the way we verify articles is by how it is referenced. Now; when you created the article, it could have been deleted eight minutes after you created it, and it consisted of less than fifteen words of prose. My adding the reference was a helpful (I hope!) act; it was from a reliable source (something else we tend to insist on, I'm afraid), and the role it played was verifying the most simple fact- that this individual exists. Now- you are not, in fact, out of the wooods yet, as the references you have added- with one possible exception- are not to the aforementioned 'reliable sources'- specifically, YouTube and IMDB. These are not generally deemed reliable, as they have no or little editorail oversight. So you have some work to do I'm afraid :) but I hope this information, and pointers have helped. Cheers, — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.16:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much MountainR- do you mind if I ask a personal question- but are you personally Dutch, too? I ask because I think and 'easy' (ready-made!) way of sorting out the question of references would be to use this Googlenews search- there are loads of (reliable-looking) news reports about him, in Dutch. Can you use them? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.17:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, GBf, I forgot we were on your talk, rather than article talk- hence the ping. @MountainR:, I know it's not a great source- but the important thing is to provide more sources, not get rid of tyhe ones you have! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.16:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mario Bango
What I am referring to is that the article is of Ivan Artaza, who among other opportunities has said he is familiar with it, therefore it is considered as insignificant and self-promotion (so it is from the same family).
Also what i said in the eswiki, is that he has created several accounts to create such characters violating WP:SOCK, so that he was expulsed there; As he did not achieve his goal, came to do it here, doing the same thing, so he also won the block.
Hello, GB fan. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I tagged this for speedy deletion as it is clearly a copy and paste job from another article. This article was speedily deleted by DGG earlier today and this version is no improvement. There is no evidence that this is a University or any sort of college. It may be a hoax or a degree mill. The presumption of notability only relates to institutions that can make a reasonable claim to exist. VelellaVelella Talk 12:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The article does appear it was copied and pasted from a previous article and DGG did delete the article as a G11. None of that has anything to do with the fact that you tagged this as A7. A7 specifically excludes educational institutions from its applicable subject areas. This is an educational institution so A7 does not apply and that is what I declined. If you believe it is a hoax then you should have tagged it as G3 If you believe it is a degree mill, then take it to PROD or AFD. If you think it is advertising the university then tag it as G11. Don't complain that I declined an A7 speedy deletion nomination on an article about an educational institution. ~ GB fan12:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
personally, I think this university is real and that a page could be written. But if this is doubted, the way to deal with it is AfD--speedy as a hoax is only for undoubted hoaxes thatare obviously hoaxes on the face of it without the need to investigate. A7 of course does not apply in any case to anything that calls itself a university. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series"/"Power Pro Kun Pocket series" redirect
Hi there, I seen that you decline the delete of these redirects. I completely understand the purpose of a redirect, it's another phrase used to link to an article. My problem is though, not only has all the links to these redirects been eliminated, but it is impossible to type Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū with a standard QWERTY keyboard, thus making that redirect page void. Plus, both phrases have inserted the word title incorrectly. I genuinely believe the best course of action is to delete said redirects as they waste article space on Wikipedia, and are formatted incorrectly to begin with. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I see you are talking about the redirects, Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series and Power Pro Kun Pocket series. It always helps to actually link what you are discussing. You moved two articles to different titles and are now trying to get the left over redirects deleted. I declined both your attempts so far, first a speedy deletion request with a reason that is not one of the approved criteria. The second with WP:PROD, but that process says it can not be used on redirects. At this point if you believe the redirects should be deleted you will need to nominate them using the process described at WP:RFD. Before doing that you need to read a couple of sections of the policy, WP:RFD#DELETE and WP:RFD#KEEP. As you read through them you will see that in most cases redirects, such as these, are kept. They are redirects from moves of articles that have been around a long time. It is possible that both redirects have incoming links from external websites that if these are deleted those would be broken. There is nothing harmful about these redirects. Also as for saving space, deleting pages actually increases the amount of server space required as nothing is really deleted, just hidden from most editor's view. So while you might consider them a waste of space, they are not actually wasting any space. More space has actually been wasted by the nominations, declines and this discussion. Based on my experience here I can predict with almost 100% certainty that the outcome of the discussion will be that they are kept. A nomination will be a further waste of time and server space. ~ GB fan11:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Really? well talk about a revelation for me. I was under the assumption that, if something was to be deleted on Wikipedia, it would be permanently removed. Though I am not denying your outcome at all, I'll give it a go regardless and see what the general consensus is. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
EJIDA Studios deletion
I think EJIDA Studios should be undeleted because it is a great short film company that has been noted in a few independent sources, so that is why I don't think this page should have been deleted.Superpilot123456 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want to discuss this, take it to the article talk page. I have explained why I do not see it as a timeline. ~ GB fan14:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi GBfan, Could you explain why you think the timeline is not a timeline? No one else has complained in the past 2 years, so that is why I am writing to you personally. As I explained, the timeline starts with teenage, passes through middle age and ends in atherosclerosis and death. It is not clear to me why you think it is not a timeline. And if it is not clear, I would be grateful if you could make suggestions how we can make it clearer.
