User talk:GB fan/Archive 11

Re: edit to User talk:47.62.16.28
Oh. I thought English Wikipedia worked just like other Wikis in Wikimedia when it came to discussion pages. Just out of curiosity, is there a page that mentions it? Thank you for your kindness. Greetings. --Wiki-1776 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Request
Hi, I found a draft that was 48 percent copyrighted (according to Earwig's detector). I cleaned up the copyright (per WP:SOFIXIT) and got it down to below 20 percent). I need you to rev delete all of the revisions which had the copyrighted material. The draft is Draft:Indian_association_of_Dermatologists,_Venereologists_and_Leprologists_(IADVL)#State_branches_of_IADVL . Thank you  JC7V  -constructive zone  14:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Deirdre Jacob
Hi, I was about to create an article on the above person, when I was notified that a page had previously existed and had been deleted by you at 22:13, 5 August 2013 under WP:A7. Her case is no longer that of a missing person and has been upgraded to a murder investigation. The Garda announcement mentions an unnamed suspect as well as results of a review of the case and unspecified new information. Would a new article on her fall under WP:A7 or would it now have WP:SIGNIFICANCE? Autarch (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can not answer that without seeing the article that is created. Since it was speedy delete, there are no obstructions to recreation.  ~ GB fan 13:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK - thanks for you reply. I'll create a new article and see how things go. Autarch (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

PP of x86
Thanks! Now we'll see where Jan. surfaces next... Jeh (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks
Thank You for advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radhashyam Gayen (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

deletion of IMPERIAL-Newton Corp
Hi, I work for IMPERIAL-Newton and a customer informed us the other day that he noticed our page had been deleted. I was surprised to confirm this, and read the reasons stated for the deletion. I was wondering why you removed the page about us, and how we get it restored? Since our founding, we have transformed the custom/specialty segment of the hand tool industry in a way no other company has done; which is likely why someone created a page about us. We solve unique need within our industry, and while we might not be known to your average consumer, we are very well known within our industry and the world's largest and prominent organizations like NASA, the NAVY, Halliburton who have special needs others cannot meet. Other companies in our industry have pages on this site, but are arguably less notable in that they produce commodity items same to a dozen other brands and are unremarkable in this regard, while we fill a unique niche producing highly special variations and have transformed a subset of an industry that is over 2000 years old. Many find our role as being highly notable, including the largest tool brands in the world who come to us when they need special lengths and sizes, and we ask that your please restore the page about us. if you need evidence of validity or other substantive justification for why our page is justified, and not an advert, please ask. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueDog111 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored the article that you created not someone else. I have also listed it at AFD where a discussion will be held to determine if an article belongs about this company.  ~ GB fan 13:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the page, and please retract the listing for deletion. No employee created the page, but i know that years back people began to mention us and noted our unique role in our industry in other wiki pages, which was very basic, and my understanding was that since we now had a page and were mentioned, it should be a proper page with accurate info. So we reached out to the user to please improve it and complete it to be more proper in appearance such as adding facts. As a courtesy we were given the login to make updates in the future, which is why I am using it still now. If that was improper I apologize, but the intent was to improve quality on existing content, and it does not diminish our notability, or worthiness to distinguish our unique role from the many others in our industry on Wikipedia who simply make the same products as all the others. I would be happy to provide supporting facts or information if needed to substantiate why what we do is notable, and why others felt it worthy to mention us in the scope of tool making history. We are notable in that we make the world's largest sockets and wrenches, including the development of a new square drive to handle loads above 150,000 ft-lbs which did not exist prior. We also have the widest size range of any tool maker in the world, surpassing over 480,000 sockets and wrenches (which is unique in itself), including sizes and shapes that no other manufacturer offers. We have manufactured special tools in support of NASA missions including the Mars program and international space station, for which the other brands could not supply. If changes need to be made to the page to remove any hint of promotion please let us know, but we are not deserving of deletion. I ask that you please remove us from the AFD deletion process please and let us know what changes need to be made if any to allow us the same listing status as Matco or other routine brands which are not being targeted for deletion. Our page certainly has merit beyond mere sales figures, and we are willing to support that fact however needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueDog111 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So if I understand correctly you did not create the article but someone else did and they gave you the password to the account. Is that correct?  If it is then this account should be blocked as it is now a compromised account.  I will not be withdrawing the nomination based on the company saying we are notable. ~ GB fan 20:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concern with this account (we make sockets we are not web programmers so it was a courtesy and it not been abused), and will cancel this account and figure out how to create a new account if necessary to rectify this. For what it is worth I agreed with some who commented on the page he made, so I went in and tried to clean it up and provide relevant support the best I know how. To your point about relevancy not being valid if self proclaimed, I fully agree with your logic but I wonder how then it can be substantiated for other companies in our industry who have pages here which they probably made unlike ours. Does being publicly traded or doing a lot of adverts in magazines make you notable? That seems contrary to the purpose of this site, which is not a popularity or familiarity contest. If you sincerely believe we are completely un-noteworthy despite others feeling it worth mentioning us and making a page, then I don't know what this is about, and I guess we will just wait for someone else to make the case for us, or we run more advertisements we can point to? As I offered previous, I will provide what you ask for. There are chat forums which discuss us that I can give you, and product photos substantiating what I said is true. We are a notable manufacturer in a niche market, and others have said so (to your point). Unless CNN or the BBC does an article on us we are unnotable? A california newspaper felt our leaving was notable, which I saw was included in the page they made on us. What does it take?

I noted that Wingify above still has a page, and they seem even less notable than us. Very confused by why we are being targeted or how we make this right. We are certainly more notable or equal to Wingify and I am fully willing to do what you ask. Please tell me what is needed to resolve this, and just allow us to have the page that was made on our behalf to remain. Do we simply need more links to online content discussing us or what is the bar we must meet if mentions and a user making a page are not it? Thank you for your time and understanding to our situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueDog111 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple, the English Wikipedia's definition of notability is that reliable sources (plural) that are independent of the subject have provided significant coverage of the subject. If multiple reliable sources have not provided significant coverage of the company we don't have an article.  What other articles are on Wikipedia have absolutely nothing to do with this article.  ~ GB fan 22:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Got it. I made a new account and will discard or cancel the old one as you can see from this post. Unfortunately I don’t have coding skills to deploy these links and footnotes on our page, but here are some reliable sources that comprise "significant coverage of the subject":

http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=314827&mid=2450060#M2450060 http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=314827&posts=9&highlight=imperial-newton&highlightmode=1#M2450393 http://www.shopfloortalk.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-34748.html http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/projects/216630-slugging-striking-wrench-square-nut-2.html http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/general/help-finding-octagon-socket-235477/ http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112590 http://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=75414 http://www.jvmv2.se/forum/index.php?mode=thread&id=24460 http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=314827&mid=2449638 http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=281854 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6562 https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-230072.html I think you will find the content of this coverage meets the standard, in that we are unusual enough to pique interest and spontaneous discussion and strong reaction, and are being talked about, because (dare I say it) we are notable to those who deal in our sphere. They are reliable sources because they are unsolicited and genuine examples of real people in the general public who know our industry and how notable it is that we do what nobody else does (much like only veterinarians or horse owners would find a new treatment notable, the rest of us don't care but it's still notable to lots of people just not everyone).

