User talk:GB fan/Archive 2

GB fan Archives October 2009 - September 2010

Portal:Gang
I noticed that you been editing the Gang article. I just created a Portal (Portal:Gang) I need your help. If you have time, Can you help add some content to my portal. I would appreciate it, Thanks.-- Zink Dawg  -- 06:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ferretusmaximus/Ferret
Many thanks for reviewing my Ferret article and your excellent advice. I have done some more research and added further analysis (3rd Para) to explain the position of Ferret within the Interactive Fiction genre. I would certainly appreciate any additional advice as to how to make the article publishable. Thank you. --Ferretusmaximus (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You !voted twice
You voted twice in the RFA. Ikip (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. somehow I missed it when I looked, don't remmeber !voting before.   GB fan  talk 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Afd
You've helped other IPs on the AFd page. I don't think I have Afd'ed Gavin Wilson correctly: it doesn't seem to be showing up right. Could you check it for me? Thx.81.159.88.183 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it is not showing up correctly as an article for deletion is that you added a proposed deletion tag. Both AFDs and Prods run for 7 days.  The AFD includes a discussion and consensus is determined after the 7 days.  The Prod does not have any discussion involved, but if anyone objects for any reason they can remove the tag, that effectively ends the process.  Then if you still think the article should be deleted, then the only process left is AFD.  If you need additional info let me know.   GB fan  talk 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought I was proposing it for deletion I thought that's what a prod was. So if the prod tag stays for 7 days, what happens then?  DoI have to do anything, or will the article be automatically deleted?81.159.88.183 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Prod stays for 7 days, an admin should come along and delete the article.  GB fan  talk 17:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks.81.159.88.183 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to point out one rule of Prod, if someone removes the Prod tag from the article it can not be added back for any reason. The next step would have to be an AFD.  THis is something that gets overlooked once in a while.   GB fan  talk 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Moves
Thanks If you need to reach me, please post on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Simon Bloom
Thanks for informing me of the book's notability! Perhaps you could now improve the article so this topic gets the credit it deserves! kiwiteen123 (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point if you think the subject is notable you should try to find some reliable sources that discuss the series. In my quick search I could not find anything that would establish notability and if there is no improvement on the article in a day or so I will nominate it for deletion.   GB fan  talk 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will support your deletion proposal as no significant changes have occurred since creation. Do send me a link as I'm not really familiar with WP:RFD kiwiteen123 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for fixing that numbering/indent on the RfA :-)

I edit-conflicted, I was about to fix it too.  Chzz  ►  15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome.  GB fan  talk 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tallahassee business spam
Thanks, GB fan, for cleaning out the spammy business listings from the Tallahassee article. Good call. Tim Ross  (talk)  14:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

comment at AfD
Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severns Valley Baptist Church does not seem to have been carefully considered, for you said there were no RSs when the link right at the top of the AfD showed them. On what basis did you reach your conclusion?  DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC) according to the history this edit was made 01:29, 30 October 2009 not 01:09, 30 October 2009  GB fan  talk 01:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already admitted I made a mistake. I must not have looked at the book search.  I changed my recommendation to keep.   GB fan  talk 01:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
thanks for showing me the article process ans type for next time. This was my first wiki article, and it was kind of a trial run. I hope to better next time, thanks for the help, go ahead with deletion. Jcorry10 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for undoing the vandalism on the Rammed Earth page. I keep a watch on it and would have fixed had you not beaten me to it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.40.116 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet war in afgahn article
I get it, Mikhail must have retreated the soviet forces from Afgan. The same reason Nixon retreated the american forces form vietnam. --KAMIKAZE!!!!! 02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe what the article says is wrong, please provide reliable sources that support that side. Removing sourced content just because it does not make sense to you is disruptive.   GB fan  talk 03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