Is it for example necessary to revert the changes that Zedshort carried out on March 23, formatting the timeline into a simplistic list of medical conditions? I would be grateful for your advice. And then we can take it to the Talk page for everyone to agree on. 86.158.154.52 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why you think that section is a timeline? It does not look like it is a timeline to me. ~ GB fan13:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I can explain. I think it is a timeline because I researched and listed medical conditions according to their onset at more than 50 percent frequency in a given age cohort. This is explained in the sentence preceding the timeline. Now it is your turn - why do you think it is not a timeline, and how can we make it clearer (for example by reverting Zedshort's changes of March 23rd?). 86.158.154.52 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
To give you a worked example: if you reach teenage, then the chances that you have lost hgh-frequency hearing above 20kHz is greater than 50 percent. If you are a man then the chances that you have 50 percent grey hairs at 50 years is 50 percent. If you reach the age of 80 the chances that you have eye cataracts (or have had corrective surgery for eye cataracts) are greater than 50-50. So these are all things which will probably happen to you as you reach these ages along the timeline of your life. As a counter-example, the chances of you ending up in a wheelchair at age 80 are surprisingly only 25 percent. 86.158.154.52 (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
A timeline is a sequential order of events. There can never be that for ageing. A person might have some, all or none of the effects listed there. No one can say something happens at a specific age because it doesn't. There are effects that a percentage of people show at different ages but those are statistical not a set timeline. ~ GB fan14:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That is why it is a timeline of cohorts, not of individuals. As illustrated by my worked example, you can however use the cohort statistics to find at which particular point in your personal timeline you will probably (with greater than 50-50 risk) experience a particular ageing effect.86.158.154.52 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been accused of being a "frantic, furious ball of anger" that "can't get through a day without violating WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, or any of the other policies and guidelines that you (I) constantly violate." This is "because you'll (I'll) never actually get blocked like you (I) badly deserve." I tried to engage to get more info about how I am doing these things. CityOfSilver does not want to engage at all with me, so I can not get any more info from him.
I would like other editors to look at my history and see if they can point out all these short comings. I am not perfect, no one is. I recently got into a little edit war about the joke AfDs, but I do not know how I violate any policies or guidelines on a daily basis. ~ GB fan23:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Btw it's my first time editing and I'm welcomed by blocking
I do have my resources you can look it up in google I can't put the link here it gets deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamis chelbi (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I made a mistake, I apologize. If you have a reliable source add it. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 13:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Our page TravelTriangle, got deleted.
I am looking forward to make another page.
Can you pls guide me
Thank You
I only deleted it because it was created without any content. It was later deleted after an AFD. You could create a draft article, Draft:TravelTriangle, and then ask for it to be reviewed. You should not just create it in the article space. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 14:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is the Manual of Style that relates to flagicons, MOS:FLAG. It says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." It does go on to say "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." The location is not really pertinent and the words are enough to understand what country we are talking about. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 17:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Help
Hi, you should know that I have in the past nominated some draft articles for speedy nomination, but you reverted them since they were all the wrong type of deletion. You put a link on my talk page a couple of times on where to go and put the right type of deletion on. I've looked at them a couple of times but I have failed to find the one I'm looking for. I am looking for a deletion for a "draft" article, specifically the one that has a blank submission or has a couple of words. Can you tell me the template to use for these? Thanks 👊🏻 Plum3600 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Plum3600, The best thing to do is to leave them alone and not worry about them. They hurt nothing, take up no additional space and hurt nothing. If you think you need to do something about them then: wait for the Draft to be unedited for at least 6 months and then nominate it using {{Db-g13}}. Please read the instructions on how to use it. There is an additional parameter that needs to be on the template. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 18:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: FWIW - seems I created the "Genius (2017 film)" article very recently - on April 17, 2017 - after searching for a similar article - but, at the time, not finding one - seems there was a similar article after all - at => "Genius (U.S. TV series)" - my own "Genius (2017 film)" article is a much more complete article that is better referenced and more updated than the older "Genius (U.S. TV series)" article (nearly a stub in comparison at the moment?) - how exactly should this be resolved - should there be a merge of content - a sd template applied to one or the other - or some other procedure - I'm flexible with this, just not clear how best to proceed at the moment - an exact suggested procedure would be welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Drbogdan:, If we were to speedy delete one of the articles the one eligible is Genius (2017 film) as WP:A10. That said. we shouldn't speedy delete it because it has more content it is probably best to keep it. The question though is what the title should be, (2017 film) does not look like the best disambiguation as it really isn't a film but a TV series, so (U.S. TV series) is probably a better disambiguator. If we leave it at (2017 film) then the easiest is to redirect (U.S. TV series) to (2017 film). If (U.S. TV series) is the better title then you can copy the text from (2017 film) to (U.S. TV series) and then redirect (2017 film) to (U.S. TV series). ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 17:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Drbogdan:, I have no problem either way. When you leave a message on someone's talk page you don't need to leave the reply template. They get a notification just from the act of leaving the message. The only time it makes sense to leave the reply template is when you are replying to someone on a page that is not their talk page. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Done - Thank you *very much* for your help with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - all should now be ok - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
She sure is. But no, that is in reference to this—and since I've taken the time to respond then—let me advise you against having that reminder of said confrontation as part of your sig, GB. Also, why now? I think both of you need to just give each other a wide berth. Thanks. El_C16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm doing everything I can to go through with WP:RFD but you keep reverting my edits. Give me a step by step guide on how to do it properly so you don't revert my edits Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Iftekharahmed96, I am going to try again to let you know, they won't be deleted. You are wasting your and others time. You can see why we delete redirects at WP:RFD#DELETE. None of the 10 reasons there apply to these redirects.