I have dozens of emails from major corporations telling us how unusual we are, and grateful they found us, but those are not public so they don't count. We are not a public traded company, and what we do isn't juicy news headlines or controversial. We are at the lower end of the "notable" spectrum, in a niche corner of a 2000 year old market; and we are not media hounds chasing publicity, so we will not be in all the newspapers; but I don’t think that is required is it? The newspaper article on us I know of, was the result of a customer who contacted a major news agency in California because they were upset at our departure. Doesn't that say something about our significance in our industry, that someone would make that effort to contact a reporter? Who cares if some un-notable company leaves town? They called a reporter (and that reporter acted on it)! Further, we are considering a submission to the Guinness Book of World Records but that is low on our priorities. We are engaged in helping with unusual needs because nobody else does, not with getting publicity and doing press releases. It was nice to see that people noticed, and made a Wiki page about us and mentioned us in relevant categories. I just didn’t want to see that recognition torn down because the average person doesn’t know we exist, and those who do - at NASA and GE and BP - aren't writing articles about it. I guess we aren't deserving until we make the news or get listed on a stock exchange or bought by some big conglomerate. I thought it was about being unique and noteworthy, or transformative on an entire industry, not just being in the press. Is it fair to ask our customers and engineers at these companies to please contribute to making another page for us? Is that allowed to ask them to share their perspective to prove it's not just us?--Wiki5711 (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Forums are not reliable sources. ~ GB fan 01:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, was hoping that sine we had one major newspaper article about us, that 12+ different people across the world commenting about our notability would hit the "multiple" reliable mark. But I guess not. The idea being that we could have faked all those links and unique member forum discussions all by ourselves? I give up. You know, if we were trying for the deceptive marketing spam thing, I would not have contacted you with the account that made the page, and would have pretended to be someone else using a new account. Instead I explained things, and was forthright. Despite all this a page someone made about us is being subjected to deletion on the basis that it was just an advert for an un-notable entity. Nice. Oh, and not sure how to disclose I work for the company - but I do. We're an honest bunch and mean no harm. Carry on as you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki5711 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Never once did I say nor do I think you or anyone at the company is deceptive. Rules have been developed over the years to determine what articles will be on Wikipedia.  I am just trying to explain those rules because as a new user you don't know them.  ~ GB fan 02:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand, and I know you are just doing a job that needs to be done given all the garbage people put up. I've seen the self aggrandizing statements companies put up about themselves that Mean as Custard took down. They treat it like it is a sales brochure, not a respected source of factual info. I agree that what that guy wrote about us was of little value, it is not what I would have wrote at all. While we appreciate the sentiment of his actions to try and recognize our contribution to the sector, it was just so many words about nothing of substance. Nothing he said concerned how we are notable. I support wiping that garbage off the site same as you, but we didn't write it, so please don't penalize us for it. We don't control what he did. That is kind of the point right? We aren't supposed to talk about ourselves. Yet the collective details of what makes us notable isn't public knowledge, so he didn't have much to work with. I cant blame him for trying. I wish someone more sophisticated had made our page with more information, but we don't get to choose. I tried to strip it down to only what matters while retaining what others said about us; adding substantive facts that point to reasons why he was compelled to make page about us. I hope I succeeded, and now others will contribute to it. We are learning, and will respect the framework of this platform.--Wiki5711 (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for hearing our thoughts, and sorry for filling your page with unnecessary text about it. We read a lot of WP policy pages and now fully understand the applicable guidelines and reasons for your nomination. There are a lot of rules and processes which govern all of this, but we understand the reason for it. Thanks for educating me on the matter and for helping maintain article quality for all who use the site. Thanks.--Wiki5711 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Articles with incomplete book citations
I saw you declined to speedy delete Category:Articles with incomplete book citations. I'm wondering if you first noticed the talk page discussion? I can propose the category for deletion, but I want to make sure you believe that is necessary first. --Bsherr (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what the page looked like when I saw it. A  tag and a tag that says don't delete it even if it is empty.  I didn't go to the talk page and read any discussion.  I declined it based on the way the page looked.  If the tags are wrong, fix them so that it doesn't say, don't delete this category.  ~ GB fan 19:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So this is a disused parent monthly maintenance category. Given that, how would you propose to edit the templates? --Bsherr (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know. ~ GB fan 20:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

deleted page I have no recollection of creating
Hello, last year you deleted StephenCooper(smite), which Xtools seems to think I created, but I am pretty sure I didn't write that article. Can you look in the history and see if this is a mistake or not? Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  13:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , looking at the history you created a final version of the article but that version only had a deletion tag and a comment. I think it was an edit conflict, I deleted it and you immediately recreated but without any content. ~ GB fan 16:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

IP 203.190.53.250
...is "My Royal Young". Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ok. You are telling me this because? And who is My Royal Young? ~ GB fan 05:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Prix Valery Larbaud winners
Hello GB fan,

I discover that nearly 2 years ago I asked (haven't the slightest souvenir of that) the masking of this category which yet contained quite a number of names. Was I high on something or maybe wasn't I satisfied with the title, I shall never know (I may thought that "Valéry Larbaux Prize winners" or "laureates" would have been more approriate on the en Wiki. Pick your choise). Could you please release this page? Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks in advance, LouisAlain (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * are you asking to have Prix Valery Larbaud winners restored? If you are there really isn't anything to restore.  You made an initial edit that added Category:French literary awards.  In the next edit (an hour later) you blanked it.  The third edit you added "page to be delated".  If you want that history restored I can do it but that is the extent of that page.  If you are talking about a different page can you please provide a link so I know what you are talking about.  ~ GB fan 10:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , Actually I was referring to the French fr:Prix Valery-Larbaud which gives the list of laureates (50). I wanted to create in English the fr:Catégorie:Prix Valery-Larbaud. Obviously something went wrong all the way down. Sorry for the disturbance. And yes, please can you restore that category? LouisAlain (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I can do nothing with any french articles or categories. The page I linked is not a category, it is in the main article space.  Unless you do something with it within minutes of me restoring it, another admin with probably delete it as it has no content.    It would be better if you want to create an article by that name, to just start from scratch and create it.  ~ GB fan 17:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The most likely explanation is that I created the category, forgot about it and it remained empty until it was deleted. Someday I'll proceed to start from scratch again and fill the new category as soon as created.

Thanks for your help and sorry for the time wasted on that sillyness of mine. LouisAlain (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Don Baker (journalist)
Hey I have a question about reopening a page you deleted. The page is Donald P Baker (Journalist.) I'm his grandson and I would like it to be reopened so I can add some information on him. Please let me know is this is at all possible. 158.222.239.250 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Restored as a contested PROD. ~ GB fan 00:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

International Christian Church Article for deletion Inquiry
GB Fan, Hey I saw you revised my ICC page edit. Can you provide me with the solution / template so I may propose it's deletion properly?Thanks! Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You will need to use WP:AFD. The instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion using the process is at WP:AFDHOWTO.  ~ GB fan 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of Julio Cabrera (disambiguation)
Hi! I want to know your reasoning behind declining speedy deletion of Julio Cabrera (disambiguation); the page doesn't link to any main namespace article and is an implausible redirect, so, why did you not delete it? I am genuinely curious and interested to learn your view and not throwing a shade. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 02:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is common practice to create a redirect from the (disambiguation) title to the base titled DAB page wen there is no primary topic. The last paragraphh of the section at WP:DABNAME explains it.  ~ GB fan 09:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also it is not an implausible redirect. If I am specifically looking for a disambiguation page for a specific title, I will add (disambiguation) on the end.  I know it will take me to the page I am looking for.  ~ GB fan 20:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Thank you for elucidating on your reasoning, whilst I don't fully agree with you, I can see where you are coming from. Again, thanks! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Baseless accusations re: Newt
Please do not accuse make the serious accusation of ban evasion without proof. With all due respect, it’s beneath you to immediately report and, frankly, lie about an editor who is adhering to admin requests and using the talk page to resolve the clear issues of NPOV and agenda pushing on the part of prior editors on the Newt Gingrich page, who I won’t name at the risk of your reporting me for some other baseless accusation, like civility. Please stay away from my talk page and do not continue to stalk in the future, or I will not hesitate to take things up with the site admins. Squanchinho (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not baseless accusations. My accusation was explained in the edit to ANI.  ~ GB fan 16:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And now that a CheckUser has agreed with me even less of a baseless accusation. ~ GB fan 16:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Typo
Ave GBfan,
 * Regarding your mistyping in edit summary: NFP ;-) Klaas `Z4&#x241f;` V 10:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that has to do with me explaining my mistake. Didn't appreciate it at all.  ~ GB fan 10:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In regards to that of the tetris entry.
Sorry about that I am conducting an experiment to see how long it takes for Wikipedia staff to fix errors and misinformation within entries on it website. Sorry if I caused any harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeetmaster22 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