cat
There was a lengthy discussion and a strong consensus for inclusion, as I said please sto removing it and open a discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus can not over ride WP:BLP. He was not convicted and WP:BLPCAT is very clear without a conviction these categories do not belong.  Do not readd them.   GB fan  talk 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is in your opinion a blp issue take it to the blp noticeboard, he was convicted of having sex with an under age girl, and the lengthy discussion was in favor of stat rapist, you were not involved in those discussion at all. Sorry, I find your refusal to consider the lengthy discussion recently that occurred on this a bit poor, and your reverting without attempting to open a discussion also very poor. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My name is all over the discussion about a category and he was not convicted. He pled guilty, but the conviction never happened since he fled the country.  And I will state it again, consensus can not over ride WP:BLP and I will continue to revert.   GB fan  talk 14:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said I find your aggressive attitude poor, and your assertions that you are reverting under blp protection is laughable. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think I am wrong report me.  GB fan  talk 14:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just said I think your attitude was agressive and very poor, you were not involved at all in the very lengthy discussion that took place a few weeks ago involving multiple editors, many of them experienced editors, that came to the consensus after days of discussion that those cats were fine, and you want to edit war to remove them, I think that is a poor collaborative standpoint. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Phantonym
Is that notable? Hm... seems like all it does is give a definition. A8 UDI  13:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is notable. When I first saw the article it was tagged G3 as a hoax. So I searched for a source to see if it was a hoax. I found a source and added it. I have not been able to find anything else. I do not believe that an article by the creator of the word is enough to convey notability but it does prove it is not a hoax. There is no CSD category that fits this article so it should probably go to AFD.  GB fan  talk 14:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages
I've been told you can't get user talk pages deleted - but user pages can be for spam etc. I just delete the offending stuff on the talk page and put 'Advertising material removed.' and sign it. Peridon (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have seen them get deleted for the same kind of stuff before. Since there is no usable history on the page, we lose nothing.   GB fan  talk 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!


Thank you for patrolling new pages!  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Airman's Medal
If DOD Orders is not proof then what is considered to be legite proof? Newspaper Clipping? Thanks madmike64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmike64 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * DoD orders are legitimate proof that someone received the Airman's Medal. I removed a statement that said "I have official DOD Orders and Military ID".  That statement is not a reliable source and that is why I removed it.  The bigger problem is you were adding Michael A. McCready to the notable recipients section of the Airman's Medal article.  Just being a recipient of the medal doesn't make someone notable and there is no indication of why or if Michael A. McCready is notable.  There are many people who have received the medal, I was present when SrA Andy Brown performed the actions that he was awarded the Airman's Medal for, but he is not notable either and does not belong on that page.  For someone to be considered notable they have to be known for more than one event.  SrA Andy Brown and, as far as I can tell, Michael A. McCready are known to some extent for one event and do not meet the wikipedia criteria for notability.  If you have any questions let me know and I will try to help you.   GB fan  talk 12:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:
Hello, in the Huggle I don't see all the page, so I didn't put it the Speed Deletion. --by>Javierito92  (Talk to me) 14:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Spanish wiki the Huggle work very good, but here I don't know... Do you have/use any other program better than the Huggle? --by>Javierito92  (Talk to me) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

unfollow request
You can unfollow Sunset Empire Transportation District if you wish, I'll adopt it as part of WP:WPOR. Not telling you that you must unfollow it, but I'm guessing it's well outside your preferred articles tedder (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving Pages
Why did you undo my move? I believe the move was good because Visalia (disambiguation) is redundant right now and it would be better if Visalia was switched with Visalia (disambiguation) and Visalia redirected to Visalia, California.