At WP:RFD#KEEP you can read through the 7 reasons redirects are kept. Reason 4 applies to these redirects. You claim there are no external links that point to these titles but there is no way for you to know that with certainty. The articles existed for years at the old titles before you moved them. You have no idea if anyone linked to the articles under the old titles. You also claim there are no internal links but Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series links to quite a few pages.
I can also argue that number 5 applies. Obviously from the time they were made until you decided to move them all the editors who edited the article did not have a problem with the title, so they must have found them useful.
If you are still set on nominating them for deletion the directions are at WP:RFD. All you need to do is scroll down the section titled "How to list a redirect for discussion". Or you can click this link and it will take you to the three steps you need to do to list these for deletion again. If you do nominate them, I will !vote 'Keep for the reasons I outlined here. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 11:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
p.s. I will undo your edits yet again as what you did again is wrong. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 11:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Boy, I ain't giving up on this. All the pages that are linked to Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series have been removed because they're completely unrelated. I'm bringing in someone else to help support my case cause clearly you have a ridiculous bias on keeping these pointless redirects. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, looks like you win, I've pulled everything I can. You played fair and square. Sorry if this dragged on longer than it needed to. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Iftekharahmed96, I didn't win anything. I predicted the outcome if it was nominated for deletion and it looks like that will be the outcome. This isn't a competition. If it had been delete I wouldn't have lost, just my prediction would have been wrong. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 17:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant it as a figure of speech, not in the literal sense. Anyway, no hard feelings. I'll definitely take your word next time you disagree with me with an edit. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I said that you tagged it for speedy deletion as WP:G1. That has a specific definition of nonsense and that page does not meet that definition. G1 also says that pages within the userspace are not eligible for deletion under G1. I didn't look at their contributions but if they haven't done anything else a WP:U5 might apply. Or there is always WP:MFD. ~ GB fan20:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not agree with your decision to close the section on ANI, as it is partly related to User: Calvin999's behavior and edit warring towards anyone that makes opposing contributions to articles he's involved in.
You did not attempt to resolve anything, other than simply shut things down. I did not make my submission at ANI over a content dispute, but moreover to have a neutral party resolve the matter without an edit war. I do not see that you resolved the matter at all.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The whole discussion was about a specific incident. You provided nothing outside of that to show it was a more widespread issue. ~ GB fan21:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Did you ask for more evidence in that respect, to prove that? I do not believe you did nor anyone else? Do you suggest I start a new topic on such a matter, so as to ensure this will never be a problem again.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Not my job to figure out what the problem is. It is your job to make sure people understand what your concerns are. In this case based on what you wrote your concerns were your content dispute. ~ GB fan23:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I do believe it is very much your job to resolve that altogether, in which case I will address this matter to another admin. It is very clear, that you do not feel responsible for mediating matters of this nature via rendering final decisions that properly close such discussions as opposed to . Another admin has thankfully attempted to resolve this at least without insufficiently masked bias. That concludes our discussion then, since you refuse to address the issue with WP:OWN and are acting as of it was never brought up by me, for mysterious reasons that I do not know.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I would have tried to resolve something that was presented as a wide ranging conduct issue. This was presented by you as a isolated content issue. I have gone back and read everything again and still do not see that you gave any indication that there was anything more going on other than that the two of you could not agree on the content in the article. The last sentence of your initial request was for mediation to keep it from getting into an edit war. That is not the purpose of ANI. That is the purpose of dispute resolution. I haven't refused to address your claim of ownership, I haven't addressed as two reverts years apart do not show someone has ownership issues. ~ GB fan00:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
GBfan, thanks for closing the thread on ANI, I also knew it was not the correct or appropriate forum. However, I have since been threatened by Carmaker not to edit the article in question, and I just received a final warning from him on my user talk, without any other prior warnings, for replying to him on the thread. Again, not correct or appropriate. It's becoming tiresome now, and it could have all been avoided if Carmaker had spoken to me first instead of reverting and changing info without a reliable source. Alas, an RS has now been found, though why it was not presented in the first place, I do not know. I'm sorry this has spilled onto your user talk, I won't reply here again unless you address me directly, as it's not the right place. — Calvin99921:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete
Sorry if this isn't the best way to do this -- it's the first time I've requested a revision deletion. The dif is here[12] and it's the edit summary that I think easily meets the standard of Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Please do let me know if there's a better way to report these if I see them in the future and thanks for looking at it!