CSD-nomination for Vulva Original
Hello. Did you see my comment on the talk page of the article? The current version of the article is very different from the one that survived an AfD nomination in 2009, and nothing but pure promotion, "sourced" only to a web shop selling the stuff. Cheers, - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It has survived an AFD and that is enough to require a new AFD. It doesn't make any difference that it does not now look like the article that survived AFD.  ~ GB fan 19:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would normally not care, but what irritates me in this case is that the first AfD-nomination was made by the creator of the article four days after the article was created in early 2009, in a deliberate attempt to prevent speedy deletion, even saying so in their AfD-nomination... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw that and the afd should have been closed as a speedy keep right then and there as no reason for deletion had been put forward. That isn't what happened. The afd ran its course and was closed as keep. That means we need an afd to overturn it. G11 is off the table because that argument was raised during the afd and rejected. So there is a version in the history that could be reverted to that afd said was not advertising and was notable. ~ GB fan 11:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

In regard to the lock on War
The problem here is that User:thewolfchild likes to demand discussion of edits but doesn't seem to want to actually participate in said discussion: he reverts edits, but doesn't actually come up with reasons why he's doing it other than "BRD says I can revert whatever I like and then you have to discuss it." Last I checked, discussion doesn't work that way. His approach to discussion on his talk page could also be described as "interesting". Bones Jones (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Artisan Furniture Deletion
Hi, GB Fan. I am writing this in regards of deletion of the Artisan Furniture page that I created few hours back. It would be great if you can throw some light over the reasons of deletion. However, I have gone through the Wikipedia articles A7 and G11 and did modify the content accordingly. I respect your decision and experience with Wikipedia and would like to modify my content accordingly with your help in order to facilitate everyone with the required piece of information. Looking forward to your quick response. Thank you.

Warm Regards Arushi Jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arushij94 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Imbellus
Hi GB fan The deletion notice says to contact you to recover deleted content for this article. I was so surprised that a company with such an influential project and *many* web links over several years would be subject to speedy deletion that I didn't keep a copy. I wonder if you or DannyS712 looked at the links or google searched the company? In any case thanks for the content. Will not try to put something up about the company again. (I have no CoI, it's miles from my areas of interest.) Keith Henson (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did look at the links but did not do a google search. The first link is the bloomberg basic fact sheet about the company.  The second and third links are both COI pieces that appear to be written to promote the recent funding round of the company.  The last link is the company's website.  The prose doesn't in any way say the company is significant.  The first sentence says where it is based and when it was started.  The second sentence just says what the purpose of the company is.  It says what they want to do, nothing about what they have done.  The last sentence explains who started the company and why she says she started it.  There is nothing in the article that show there is anything significant about the company at this time.  I have restored the article to the draft space.  You can find it at Draft:Imbellus.  ~ GB fan 11:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
You said at (ironically the issue is solved - no offence!) that there's no violation - if user x posted on the talk page for user y who removed it, that's evidence that the message was seen. I appreciate this!211.27.126.189 (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * yw ~ GB fan 12:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Lucian B.
Good evening! Please, let me know how I can retrieve the content of the page created (Lucian B.), which was deleted by yourself. Also, please advise me where I should publish it or the status that I need to give it, to ensure it stays published. Thank you in anticipation! Lucian Balog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelu Lucian Balog (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be making an article about yourself. You have a conflict of interest.  For an article to exist about you, we would need to show that you meet our notability guidelines.  That is by having multiple reliable sources that have published independent significant coverage of you.  If you meet those guidelines someone without a conflict of interest will write the article.  ~ GB fan 19:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again! Please, let me know how I can retrieve the info for the page that I have put together and that was deleted. I was of the impression that it would be saved somewhere but I have no knowledge where.

I look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelu Lucian Balog (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is deleted, it is not saved anywhere that you have access to. Only people with the Admin right can see the deleted article. ~ GB fan 23:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

May I request using your Admin Access to source the text! I got the idea and I certainly won’t attempt publishing it again but I would love to get my work back, please! Gelu Lucian Balog (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You can find it at Draft:Lucian B.. Do not move it yourself back to the mainspace.  Use the button in the box at the top of the page that says Submit your draft for review when you think it is ready to be published.  It is not ready at this time.  You will need to add reliable sources to it before it will be accepted.  ~ GB fan 12:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Racing Point
Hello. How I can move Racing Point F1 Team to Racing Point? Eurohunter (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I now see what you meant by that speedy deletion tag. I see there is a discussion going on at WT:F1 that you have not contributed to.  Please join the discussion and when there is a consensus on what the name should be and how the article should be structured then ask for it to be moved.  ~ GB fan 15:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not the point in the discussion when I wanted to move it. Eurohunter (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Shaunak Chakraborty
Hi, could you please take a look at the above and see if any action needs to be taken? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * By the time I got a chance to look at it Courcelles had already blocked everyone. ~ GB fan 21:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, that wasn't the reason I wanted you to look at it. I wasn't sure if it needed to be oversighted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you are talking about now. I have suppressed the version that needed it.  ~ GB fan 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my first edit
Can't understand how to discuss on the page. UI is too hard :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinumdab (talk • contribs) 16:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , go to Talk:Computer science and start a discusson like you started here. Explain why that information does not belong. ~ GB fan 17:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you, but I thought you might want to know that a discussion on this topic has been started, if you wish to contribute any wisdom to it. (Talk:Computer science) feel free to delete this message if you don't want it here, it's your talk page!  Shadowssettle(talk) 21:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Query
Hi,

I would like to ask if these 2 articles (Peter out & Denigrate) should be deleted. The article is empty and has no significant meaning, and it states that reader should proceed to wikitionary for more information. I am unsure if this meets deletion criteria as per CSD A5.

&#8209;&#8209; V. S. ( C )( T )  12:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I do not believe they meet any speedy deletion criterion. For A5 to apply it would need to be a dictionary definition that was transwiki'd to Wiktionary. In these cases they were both created as soft redirects to existing Wiktionary pages.  A1 does not apply because there is enough info there to understand what is being discussed, the dictionary definitions of those words.  A3 does not apply as there is content.  It is even questionable whether any A criterion would apply at all as these are not articles they are redirects.   appears to disagree with my assessment as he deleted Peter out last month as an A3.  ~ GB fan 12:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that my deletion was correct, although I would not wheel war over it. Note that the article was re-created and almost immediately deleted again by another admin. Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision delete request.
Requested page: box

Edit in concern : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Box&oldid=871546995

Reason for my request: I have a feeling that this edit that a IP did violates WP:BLP. The edit talked about two people ……… in a derogatory way, as well as not stated any references to where it proves it or even states how it relates to the article. The edit has already been reverted but is still visible in the page history.

Sincerely, Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - I have not received a reply from you yet. Was it because I left the diff between the vandal and the revert edit out.  If so here is the diff, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Box&diff=next&oldid=871546995  .  It said your name on the list of users that accept revision delete requests.  If it is not true that you accept such requests, please let me know.  Sorry for any inconvenience.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do revision deletions, but do not think this meets the criterion. ~ GB fan 00:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Broken Redirects
Hi, Sorry to bother you but I would like you to help me delete the redirects I nominated for deletion using Template:db-r1. Looks like an admin deleted the page but forgot to delete its redirects & related talk page &#8209;&#8209; V. S. ( C )( T )  14:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Another admin or I will get to them in the course of reviewing speedy deletions. You don't need to ask any admin to go and specifically look at speedy deletion nominations. ~ GB fan 15:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Suppression request
Hi, please suppress the edits at User talk:Oshwah. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They are suppressed, another OS did it.  ~ GB fan 16:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cadiz City
Hi!, please dont delete my tag. My reasons do meet the criteria for propose deletion. Kidly read my reason of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanry (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will not stop removing a proposed deletion tag from a redirect. You can not use that process on a redirect.  You must use WP:RFD.  ~ GB fan 11:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I need help ~ GB fan :)

Thank you very much for the help ~ GB fan :) 20:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * yw ~ GB fan 12:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sunday Suspense
Hi, I would like you to view this page. I believe that the article is not notable as per WP:ORGCRITE. As such I moved the article to a draft page. However, the primary contributor (Aneekn) reverted the page back without adequately explaining why, (as of 14:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC), the page is still being edited by the mentioned user). Should I nominated the page for speedy under A7? &#8209;&#8209; V. S. ( C )( T )  14:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hellcats Of The Navy 2
Please Bring Back The Hellcats Of The Navy 2 Article Back Because I Am Making A Sequel To Hellcats Of The Navy — Preceding unsigned comment added by APaoloL (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. If you are making it then you shouldn't be writing the article about it. The other problem is that it is an obvious hoax. If Donald Trump was really starring in it then that would be all over the news. ~ GB fan 17:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Big Five European Football Leagues
Hi GB fan, these are two specific links about the "Big Five" football leagues in Europe: 1, 2. I don't put it in the article because is a disambiguation page. Thanks for your attention. Puente aereo (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed it again. An English wikipedia article must mention big 5 in this context fir it to be included on the dab page. Also every entry has exactly one blue link to the most pertinent article that mentions the subject of the dab page. Until it is included in an English wikipedia article it does not belong on the dab page. ~ GB fan 20:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Levivich (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Fort Massac copyvio?
I believe the article cited is a copyvio of www.dnr.illinois.gov/parks/about/pages/fortmassac.aspx, copyright 2018 by Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources. About 80% of the article is affected wholly, and the rest partly. If you concur, one of us will have to mark the page as copyvio. That article was too integral and too complete, a standard rarely achieved by patchwork wiki articles. Sbalfour (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Fort Massac has been an article since 2006. When created it initially looked like .  It had one major expansion a day after it was created whne it was expanded to .  The wayback machine only has archived versions of the Illinois DNR site going back to June 2015.  The question becomes which one came first, our article or the Illinois DNR page?  If you think it is a copyright violation then you can mark it as such.   is an admin that works with copyrights.  She would probably be a better resource to help answer this question.  ~ GB fan 11:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The page used to live at http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/Landmgt/PARKS/R5/frmindex.htm which was archived by the wayback machine. (I found the link in the old revisions). Cleaning now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They can copy our text, if that's what they did (judgement pending), but they (Illinois) must acknowledge us as the source, right? They can't copyright our copyleft text. Sbalfour (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2018‎

Paraphrase successful
Hello! I just paraphrased some of the words and changed what their letters are. Hope it works. Julian Khachan (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Okay. Thanks for your advice. Julian Khachan (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A kind reply to your Query!!
It's not me who thinks that history should be like what I wants but other authors can't take a stand in front of a philosophy graduate I have researched the wars more deeply ...and if you want correct history kindly do research and read historical books... History Teller2000 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to calmly discuss and present reliable sources. Do not edit war and just claim that you know more.  Your supposed expertise means nothing on Wikipedia.  You need to present reliable sources that support the information you say is true.  ~ GB fan 16:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your comment.
Okay, thanks for your comment. I use British English Julian Khachan (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Urgent notice
GB fan, the IP 2601:203:1:6B43:BD92:5222:4D0A:CD05 made a personal attack on men in the sandbox. go check the Sandbox history now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Khachan (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Actually, I warned him now. I didn't think you would be busy. Julian Khachan (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not believe is a personal attack.  This was done in a sandbox, a place to test editing.  It wasn't directed at any specific or group of editors, so it isn't personal.  I know people that hold this same opinion, women can be beautiful, men can't be beautiful, they are handsome.  ~ GB fan 11:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 31 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 31. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 31 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Omar Warsame15 (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , were you going to nominate the redirect at WP:RFD?  You left this message here but never didn't do anything else.  ~ GB fan 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Thank you for reviewing my work. I appreciate your comments, and I have done my best to address them.

I looked at Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages and saw an example of how a red link can be used. In the example the redlink Flibbygibby is not mentioned in the article Cornice.

I felt frustrated after seeing ICT in many papers that did not explain what it meant. After much more searching I finally found out it meant immunchromatographic. I thought I would spare others the same frustration, by entering a definition in a disambiguation page. I intend to either create an article on immunchromatographic or a redirect to another article where it is defined.

As you know, redlinks are for notable topics that deserve an article or further explanation, otherwise there would be no purpose of redlinks. I thought it best to at immediately create a disambiguation entry to provide minimal information until the article gets created.

Thanks again for reviewing my work. Please let me know of any other solutions. Comfr (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I have since found a broader article on the subject, and added a subsection in ICT. A new redirect points to that subsection. Please take another look. Thanks for being an administrator. Comfr (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Page was deleted
Hi I wrote a unique and original content then how do you delete that? I just wanted share knowledge for people. It was not offensive for Wikipedia.It was not about branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozoneoverall (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You still have the content of the article I deleted, it is at User:Ozoneoverall/sandbox. If we look at the content, it tells me very little.  It says the year Ozone Overseas was created and it says who is on its management team.  What it doesn't say is what they do.  It doesn't say the company has ever done anything other than exist since 1999.  There were no sources on the article to even try to expand the article.  Why should we have an article that tells in 4 people started a company in 1999 and nothing else?  ~ GB fan 12:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted Edits on Jones Point, New York
Hi, regarding the revert, i had removed the user's additions because they appeared to be used in a promotional way, as the exact same source was hyperlinked at the end of each section they added. This is why i reverted those edits. Thanks, Jebcubed (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but you should use an edit summary that explains why you are reverting. You also left 3 warnings on the editor's talk page.  You warned them first that they were vandalizing the article.  Then you warned that they were spamming the article.  Finally you warned them about Original Research.  You then come here and claim it was promotional.  The content that was added was not vandalism in any way.  It also wasn't original research.  I can see how it might be considered promotional, but I can also see how the new editor thought they were adding a good source.  You need to give a consistent accurate message about why you are reverting.  ~ GB fan 23:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

McPlayer2
Sorry about that start of an edit war on Shinto. I am going to stop

Also, I believe that Toilet paper orientation does not belong on Wikipedia as it is not something meant to be in an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinecraftPlayer2 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to stop making edits like that. If you think it doesn't belong then you need to nominate it for deletion using WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 00:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please give me a list of articles that have a lot of vandalism so I can be constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinecraftPlayer2 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no list of articles that have a lot of vandalism. What you should start with is learning.  Find a topic you are interested in and work on improving the article.  You can do that by finding reliable sources that discuss the topic and then integrating in your own words some of the information in the sources into the article.  After you get use to editing articles and understand how to do it, then move on to starting a new article.  You can start this by reading through Your first article.  Once you understand how to create an article you can use Requested articles to find an article that someone thinks should be in the encyclopedia.  If you have any specific questions you can ask here or you can ask at the Teahouse.  ~ GB fan 17:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Recreation
Hello a recent article you've deleted has been recreated again, See Dr. Satish Kumar also contains copyrighted material. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have deleted it again. The talk page included the copyrighted material also.  ~ GB fan 17:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sir I am extremely sorry for directly copying the bio from the website. I was not aware of the fact that we were not allowed to do so. I promise I won't repeat such mistakes in future. Please give me the permission to create the page one more time. I promise I won't disappoint you again.