It isn't always the quickest way as an admin might not see it right away. You don't want to bring things like this up on heavily watched pages like noticeboards. One alternative is to email oversight. No one there will ever complain that it isn't oversight material. That email address is oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org I have removed the summary. ~ GB fan17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I began with that, but worried that it might not real Oversight-levels of attention. I'll do so in the future, though. Mizike (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Oversight
Hi -- I saw your name on the WP:Oversight page. I emailed to oversight earlier today but did not hear back. I am wondering if you are able to check and / or move this forward. Thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
You said - "an hour ago, you did revert my decline on Head IV. I did notice it and reverted you again within 2 minutes". You are exactly wrong. Read up before you give silly factless opinion like this. I removed red links from the nav box, sadly, which is your achievement. You then took to aruging the toss with me over several hostile edits on my talk page, doubling down on your error. What are you thinking. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Ceoil, After my last message on your talk page, I removed it from my watchlist as that conversation was going no where. I have now gone back and looked at your latest post there. Who is making a big deal out of this? You did revert the decline of the speedy delete of Head IV at 11:39, 7 May 2017. I reverted your revert 2 minutes later at 11:41, 7 May 2017. You did remove links from Template:Francis Bacon (artist) at 11:40, 7 May 2017, 1 minute after your revert at Head IV. The links you removed were not red as they had redirects associated with them. Please do not come back here and post about this subject again as I am done with it. ~ GB fan17:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it was tagged for speedy deletion and I saw you had tagged it so I deleted it. Didn't look close enough at the time and date stamps. ~ GB fan
Revdel request
Hi there, I picked you at random from the revdel-willing cat. Requesting a precautionary RD3 of the edit summary on Special:Diff/780014457. It might just be spam in the summary, but the content change to "hacked367" makes me question the safety of the URL. I don't have specific info to confirm it's a malicious site. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The IP is blocked. I am done at this time, I don't seem to be getting through so maybe someone else can. ~ GB fan19:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
GB fan Oh I know it's blocked - I reported it. I just meant that I was dropping it here since they apparently are on track to appeal their block but seem to be IP socking in the mean time. :P CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯20:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arbiteroftruth
Categories G3, G5, and G10 are applicable in this case. The category was automatically created by banned user ColourWolf (G5) in an effort to disparage me (under my former username, which makes it eligible for G10), and there is no evidence to back that the IPs belong to me whatsoever (the IPs are all Singapore-based, and I have never set foot on that country. G5 fulfilled). KiteinthewindLeave a message!23:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The categories contained a number of Singapore-based IPs that were tagged as my suspected sockpuppets (again, under my former username). Earlier today, I had to remove the vandalism that, unfortunately, went undetected for years. I have never operated any sockpuppets, and these are also Singaporean IPs, yet I'm an American. The mere existence of this category qualifies as an attack page, and it is also a hoax. KiteinthewindLeave a message!00:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Speedily deleted page
Hello,
I didn't write this article, but I noticed that you deleted the article Arya Permana as A7 (Meatsgains tagged it originally). I was actually going to remove that tag on grounds that it at least deserves a deletion discussion; it has a claim of significance as "the heaviest child". I wasn't sure if this was credible, so I searched online: I found multiple sources, such as this BBC news source and this Telegraph source, which support the claims made in the article. Because of this coverage, I don't think the article falls under A7, nor do I believe it's an obvious delete at AfD. For these reasons, I think it'd be good to restore the article and allow some time for improvement. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. The page certainly does deserve to keep after the improvements and additional of reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
motivation speedy dalete
Hello, changes on the carnival page are continually erased. My contribution is independent and disinterested, I know the subject closely and the original page only serves to advertise a mafia event. On wikipedia the truth is not the propaganda of the people salaried by the organizers of the festival, who are also ignorant in the matter.
Bringing the truth back is not vandalism!--Dufresne tim (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
What you know is not acceptable. You need to support what you add with reliable sources. If reliable sources do not discuss what you know, it does not belong. ~ GB fan18:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of John Burroughs Middle School article
Hello. I was told that you deleted the longstanding article on John Burroughs Middle School. As stated in the article, Los Angeles' John Burroughs Middle School has been featured in many movies, including Pretty in Pink, Waiting for Guffman, Teen Wolf, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Never Been Kissed, Pleantville, Bad Teacher and Teaching Miss Tingle.
Its alumni include Dustin Hoffman, Tyra Banks, Phil Spector, Harry Shearer and Slash from Guns N' Roses.
It's been around for 93 years.
But you wouldn't know that because the school's Wikipedia has vanished.
So, why is John Burroughs Middle School suddenly undeserving of a Wikipedia page?
The original Wikipedia page had been around for many years.
At first, I assumed that it was a new Wikipedia policy that middle schools pages should be deleted. But Virgil Middle School, located 3 miles away, still has its Wikipedia page intact.
WeNo1, I don't know who told you that I deleted John Burroughs Middle School (Los Angeles) but I did not delete it. In fact it has never been deleted. I did redirect the article to the list of schools in Los Angeles. Any one can undo that redirect as the whole history is available if they feel the school is independently notable. I did not think there was enough there to say the school was notable. ~ GB fan20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
GB fan, What I mean by "deletion" is that the article is no longer available on the web -- unless you go to Web archives -- thus it's been deleted. Redirection is another way of saying "deleted." The page is no longer accessible to regular web users.
I think I've made the case that the school is notable. It has been used as a school representing a "high school" is several iconic films. In fact, I've made the case that the school is more notable than nearby Virgil Middle School, and nobody has opted to redirect that school's Wikipedia page.