Page: Dr. Satish Kumar

Abhishek Kumar Jangir (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion continuing on their talk page ~ GB fan 18:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

TE
You cited "block evasion"--were you just pointing at other IP edits, or do you happen to know of an account? I just blocked User:GSD2019 for doing the same dumb stuff. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , see the SPI. Sro23 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow--such longterm sadness. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * sent you an email. ~ GB fan 01:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of AFD
Hiya, you were previously involved with the article KC International Airlines. Just wanted to know I had nominated the article for deletion at Articles for deletion/KC International Airlines (2nd nomination). Please voice your opinions there. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Kirara Fantasia
Hello, I note that you deleted the article as an expired PROD; the concern of the PROD was that the sourcing wan't adequate. However, searches in English, and particularly Japanese, result in several significant hits in sources that seem to be reliable (see this search). Would it be possible for the article to be restored as a contested PROD, or be restored as a draft while the original PROD concerns are addressed? If possible, maybe we could also invite the original PRODder to this discussion for them to give their thoughts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it is restored as a contested PROD. ~ GB fan 02:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What should be the next option though: status quo or AfD? The PRODer hasn't edited since last month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , AFD is only if someone writes a nomination rationale that advocates deletion. Depending on their settings,  might get an email that I undid their PROD or that I pinged them here.  If their settings don't send them email then when they log back in they will get notified.  At that point they will need to decide what they want to do.  You should add sources to the article to make it so no one thinks it should be deleted.  ~ GB fan 03:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
If you’re going to ignore multiple reasons for a speedy deletion and decline what should be a no-brainer, at least bring it to the talkpage where a discussion questioning the reason for the redirect’s existence has already begun. I tried applying an RFD but the coding wouldn’t work. If you’re going to remove the speedy deletion template without replacement by RFD, then what’s the point of removing the speedy deletion template, an action which did not address the issue?--Fradio71 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not ignoring anything, I am declining an invalid Speedy deletion request. Speedy deletion criterion have a consensus that admins can delete pages without any kind of discussion.  The closest one to what you are saying is WP:R3.  That criterion requires the redirect be recently created.  A redirect created in 2011 is not a recently created redirect.  Have you read the directions at WP:RFD?  It explains the three steps you need to take to list the redirect at WP:RFD.  ~ GB fan 23:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why exactly does a redirect have to be recently created to be eligible? Is it my fault that the admins didn't catch until 8 years later that the redirect existed but didn't lead anywhere?--Fradio71 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I believe the reasoning behind the recently created portion was that there is a possibility that the redirect was linked from outside Wikipedia. I don't know what the reasons are for sure.  The only way to answer that question would be to find someone who paticipated in the discussion that set it up or dig through archives and find the discussion that set that part into place.  It isn't your fault, or anyone's fault.  It is just tat the speedy deletion process does not apply so WP:RFD is the only option at this point.  ~ GB fan 23:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay I’ve added the RFD template and made an entry. Not sure if I did it right but I’m sure I’ll get the aid--Fradio71 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , The outcome is one of the reasons to start a discussion, another editor might see another option. ~ GB fan 12:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Cecily Jordan Farrar
Hi, I requested a speedy deletion of a redirect, as I had built a new version of an article that been moved to a new topic, as it had wandered far afield. The original article, which was 8 years old was about a person and the article rapidly change to a legal case, which caused the change. I rebuilt the article, and I don't think it is controversial at this point (I outline the history below.) So what is the best way to request a redirect to the new/old article about a person instead of the legal case, which as a life of its own?

For reference, Here's are my steps, since the recent January 19 redirect:


 * I voiced a concern in talk: Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute
 * It was suggested by Theroadislong that I create a Draft:Cicely Jordan Farrar, which he thought might not qualify due to lack of references.
 * I took him up on the suggestion, and built the draft
 * I then asked and then asked Theroadislong look and comment on the draft. He did (this is in the draft history). He said he was fine with it, I just needed to request an admin removal of the redirect.
 * Here's the likely error I'm working with: Knowing nothing about articles being shifted into redirects, I copied the draft content directly into the redirect with the same name.

The redirect just recently happened, so I don't think there are many links to the new topic, yet. The original links are intended to point to a biography, not a legal case.

I don't think adding a replacement article for the one that was moved is controversial. I certainly didn't intend it to be so. It's just returning to the original biography that has 8 years of link history. (I also left related note with Anthony Appleyard, as he addressed a history merge request.

Any guidance or help about how I can get for removing the redirect in a straightforward fashion that follows WP protocol would be appreciated.

Thanks!Wtfiv (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC) It's been taken care of. Thank you!Wtfiv (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Revision delete at Talk:Tom Brady
Hello! I saw you were listed as an admin willing to take revdel requests. There's a bit of IP vandalism at Special:Diff/880635645 that looks libelous and should probably be revdel'd - not so much for the content, which is routine vandalism, but for the edit summary. Thanks! PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ GB fan 15:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI
Hi, can you please look at the edits I deleted at WP:ANI? I believe they should be suppressed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have suppressed it as it did reveal private info. ~ GB fan 20:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Lion in Steven Universe
I added the Steven Universe character Lion to the page Lion (disambiguation)

You reverted that with the comment:


 * There is a lion but the name is not lion

The character's name is indeed "Lion" - see for example our page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Steven_Universe_characters#Miscellaneous


 * Lion (animal noises by Dee Bradley Baker) is a mysterious pink lion who protects Steven and possesses a variety of magical abilities. Steven regards Lion as a pet. Lion provides Steven with connections to Rose Quartz's legacy

Or  https://steven-universe.fandom.com/wiki/Lion


 * Lion is a magical pink lion befriended by Steven that occasionally assists the Crystal Gems. Once a normal lion (presumably owned by Rose Quartz in the Desert hundreds of years ago), Lion eventually died through unknown means. Rose Quartz was able to resurrect Lion through her healing powers

I'm going to go ahead and re-add it to Lion (disambiguation)

- 189.122.248.181 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Fredrick eagles
This has gotten out of hand because until a few minutes ago I didn't know what the tweet said in English. I believe the material I deleted should be suppressed. If you agree, then you should also know that similar links exist at the AfD (added by an admin) and, although I haven't looked, probably in other forums, including ANI. It would be easier if you disagree with me. Please let me know. As always, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have suppressed both instances. It links an editor to an offsite identity.  ~ GB fan 12:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is continuing. I haven't deleted anything this time.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Randall Carlson
I notice you contested a PROD of Randall Carlson and I expanded the article with references. If you get a chance please look it over. Otr500 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:201 births
201 Births Literally Had No Births At All. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.239.24 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is empty and it is scheduled for deletion after the 7 day waiting period. There is no reason to remove the templates off the categories while they are in the waiting period.  ~ GB fan 15:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It turns out these annual categories were being deleted as empty because IP editor 66.210.239.21-66.210.239.25 was changing dates on a lot of articles involving ancient history. Did my first rangeblock, I hope it sticks because this was a lot of work to clean up. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

image of braille output
hi i agree please guide me how to replace the image i have a good image. thanks for all the help Navin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jscinfo (talk • contribs) 06:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , here is a page that explains about uploading images to be used in Wikipedia, Uploading images. ~ GB fan 12:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

disambiguation pages
Lists of names Shortcut WP:NAMELIST To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article. This is even more widespread for first names—many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed. Consensus among editors determines if an article should be listed on the disambiguation page.

97.92.91.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, not sure why you need to cut and paste that here. ~ GB fan 20:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You placed on disambiguation pages a few names that are nicknames for band members. 97.92.91.74 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did restore them after you removed them. That does not say nicknames for band members do not belong on a DAB page. None of the DAB pages that I restored are long. I do not think the additions are a problem on the pages. What are your specific concerns with the entries? ~ GB fan 22:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think they belong because if every person known by a nickname was placed on a DAB page they would become unwieldy. I do not see anyone looking up those people outside of the group. But anyway if you think they belong- so be it, it is a closed issue for me. Thank you responding. 97.92.91.74 (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It can become unwieldy if there are a large number of people who use the nickname. If there are, then we reevalute how to present the information.  In the specific cases we are talking about here, none of the pages are unwieldy.  B (disambiguation) is the closest and it has a total of two (2) people on the page.  So removing them would not help the page much at all and it would reduce the usefulness of the page.  ~ GB fan 11:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Bravo Invitational
Please undelete the page Eddie Bravo Invitational. There is no need to delete the entire page. If you want a citation the community will find one or two to enter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1301:8A63:8521:D615:68B2:D69A (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article as a contested PROD. You might want to discuss this with  as the editor that originally added the PROD tag.  ~ GB fan 00:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GB fan, that article is awful--unreferenced, promotional, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the next step as you know is WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 03:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Brrrrlllgggghhhhbleeeeeeeeeeeeeh Drmies (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Fadela Amara
Hello, I'm Verify references. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! you re-added this without a reference.

"Despite being a Muslim, Amara was active in supporting the expulsion from French secondary schools of young Muslim women who wear the hijab, and in supporting the 2003 law on this question."

Verify references (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didnt remove it because i cant edit war with an admin.
 * , if you believe there is content in the article that is unsourced that you want to remove you can do that. You do have to do it in a way that you don't make the article unreadable.  It still has to have content and context.  The only reason I readded any content to the article was you gutted it and then said you took so much out of the article you couldn't understand what the article was about.  That is unacceptable so I reverted your actions.  It you believe she is not notable then you can nominate the article for deletion using WP:AFD.  ~ GB fan 12:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed you link to Articles for deletion/Fadela Amara. You never created the page.  If you are going to nominate it for deletion you will need to follow the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO.  ~ GB fan 12:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you for your constructive edits on the page. Verify references (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, way to reward a disruptive IP...
... who has nothing to lose so they can edit war to their hearts content. Why the hell would anyone go to the trouble of actually registering an account and observing rules if admins protect disruptive behavior by anon users? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * THere is a lot of disruptive behavior going on at the article. I didn't pick where it protect it at.  I saw it was happening earlier and my intention was to protect the next time I saw a revert and that was the one I saw.  If I had seen your revert I would have protected it after it.  I knew wherever it was protected it would be the wrong version.  ~ GB fan 18:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. I think it's time to write WP:WRONGVERSIONISALAMECOPOUT essay. Look at that IP. They reference edit warring, consesus, and of course "discuss on talk". There's ZERO chance that's not a sock puppet. And IPs get to revert to their hearts content. You should have semi'd it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP was not the only person removing the content. Two registered users were also reverting and removing content.  Semi wouldn't have stopped the edit warring going on.  In the case here there are only three ways to stop the edit war.  Everyone involved stops reverting (that obviously wasn't happening), blocking everyone involved (that would have been a bad idea) or full protection.  The only option I saw left was to fully protect the article and let the discussion on the talk page come to a consensus that can be implemented.  If you think I made the wrong call you can ask for another admin to overturn my protection.  Any admin can downgrade the protection if they think my protection was to much.  ~ GB fan 19:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent Page Protection - America's Got Talent (season 3)
Hey, I just want to thank you on that. I saw the History logs and can't believe someone is doing this and evading their blocks. What sort of protection did you put in though? Is it a "Edit Confirmation" protection? And is it gonna be permanent to prevent this disruption? GUtt01 (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now it is semi-protected. That means anyone who wants to edit it must be Autoconfirmed.  It will currently expire in 1 month.  The last time the article was protected was almost 3 years ago for 1 week.  That protection appears to have stopped the problem for quite a long time.  Hopefully a month will discourage them.  At the end of the protection we can relook  to see if they come back.  ~ GB fan 13:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Eugene Thomas (martial artist)
Hey bro - could you please do me a solid and recreate this page, that you wrongfully deleted last year?

It was about the martial artist/actor Eugene Thomas Trammell, whom you did not know, and therefore deleted the page, despite the fact that he has a HUGE cult following in martial arts B-movie communities worldwide.

The famous blaxploitation star Rudy Ray Moore even made a tribute-film, "Shaolin Dolemite" honouring Trammell in 1999 - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0292232/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1

If you need me to provide more details on the page later, I can do so, if you just re-create it again, thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

KnatLouie (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article was not wrongfully deleted, It was deleted per the deletion policy. Since it was deleted via WP:PROD I have restored based on your request.  I would suggest you discuss this with  as they were the editor that nominated it for deletion.  ~ GB fan 22:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

VPump revert
Why? I'm as surprised as you are. Have absolutely no idea why that edit happened. I just looked at the page, not in edit mode. I don't think I even hit anything, just reading. So, thanks for catching it so quick. Regards, GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 13:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I figured it was a mistake of some kind. ~ GB fan 13:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP
Heyo. Regarding Yash Rohan I was under the impression that IMDB did not count when discussing BLP because of the fact that anyone can edit it? I guess I was mistaken. Thanks for correcting me! -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , That is one of the quircks of WP:BLPPROD. If there is any source of any kind, reliable or not, that verifies any piece of information on the article it is not eligible for BLPPROD.  If a BLPPROD is added to an article that has 0 sources then it takes a reliable source to remove it.  Since that article has a source we can not use BLPPROD.  I wish that wan't the way the policy was  written but it is so we need to follow it.  ~ GB fan 17:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So TECHNICALLY speaking... I could remove the IMDB link as not a reliable source and then BLPPROD the page? (Not saying I would do that....)-- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , No, you can't do that, there is still a source in the history that was there before the BLPPROD was applied. So it is still technically in the article, just not visible.  ~ GB fan 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was totally kidding. That would also be gaming the system. I gotcha though. Thanks for the explanation!-- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I know you were kidding, but I have seen others actually try what you said. Remove sources and then say it is an unsourced BLP.  So I needed to point out why that doesn't work so others seeing this discussion don't use it as an out of the policy.  ~ GB fan 18:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Fair point! -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deleted redirects and mess created on user page
Hi GB fan, I am writing to let you know that you have succeeded to annoy a constructive fellow editor by wasting my precious time through speeding deleting a bunch of redirects I created yesterday and by templating a regular in a rather abusing way. The redirects I created are perfectly valid per WP:REDIR. Assuming you are unfamiliar with the topics, you might find these names to look somewhat odd, but these terms are actually the standard names of certain CAD layers in several rather common EDA tools (EAGLE, TARGET, Protel). They define the solder cream/paste and stop masks needed in PCB production and assembly. Many users who are new to PCB design mix up these terms and their purposes, therefore I created redirects so that users who run into them and search for background information will be directed to the corresponding Wikipedia pages. Per WP:RPURPOSE this is one of the very purposes for why redirects exist and should be created and since none of these redirects was conflictive with any other usage, it was not okay to delete them (see WP:R and WP:R). Since it will take me considerably more time to recreate them than for you to undelete them, I sincerely ask you to restore them so that we can both continue with constructive work in our respective areas of this encyclopedia instead of wasting energy working against each other. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I did not delete a single redirect that you created. I nominated a bunch of redirects for speedy deletion that you created because none of them were mentioned in the linked article.  I individually checked each one to see if it was mentioned.  Since they weren't mentioned there was nothing for anyone to know why they redirected there.  If you do not agree with the deletion you will need to discuss it with the admin that deleted the redirect.  I will not restore something I do not believe belongs and did not delete in the first place.   There is nothing wrong with using a template to notify an editor no matter how long they have been around that the redirects were nominated for speedy deletion.  ~ GB fan 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GB fan, as you nominated the redirects for speedy deletion you are the one responsible for the deletions (not the one who carried out the action technically), and thereby you are responsible for the damage it created to the project. As a regular and even an admin you should be well aware that we try to avoid templating others. At most, your nominations could have been combined into a single thread on my talk page instead of completely messing up the page with lots of redundant templates.
 * It is obvious that you are not familiar with the subject since you nominated the redirects as typos or misnomers (neither of which they are), but if those redirects concerned you, the normal behaviour among experienced editors would have been to just raise a question and I would have explained it to you. That you didn't and also didn't follow WP:DTTR indicates that you simply did not care about another experienced editor's opinion. This is particularly offensive if you are acting in an area you are not familiar with contentwise. Yes, it would have taken a few minutes of your time, but it also took me time to research the topic and create those redirects - and it should be obvious that I won't have invested my energy into it if I would not have found those redirects to be a worthy contribution to improve our project. In the nomination you declared them as typos or misnomers. Why should someone familiar with the subject spend time to create redirects for implausible typos and misnomers?
 * Above you wrote that you speedied those redirects because you didn't found those terms being mentioned on the target page. This, however, is not a valid reason for deletion either, as redirects don't need to be mentioned on the target page at all. You might have mixed this up with a recommendation for entries on disambiguation pages, but it has nothing to do with redirects. Quite to the contrary, redirects are very often created without their names being explicitly mentioned on the target page. In most cases, this would even be next to impossible with all the possible variations on terms discussed in an article. If a user types in, for example, "EAGLE tCream" and gets redirected to our article on solder paste stencil masks, he gets exactly the information he was looking for and also knows why he was redirected there. You, as an editor who apparently considers "tCream" to be an implausible misnomer, will never type this into the search box (unless you were handled some PCB production files created with EAGLE and then might want to know what "tCream" is), so you are simply not affected. But by deleting the redirects you keep users, who are interested into it, from getting the information they want and need. This is disruptive if not destructive, as it is one of the very purpose of why we have and create redirects per WP:REDIR.
 * Of course, it would not harm if some of those terms were explicitly mentioned in the target article as well (and I would not be against it at all), but that's a matter of discussion how to improve the target article not a legitimation to delete incoming redirects at all.
 * So, at most you were entitled to delete the corresponding entries from the disambigation pages per WP:DABACRONYM (or, as a constructive editor, better just add them to the article), but not delete the redirects as typos or misnomers.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want them undeleted talk to the administrator that deleted them. I explained that before and that is the end. I will not undelete them. I believe in WP:TTR. If you don't want the templates, remove them. ~ GB fan 15:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Aaronfinchpro
I think we are singing from the same songbook on this, I've posted a final warning now, and I'll block next time, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes we are. Next time it is posted an indef with no talk page access since that is where the problem is.  ~ GB fan 14:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Robert Verrijt
Hello GB fan.