Let me ask you this: Are regular users searching for info on John Burroughs Middle School better served clicking on a link that will lead to information about that school, or to a general listing of all Los Angeles Unified School District schools?
According to the "WikiProject Schools," "This project aims to improve the quality of school-related articles. Articles within the scope this project should become far more substantial than stubs, and ultimately match the quality of featured articles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools#Project_goals
I think that Wikipedia page fit that description -- having more information is better than having less.
Finally, that Wikipedia page had been around for more than a decade. I think that, in and of itself, is an argument for its relevance.
So can I ask you to please restore the John Burroughs Middle School Wikipedia page?
Edit: Sorry: I accidentally deleted your original comment. I'm new to Wikipedia
I still do not believe the school is independently notable. Having notable people attend the school does not make it notable. Being used as a setting in notable films does junior make it notable. Another a similar school not being redirected does not make it notable. Having a fan page does not make it notable. How long the article existed prior to being redirected does not make it notable. The only thing that makes a subject notable is independent reliable source significant coverage. There wasn't any when I redirected it and none has been presented. If it is available, present it so it can be evaluated. If you feel it is notable then restore it and then we can have a deletion discussion about it. I will not restore it. ~ GB fan20:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for you. If the site is notable write an article, then add it to the list. An external link to a site does not belong. ~ GB fan10:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe this should be suppressed. I haven't posted anything on the talk page of the user who made the edit. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
You have tagged it with a valid speedy deletion criterion. You were hasty in your tagging though as the article was only 3 minutes old when you tagged it. Also it has only been tagged for about 7 minutes. Give the editor some time to work on the article. Nothing may come of it, but something may. ~ GB fan12:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand. Please delete my talk page.
I don't understand. Please delete my talk page. "Individual revisions, log entries, and other user space material may be deleted or redacted for privacy reasons, or because of harassment, threats, gross offensiveness and other serious violations." This is my situation. Private/identifying information is still visible in my history. I do not agree to the terms of service; I never did. I want out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs787sads (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs787sads, if you can identify the diffs that contain private/identifying information and email them to the oversight team. They can be removed from the history. From WP:Oversight
If you are a user who has a request for suppression, please note that details should not be posted in public. Use this form, email oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org or see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for other ways to request suppression.
Thank you for the clarification you provided about the use of my userpage. Do you know if there's a way I can promptly resolve the AfD debate underway? Kinda disheartening to have that looming over my head... PvOberstein (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I would consider that a claim to significance, in neither case would I say they are notable unless they are written about by reliable sources. At this point what is in the article is not enough to say he is notable. Without doing some digging (which I am not going to do) I can't say anything about notability. ~ GB fan19:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Reliance Group Page
Hello,
I have redirected cto Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group
Redirection to a subsidiary page-- Reliance Industries did not make sense. Why have a redirect that creates duplicity of pages. There is already has a well-established page.
Anrdshr, Without spending time researching the inter-relationships between these companies I do not have enough information to make any informed opinion on if the redirect was or is now a good redirect. My decline of the speedy delete had absolutely nothing to do with the redirect or where it was pointed. It had to do with the available speedy deletion criteria. The criteria do not allow me to delete it as implausible redirects can only be deleted if they are recently created and since this one was created in 2010 that is not recent. As far as it being empty, a redirect is never empty unless the article it points to is empty. In this case the article it pointed to was not empty. There are a few options that I can think of, there may be others. One is do nothing and let the redirect point where it was pointing. Another is to find a better target (you have changed the target). Another is to nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD. You could also make the redirect into an article if that is what you think is best. I am not going to take part in any of this unless it is renominated for speedy deletion, then I will decline the speedy deletion. ~ GB fan13:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You really shouldn't have done this. It not only justified the disruptive editor's POV pushing, it introduced wildly inaccurate information to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. (It was also ungrammatical.) I easily found the Census Bureau figures and added them. As you can see, the POV pusher's stats were not even in the ballpark. 32.218.32.137 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Sugarloaf's numbers are in the ballpark. You found that the median household income in 2015 was $61476. In 2010 the article says there were 25828 households. That gives a total income of $1587802128. The 2010 population was 63575. That makes a per capita income of $24975. This is using 2015 income and 2010 population so it is bound to be off some. Sugarloaf was saying the per capita income was $26694. Fairly close for using numbers five years apart. The edits don't qualify as vandalism. So it is not 3RR exempt. ~ GB fan20:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It could be original research if I was advocating adding it to the article, I wasn't. You claimed that sugarloaf's numbers weren't even in the ballpark with the numbers you found. I was just showing they were in the ballpark. I would never advocate adding the numbers I calculated to the article so I can do the calculation and president it as evidence that the numbers were similar. It is so obvious that the two accounts are the same person along with th ip that originally added the content. That does not make it sock puppetry. It is an alternate account because they are not hiding the fact or acting like it is multiple people. ~ GB fan20:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
When you refuse deleting for duplicate and filtered categories and articles is a Opposed of what you do as an administrator. If you can not delete, leave the administration aside and search for another career for you in Wikipedia. --FPP (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
FPP, yes I am really an administrator. I understand the Criteria for speedy deletion better than you do. There is one criterion that applies specifically to categories. That one says that categories, with certain exceptions, that have been empty for at least 7 days can be deleted. Since this category, Category:Al Shorta players, has been populated both times you nominated it, the criterion does not apply. If you would depopulate it and mark it {{db-c1}}, it would be deleted in 7 days. The G criteria do apply to categories but I do not see any of them that apply in this case. There is always the option of taking it to WP:CFD as I have mentioned in each of my declines of your speedy deletion nominations. The other option is to depopulate the category and redirect it to Category:Al-Shorta SC players that way if anyone tries to use it in the future they will be taken to the other category. The main point is that being a duplicated category is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. If you think it should be you can propose it at WT:CSD. ~ GB fan17:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles That Show No Signs of Notability
Hi GB fan. I have got a couple of articles which have been made by the same author and haven't got any references. Some do, but only one. Since your an administrator I thought you can delete these articles.