I have noticed that you deleted the article Robert Verrijt due to copyright infringements. I have edited the article now and removed and rewritten the lines that referenced https://urbanvaastu.com/architecture-brio-create-beautiful-environments-that-are-current-and-locally-sensitive/ http://architecturebrio.com/principals/) in a new draft article . I hope you will be able to undelete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architectindia (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations will not be restored. ~ GB fan 10:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletions at Cultural capital
Can you please look at my RD1 request at Cultural capital and delete if warranted? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

CSD
Hi. I noticed that you deleted Education Program:Nrutyang/sandbox under criterion WP:CSD. Per R2: This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. But, that page was in the "Education Program" namespace - see the page information for confirmation. That's why I tagged it as WP:CSD instead - as far as I can tell, R2 doesn't apply. Just wanted to let you know, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed the : that showed it was a namespace. I had never seen that namespace before.  ~ GB fan 19:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, just wanted to alert you in case you wanted to correct the logs. I ran a query - there are now exactly 0 pages in that namespace, so you probably won't see it again either. Best, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up on request move
I wanted to follow-up on the request to move for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307 § Request to delete & move page. The section was archived on 23:22, 6 April 2019, but the request to move was never performed. Mitchumch (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You should discuss your request with the admin that closed the AFD. ~ GB fan 22:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

seethathi . P. Martin
Why you deleted my article seethathi. P. Martin. It is about a real person who made some reforms for women in his society so many of the people from his native village wish to know about him Alfwin Fernando (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I deleted your article because it did not make a credible claim of significance. The entire prose of the article that I deleted said, "Seethathi . P . Martin  is an former president of Kuthenkuly Panchayat of Tirunelveli district."  Being president of a village is not a claim to significance.  I understand that you think your grandfather is significant but that does not mean that he should have an article in Wikipedia.  ~ GB fan 16:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi,

I didn't see where to add a reason for the removal. I removed the content because it seemed biased. The source given in the paragraph I removed came from the American School Bus Council which is an organization that promotes school bus use and/or operators. The paragraph's main intent seemed to be to minimize the environmental impact of school buses, which should be the way that a section on the environmental impact of school buses is begun. It lessens the value of this section, and of Wikipedia as a reliable source.

So, if I add this reasoning to a discussion page, I can remove the said content?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IslandMountain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , The content might not be a good lead in to the concept of school buses and the environemnt but it is content that should be discussed in the section. I do not believe removing it is the way to go.  Maybe adding an introduction to the section and moving that content further down would be a solution.  ~ GB fan 19:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Lynne_DiSanto
This was in inappropriate revert. My edits updated the information, which was out of date, and removed inappropriate content. I started a discussion yesterday but Velella apparently only wanted to get into an edit war. Please revert to my last edits or respond to my discussion on the "talk" page. Everyone seems to be telling me to discuss this and I have tried. It's Velella that has remained silent and violated the 3-revert rule. Ryno35 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It wasn't an inappropriate revert. It reverted back to the version before the edit war started.  I will not revert,  ~ GB fan 23:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So when did the edit war start? I would argue it started when Velella reverted my first edit which removed the inappropriate content and updated the information. As it stands now the content is out of date because of your action. You need to revert to my last edit. Ryno35 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No I don't need to revert. The edit war started when you made your change.  ~ GB fan 23:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a basis for this statement. My first edit was made in good faith. The first revert by Velella started the war. It seems like you are taking sides? Are you? Ryno35 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not taking sides, I know nothing about the article other than there was an edit war and because of the edit war it was fully protected. Until you came here, I didn't even pay attention to who the editors involved in the edit war.  My basis for reverting back to the version I did is BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD).  You made a Bold edit.  That bold edit was Reverted.  The next step is to Discuss the edit and come to a Consensus as to what the article should say.  The next step is NOT to revert to your preferred version.  ~ GB fan 01:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ice cream‎
Ice cream Latest revision as of 17:28, 2 May 2019 (Reverted 1 edit by Mitchellhobbs (talk): Doesn't add anything to the article and there are probably already to many pictures in the article (TW))

What it adds to the article is just a basic bowl of ice cream no where in the article is there just a basic bowl of Ice cream ~ everything else has extra added items ~ fancy bowls and  fancy crackers etc etc... I can make it smaller and replace one of the fancier ones if you like? ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss article content is on the article's talk page and that is where you need to take this. To answer your question, I stand by my assessment that the picture does not add anything to the article.  Removing another image to add this image wouldn't be an improvement either.  If you still disagree open a section on the article talk page and explain why  your image is a better image to use than one you would want to remove.  ~ GB fan 18:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Already did Mitchellhobbs (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request
Hello GB fan, i have noticed that you are willing to handle speedy deletion requests, so please allow me to bother you with a relevant issue. Earlier today, i created Template:Television ratings graph/styles.css in an attempt to deal with an issue that has affected the template for a long time. This didn't seem to work as i had hoped, so i decided to request a speedy deletion of the .css page, both with the help of Twinkle and by tagging it with Db-test and Db-author myself. However, i was not able to save these edits, as i was getting an error reading something like "Missing selector list at line 1 character 1". I do not know how i should proceed now, so i was hoping that you could help me with that, either by deleting the page or by explaining the steps i need to take in order to properly submit a deletion request. Radiphus (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. ~ GB fan 00:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. Radiphus (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Beveridge
Well, he didn't take the opportunity of raising it on the talk page during protection, just waited for the protection to expire and immediately restored his preferred version. I've reverted and said to go to talk page per BRD, but now you will block me if I keep trying to get him to go to talk. You clear it up. DuncanHill (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He is blocked. ~ GB fan 18:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I expect he'll be back to do the same thing all over again. DuncanHill (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If it happens it will probably go to indef block and if we need, semi- the article. ~ GB fan 18:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear GB Fan,

Why are you siding with DuncanHill instead of staying neutral?

I made a minor edit to a page, which DuncanHill then tried to veto. As far as I know, minor edits highlighting information already found worthy of a whole section - William Beveridge being a significant proponent of eugenics - is not an edit that necessitates a lengthy discussion on the talk page.

I'm of course sorry for participating in an edit war - I was provoked by the threatening messages written by DuncanHill on my talk page. When the protection period ended, I made the minor edit again - not adding any content, simply highlighting it - and DuncanHill chose to restart the edit war. I found this to be an attempt to veto my edit.

The process, BRD, mentioned by DuncanHill and enforced by you, is optional (as mentioned here) and - as I interpreted it - something that applies mostly to more significant edits.

I really wonder why you chose to block me without also blocking DuncanHill. He fought an edit war just as much as I did - the only difference was him trying to enforce an OPTIONAL discussion method. He restarted the edit war - I didn't. My edit was minor - I simply highlighted an information already mentioned in the article 18 times. --Cat Elevator (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You restarted the edit war. Without ever trying to establish consensus you restored your preferred version.  WP:BRD is an optional process but Consensus is not optional.  There is no consensus for the change you are trying to make.  The way to gain consensus is to discuss it on the talk page. You need to explain why you believe the change belongs.  Edit warring is not the answer.   also needs to explain why the change does not belong.  I didn't block DuncanHill because he stopped at 3 reverts you continued and made 4 reverts.  You have made a total of 9 edits to articles since you created your account.  8 of those edits are reverts, 4 before I protected it and 4 after that led to your block.  The only edit you have made that wasn't a revert was the one to The Alternative (Denmark).  I won't put up with any more reverts from either of you.  The next time either of you revert on that article it will be a long block.  ~ GB fan 22:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Beveridge is not notable as a eugenicist. If an editor thinks he is, such as to warrant mention of it in the lead, he should seek consensus on the talk page fo rthe change. That said, I think you GB fan have handled this very badly, and I think you should refrain from any further admin actions on this - I certainly have absolutely no confidence in your judgement on this matter. DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't threaten you with a block. I stated if either of you revert I will block based on your behavior.  I was telling both of you at the same time that the rules are the same for both of you.  There has been absolutely no discussion, just reverts and warnings of vandalism for edits that do not meet the definition of Vandalism.  I will not refrain from continuing in an admin capacity in regards to this article.  If neither of you revert there won't be any blocks.  I agree with you that the change needs to gain consensus on the talk page prior to it being added to the article.  I do not know anything about him and have no opinion on whether it belongs in the article.   ~ GB fan 23:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason there has been no discussion is that Cat Elevator has repeatedly failed to take up the invitation to start one. I cannot have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a discussion. You are threatening to block me based on his behaviour. Shameful. DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply because a person refuses to discuss does not mean an attempt shouldn't be made to open it, then make your case at the relevant board. It doesn't look like the reverts qualify as an exemption to 3:RR. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did attempt, by asking him more than once to make his proposals on the talk page. Still, facts don't bother some people. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And which action would give you an exemption for 3:rr? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cat Elevator was given the chance to propose his changes, and didn't, he simply waited for protection to expire and went straight back to what he did before. Now I get threatened with a block for a single revert in the future, and the threat isn't even made on my talk page. There is no point trying to discuss things with people who refuse to discuss. And now people falsely insinuate there was no attempt to get a discussion started. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I would think that is in the spirit of "an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. " If you've attempted the discussion and the editor persistr file the report, don't revert. You don't have a problem at all as long as you can control yourself and make the right report on the right boards. It's good advice on the policy when it tells you If, despite such efforts, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then consider making a request for administrative involvement. The standard way to do this is to add a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard; please see WP:AN/EW.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not threatening to block you. I am warning you if you revert again You will be blocked.  I did warn you on your talk page about edit warring any you continued after that warning.  I am not warning you about his actions, I am warning you about your actions.  You have reverted on the article 9 times.  6 times on 7 May and 3 times on 9 May.  This is all about your actions.  ~ GB fan 23:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a threat, however much you may pretend to yourself it isn't. "I will do x to hurt you if you do y" is a threat. You linked it a claim about lack of discussion, when as you know perfectly well I did refer the other editor to BRD. I can't have a discussion with someone who isn't there. If he proposes his changes on the talk page I am more than happy to engage and make my case, and see where the discussion goes. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * However you want to take it, that is up to you. If you don't revert, then nothing will happen, if you do revert then you will be blocked.  It is all up to you.  You can start a discussion and explain why the change does not belong without anyone else explaining why it does belong.  You have decided not to do that.  You have spent more time here complaining about this than it would have taken you to start a discussion on the article talk page.  ~ GB fan 00:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've raised it on the talk page now.--Cat Elevator (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Page WP
Well, then how do you explain the page Warsaw Pact because it does not mention any relation to WP? It does not have WP included also. I also highly doubt if Weakest precondition should belong to the page since it has been redirected to the page Predicate transformer semantics and acts as an subcategory (to differ with strongest-postconditions). --Timmyboger (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I simply just want to prevent the 3RR and edit war contents.--Timmyboger (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are probably correct, I haven't looked at the other entries on the page. I might get around to it, but we don't need to add to the problem.  If Water polo is commonly known as WP why don't you just add WP to the water polo article then add Water polo to the WP page?  ~ GB fan 22:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are worried about the wrong page. A disambiguation page is only to get people to the right article.  You need to fix the Water polo article first then worry about the WP page.  Out of the 14 edits you have made so far 6 of them are reverts to the WP disambiguation page.  You need to back off and learn how pages are set up.  ~ GB fan 22:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Mony Helal
hello...I created this article and has checked the notability of subject, she is miss Egypt 2018, therefor she participated in Miss World 2018 as representative of Egypt. this article is about a Miss Egypt like others. but someone is trying hard to delete the article. at first they added Speedy deletion tag several times and you reverted their edit, now they added AFD. please tell me what should I do against these vandalism edits. Best Regards.Camayokasa (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits are not vandalism. The editor believes the article does not belong in the encyclopedia. You are doing the right thing, discuss it on the AFD page. Also if you have any additional sources that show she has done anything other than participate in a couple of contests then you should add that to the article. ~ GB fan 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

125%
It was added here by an IP and it slipped through. :) – Ammarpad (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Disputed edit you decided in 2015 is under discussion again
In May 2015, the page "Seattle Cascades (AUDL)" on the Seattle professional Ultimate Frisbee team in the American Ultimate Disc League (AUDL) was proposed for deletion due to lack of significance. You removed the deletion notice, saying "being a proffessional[sic] sport team is a claim to significance, decline WP:A7." The page was again proposed for deletion, for the same reason, May 25, 2019. The notice of deletion was removed by User:Kvng, saying "The AULD articles should be taken to WP:AFD as a group, not picked off one at a time with PROD." Thought you should be notified. Silver Slip (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Untitled Cassian Andor series
Hi! Could you please restore Draft:Untitled Cassian Andor series. I would like to see what was done and try to build on it if possible. Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have emailed you the source code for the draft. You can use it to write your own version.  ~ GB fan 15:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - Brojam (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ibuprofen discovery
In the part of 'History' about the discovery of Ibuprofen, my edition was eliminated by you because 'in the patent does not say a single inventor'. A patent is filled by the inventor and co-inventors. In a patent, the inventor is always the last in to be mentioned. There are many sources you can find this info (I know this because I am a chemical scientist).

My edition is motivated by the accuracy of giving the actual name of the inventor, instead of saying?..discovered by (by someone) a team led by XXXX'. There are references (in Spanish) that describe the actual inventor of the structure of ibuprofen was only Antonio Ribera Blancafort, but the rest of the team and the boss are included at the light of the company policies.

Please, allow this edition in the name of the fairness of the actual inventor, who always was ignored by his own collaborators — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonius9 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion to have on the article talk page not here. ~ GB fan 11:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Oversight team
The committee has been notified that anticipates a period of inactivity. Accordingly, their Oversight permissions are removed. The committee sincerely thanks GB fan for their service.

Support: Callanecc, Courcelles, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned

Oppose: None

Not voting: Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 13:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Wildflowers for your way
some wildflowers of thanks and understanding --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2243 of Precious, a prize of QAI. Best wishes for your time out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)