When the PRODs have been on the article at least 7 days, 21 or 22 Jun, an admin will delete them if they agree with the PROD rationale. I will not bypass the 7 day waiting period from tagging to deletion. ~ GB fan15:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!
My problem with cleaning up Celtic Thunder (United States) was that it wasn't a completely new article creation. I started it through WP:SPLIT so the contribution history had to be preserved. I didn't know that migrating it through draftspace would do that, so when I couldn't proceed with the cleanup in mainspace I gave up. Thanks for taking up the work! JamesMLanetc16:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I read what you wrote about the article and you never expressed that concern. If you had it would have been explained to you that everything would be preserved the same as if it was always in the article space. Moving preserves the attribution and then with the templates I added to the talk pages it tells where everything came from and went. ~ GB fan16:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I expressed my concern about preserving edit history on Kudpung's talk page after he deleted the article and on my talk page in response to his message. When he neither responded nor restored the article, I saw no alternative but to delete the hatnote I'd written. Even if, for the reason you state, a particular draft will become an article, I don't think hatnotes should point to drafts. Once you'd restored the article, of course, your restoration of the hatnote was perfectly proper to prevent confusion. (That confusion is possible is clear. Until I fixed the Terence Winch article, it linked to the article about a band he had nothing to do with.) Anyway, all's well that ends well. JamesMLanetc20:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Update Request
Good afternoon,
After extensive research we have created an updated and thorough 'History' section that we'd like to add to the 'Navy Supply Corps School' wikipedia page. Is this something you can help us with? How can we get the page to reflect the research we've done?
SC Fan, 1st problem, you use the words we and us. Who is we? Does more than one person have access to the SC Fan account?
2nd problem, You have a serious conflict of interest. As the Public Affairs Officer for the Navy Supply Corps School your job is to put everything about the school in the best possible light. That is contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. You should not edit the article, you can use the talk page to suggest changes.
Now to the content. What you added to the page had no sources. All information must be sourced to reliable sources so that it can be verified by other people. You can't just add content to an article without sources. ~ GB fan00:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sir, completely understand your concerns and I am not trying to put the schoolhouse in any type of light. I am simply trying to update the school's history to include all the locations it has been and that's really all. It would be easier to explain over a phone conversation if possible. This is the number to the schoolhouse and public information so there is no violation. The information that I want to update is referenced in two separate publications and annual command history reports, which can be accessed through the naval archives. Thank you for your help with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SC Fan (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey, re George Michael. I accepted the category because the title CBE had already been added/accepted to the page. I looked up what CBE meant and it checked out with the category so I let it in. Hopefully I wasn't seen to have done anything wrong. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peadorᐁT₳LKᐃ12:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
No you didn't do anything wrong, but what you did wasn't right either since the CBE wasn't sourced. ~ GB fan12:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Update page
Good Evening GB,
My name is LT Jason Potvin. I work at the Supply Corps school house in Newport, Rhode Island. I work with SC Fan (Ryan). I've read everything that you've written to Ryan in your back and fourth discussion and i completely understand your concerns. Sir, we are in no way trying to build up the school house or gain something from updating this page that you've taken time creating. We simply want to give a more robust history of the Navy Supply Corps School. Sir, are you a retired Supply Corps Officer or Supply Corps service member? This project means a lot to the staff of the Navy Supply Corps School because we take great pride in where we come from and what we represent in the United States Navy. We have a command historian who has devoted hundreds of man hours to lining the walls of the school house with storied history of the Navy Supply Corps School from the inception until present day. The only thing that we want to accomplish is updating the history you have listed, that is all Sir. Mr. Jim Jacobs has worked very hard in researching the history through "Ready for Sea" The Bicentennial History of the U.S. Navy Supply Corps by RADM Frank J. Allston and "Ready for Sea" The History of the U.S. Navy Supply Corps by Mr. Jeffrey L. Rodengen, as well all the Command History reports that have been recorded since the inception of the school house. In regards to your question to Ryan about "we" and "us", nobody has access to that username/account except Ryan. He speaks the words "we" and "us" because we are a team and trying to work together to make this happen. So i'm asking you, is there anyway we can make this happen? Can we talk via telephone to help communicate this process along so we can discuss concerns back and forth?
I have never been in the Navy. I did not write any of the article. I do not know where any of the information in the article came from. There are ways of updating the article. That requires published reliable sources, preferably that are independent of the school. I know the last part may not be possible. The first part is non-negotiable as we have strict policies that other editors/readers must be able to verify the information put into the article. We can not talk via telephone as I won't call you and won't give out any phone numbers of mine. This is a conversation that must happen on Talk pages of Wikipedia so that others coming behind can see what happened. ~ GB fan01:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Brady121212 and SC Fan:, both of you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. You should be proposing changes on the article talk page, Talk:Navy Supply Corps School. When you do provide the reliable sources for the information you want to change/add. ~ GB fan12:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Revert of Draft:SPRFMO
Hi - this page was requested to be deleted because there is a non draft (article) by the same name: "SPRFMO". Not sure why we need to keep the draft? Supcmd (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Supcmd, You requested speedy deletion. The speedy deletion criterion, WP:CSD, are very specific. None of the speedy deletion criterion apply to that redirect. If the criterion don't apply a page can not be speedy deleted. If you feel the redirect should be deleted you can nominate it for deletion using WP:RFD. ~ GB fan11:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I messed up doing a round robin – there is a redirect with older history at Draft:White-faced Black Spanish chicken, which I can't move to article space because the redirect suppression failed (don't know how). Could you kindly clean up – in one way or another – for me? Deleting the existing redirect would do it, I can take it from there. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, fixed it. If you run into this again, you need to give more of a reason then not suppressing the redirect. ~ GB fan12:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
A proposal...
Our protection doctrine states--- Talk pages are not usually protected, and are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism.Is there any particular reason why Talk:Raheja Developers shall not fit in this extremely limited criterion?The only edits by IPS/Non-confirmed accounts are issuing legal threats or outing users or indulging in brand-promotion.And this has been going for months!Winged Blades Godric17:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I read this, but wasn't in a position to review it and then forgot to come back. The only time the talk page was protected, Bishonen protected it for 2 days in April. I hate to protect talk pages for anything other than a short time. That won't help here as they will wait out the protection and come back. Maybe the thing to do here is protect for a couple of months and see if that deters them. Anything more than a month or two should be discussed at ANI and get a consensus to protect it further. ~ GB fan20:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello GB fan,
I'm writing to request review and resubmission of page, "Soothe". According to the editing history, you once deleted the page. I've been editing it and many changes have been made. Currently it is saved as a draft page, and ready to be published.
Please let me know your concerns,
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoasis (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Echoasis, all I had to do with Soothe was to delete a redirect to Soothe (Bjørn Lynne album). I had nothing to do with the deletion or protection of the article about the company. I would suggest you add {{Submit}} to the top and have an independent editor look at it. A quick look tells me it is not right for the mainspace yet. The list of locations served is purely advertising. ~ GB fan22:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I already did, at which point they quoted an "exception" in the outing policy. And then anti-paid editor crusader Doc James posted - well, you can see what he posted - I'm trying to be restrained (easier for you than it is for me :-) ).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you should leave a note at the user's Talk page. Otherwise, he will continue to do this as he thinks he's not violating policy. Because you're the OS, it would be better coming from you than from me.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to the OS list but I know that for quite some time now the functionaries list has discussed/criticized the changes that were made to policy, as well as the endless discussions about the policy on-wiki since this all came to the forefront. Part of the reason I hesitate to delete posts that, to me, violate privacy is because the only thing that's come out of all this for me is murk. I'd really appreciate it if after you folks discuss it, you'd tell me what conclusions were reached. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 when you refer to me, I would appreciate it if you would ping me. Some of your comments are inappropriate. Specifically it is not appropriate for you to threaten a user who is following policy.[13] None of us get the privalage of simply ignoring policies we disagree with.
Specifically, this [14], where you said I see the exception you are using but I think it completely contradicts the outing policy as it allows us to tie a Wikipedia ID to an offsite name. I don't believe that Admins (including ArbCom) are permitted to use the Tools against written policy, especially with full knowledge that they are doing so. This is true regardless of what the Oversighters tell you. I know and understand that the new provision was somewhat controversial, but it appears to have consensus behind it. Because this is not a question of different interpretations of policy, but rather a willful and knowing effort to vetoing written policy with the Admin powers, I request that you selfrevert. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It is under discussion by those who have the ability to see the content. If two policies contradict which one rules? There is policy that says OS can remove outing and there is policy that says editors can out. After the discussion I will post a summary that does not include any privacy information. It may or may not include restoring the content. ~ GB fan00:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is coming out that the content should not be suppresses, so I have unsuppresses it. All editors can now see the content again. ~ GB fan07:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you have a look here Phase_(band), there's a user malignantly adding removal tags , something you've stop me from doing in the past... Gone through the history and talk page and it was agreed the article is legitimate. Cheers MusicPatrol (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the intevention! He hadn't even notified the Page's author. I can leave them a message if needed... On his contributions list I've noticed more pages might have been vandalized... All the best! MusicPatrol (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
You can let the creator know if you want, but not really needed since it will not even be deleted that way. I did remove some other PRODS but didn't really look at their contributions besides that. If you think they are vandalising articles, you can revert their changes. ~ GB fan20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
You nominated it for speedy deletion using the rationale "No written article or report on this subject". If you read the speedy deletion policy, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, you will see there are specific criteria. The criteria listed in the policy are the only reasons anything should be speedy deleted. Your reason for deleting the redirect is not one of the listed criteria. The redirect does not meet any of the criteria in the policy. If you feel the redirect should be deleted you will need to nominate it for deletion using WP:RFD. ~ GB fan15:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi GB fan, I was just going to create the article, I have the create page in front of me, and you removed not only the red link from Joker but the whole entry! Fine, if a red link can't wait till I start the article, at least just remove the brackets. The entry is notable BTW. Thank you. HoverfishTalk13:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You have it backwards. DAB pages are pages designed to find articles that have ambiguous names. All entries must link to an existing article that discusses the entry. If an entry just has a red link it is removed or if there is no link at all. You should write the article first and then add it to the DAB page. ~ GB fan14:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. However, I don't understand why other entries that appear in this very dab page do not link to their specific articles, as for example, "The Joker", a 2010 song by Zona B, or Joker, Turkish pop album by Mirkelam. While Zona B and Mirkelam have articles, the specific entry in the dab list does not. Had linked to the director (The Joker a film directed by Philippe de Broca) would this entry have been acceptable? I ask because I see this very often in dab pages and in 11 years of being a Wikipedian it never occured to me that a title that has no article can't be placed in a dab, which I see, is indeed so by WP:DDD. Where exactly is the difference? HoverfishTalk17:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
(The Joker a film directed by Philippe de Broca) would have been acceptable. It links to a current article and you can get information about the film. The blue link in the entry should at least mention the item disambiguated (which this did) but better yet discuss it (it didn't). I should have looked to see if that was a possibility before I reverted and I apologize for not taking the time to do that. Thanks for writing the article. ~ GB fan17:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi GB fan. I just wanted to let you know that I have speedily deleted the article No More Arrests per WP:CSD#G3, as it looks to me like a blatant hoax. Without any verification from anyone officially associated with this artist, it is very unlikely that the article is truthful. I wanted to drop you a note since you had changed the CSD tag on the article to a PROD tag beforehand. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I was the same person who posted the wiki content in October and it got deleted. Kindly review my content and make it live Accesstowiki (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The title mentioned was Borderless Access. Humble request to make it Live as I am trying to create the page from more than a yearAccesstowiki (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Accesstowiki, there is no deleted content in that article from October. Since this account was just created today, I can't figure out where the content is at. What account did you create the content under in October? ~ GB fan12:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @GB fan, sorry to interrupt, but this might be relevant to you? I couldn't find an October occurrence either, FWIW. (Incidentally, I've lifted some of your talk page in evidence, etc) Cheers, — fortunavelut luna12:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
That isn't a valid speedy deletion either. That talk page has non-trivial history and it didn't redirect anywhere. The article redirects but the talk page didn't. ~ GB fan10:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Amar Tushar, to start with, my user name is GB fan, not Great Britain fan, please don't do that again. If you have information that would make the article better, use that information to fix it. If you think the list page is redundant then you could try redirecting it to the Chief of Army Staff article. If you think the article should be deleted you have your choice of two processes, WP:PROD ad WP:AFD. You have choices. ~ GB fan11:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You recently reverted my addition of a CSD A9 tag as "This is about a character not a musical recording, not eligible for speedy deletion". If you would be so kind and wouldn't mind taking another look at that, I would appreciate it because I see the article as very much being about the musical recording not the character. Thank you, menaechmi (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It is a about both, but when the article starts with "Frosty the Dopeman is a character created by American songwriter," it is enough of a grey area that A9 does not apply and A7 does not apply to fictional characters. So it is not speedy deleteable. WP:PROD or WP:AFD is the deletion processes available. ~ GB fan13:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello GB Fan!, this is a Revision Deletion Request!
Hello GB Fan, i recently changed my own talk page from my full name to my name without my middle one. Sense it is a rather unique one, and i didnt want people to know my real one, simply regarding privacy. I wanted hear if you could delete the revision history of my talk page.
Thanks in Advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus2108 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
You really need to look into this edit war between Hrodvarsson and Divergence5. In particular, you need to look at their talk pages. Divergence5 has nearly nothing but warnings. He answered one, and his tone was not kind. Hrodvarsson on the other hand has almost nothing but compliments, except for two edit-warring warnings, both of them involving Divergence5, and both on the Magnus Carlsen page. Check out his history. This editor is rabid. Look at his last edit summary here. He doesn't know what a talk page is? He finally answered a June 24 message on the Magnus Carlsen talk page yesterday morning, demonstrating he knows full well what a talk page is. And then he attacked Hrodvarsson. If his "improvements" actually had the value he thinks they do, Hrodvarsson would accept them willing. Divergence5's edits verge on destructive. You really need to read D5's edit history.
Please can you undelete National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, it was deleted because of 'No substantive coverage by independent secondary sources'. I will be happy to add the following and more which are available.
@John Cummings: these don't satisfy the underlying problem, that there are no independent secondary sources about the organization. These are sources about child development that mention the organization in passing, in a primary context. I'm going to file an AfD very shortly if no secondary sources about the organization can be added. While prods are only for uncontroversial deletions, requesting an undelete without addressing the problem is, frankly, not constructive. I'll give you a couple days to try to address the problem. Geogene (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