Thank You Visalia&LA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visalia&LA (talk • contribs) 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I undid the move because it was a cut and paste move. That is not the proper way to move articles.  If you want to move the article you should request a move at WP:RM   GB fan  talk 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. If I do not cut and paste and rewrite it word for word, will that be okay?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visalia&LA (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you need to request a move at WP:RM for the move to be done properly. The history of the edits needs to move with the text.   GB fan  talk 03:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Will try. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visalia&LA (talk • contribs) 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Block of Ratmrulez
I did see that he was adding "she is adorable" or some such phrase to the article and the user protesting that they did not know why the edit was disruptive. After this he was clearly told why the edit was disruptive and received a final warning. Despite this he added the phrase again. There was no evidence that the user would stop adding the phrase so a block was warranted. I took into account the nature of his edits and instead of blocking indefinitely as a vandalism only account I blocked him for a week. This will allow him to return and contribute positively in the future if desired as well as stopping him from making further disruptive edits. Also, in this case if the user requested unblocking I would be more lenient. Thank you and happy editing,  Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Well it's all water under the bridge now :)  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your thought process.  GB fan  talk 01:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Hey, sorry about that. The article has changed since I placed the tag on. When I placed it the article was only made up of a few words with no refenences. Thanks for letting me know :) James Brian Ellis (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC) James Brian Ellis (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see... Could you help me with how you reply to someones comment on a talk page like you just did on my talk page? Instead of me having to reply to you on your talk page? Thanks. James Brian Ellis (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) James Brian Ellis (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the clean-up of Tortoise (disambiguation)JSo9-10 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax  06:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Banerjee
You really believe this 16-year-old is considered one of the brightest mathematicians of our day? Woogee (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No but there is a claim to notability, if it is a hoax then it needs to be tagged as such. But a7 does not apply because there is a claim.   GB fan  talk 20:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A claim that "Fred has the biggest dick in the world" is also a claim, that doesn't mean we need to keep the vandalistic article. "reasonable" claims are what counts.  Did you look for sources before removing the db tag?  Anyway, I've listed it for afd, as well as complaining about the removal of the db tag without even discussing it with me, which would have been the friendly thing to do.  Woogee (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a claim to notability where the information in this article was a claim to notability. There is nothing against readding a CSD tag after one has been removed.  If you felt it still met the criteria after I explained why I felt it did not you should have readded the tag.  I would have let someone else decide.  I had not looked for sources yet, but I have now and agree that this is probably a hoax and should be deleted.  I apologize for appearing unfriendly, I didn't mean to be.  I feel it is better to be safe and the article sticks around for a little extra time than be wrong and delete a valid article.   GB fan  talk 22:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

List_of_people_who_disappeared_mysteriously
Hello GB fan. You removed some entries from List_of_people_who_disappeared_mysteriously. I realised, that I have forgot to write the source of those people. I have added the source right under. All these missing Danes has been searched for in a tv-program called Forsvundne danskere (Missing Danes). The people, I did add to the list, havent been found in live. The program cant be viewed outside Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.165.159.42 (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still the question of whether these people are notable. If you read the lead paragraph of the list it says:
 * "This is a list of notable, historically testified people who mysteriously disappeared, and whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated."
 * Are these people you listed "notable, historically testified people"? The one or two references do not attest to the fact that they are.  If they are not, then they do not belong on the page.  I will continue to look into these and see if they are notable.   GB fan  talk 01:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NCIS
User 86.130.178.37 appears to starting an edit war on the NCIS page. I got an error message when I tried to undo their edits, and I do not have Twinkle (old computer cannot support). I am very tired of the IP vandalism of this page - when I get my new computer, I will be getting Twinkle or another program to fight it. In the meantime, could you please look at NCIS since you have done so before...if you can do so without being accused of edit warring? Thanks. TristaBella (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, love - figured it out! But the above user is making similar strange edits on NCIS:LA, JAG, CSI & CSI:Miami. Should I go and undo all of these? Or will I get tagged for it? TristaBella (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

demonesh
i have added some References on the article. are them enough to remove db-band template?Iranrocker (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still do not think there is enough in the article to sya that there is a credible indication of significance to this band. I would suggest you read WP:BAND.  It explains the kind of information that is expected to show a band is notable.   GB fan  talk 14:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * wp:band in iran is a nice dream!!! ;) my friend here we have just 6 islamic governmental TV

channel, no concerts , no labels and noting. in iran we have not even more than 100 rock bands that a lot people do not know them! anyway...Iranrocker (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, It does appear that there is a disconnect here for countries such as Iran. I would suggest you add  to the article and then explain on Talk:Demonesh your reasoning as why it should not be deleted.  We can then let an admin decide if it should be deleted.   GB fan  talk 14:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * sounds good!Iranrocker (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
re'd on your comment, please review my comment. MWOAP (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NCIS critique
there was something inherently wrong with my criques of the show? what did I do *wrong* offering my opinions???

Kctobyjoe (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I take it that you are discussing this edit you made and my removal of the information from Talk:NCIS (TV series). I did not and will not comment at all on your critique of the program.  The problem is that the talk pages of the article are not for people to discuss the subject of the article.  Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article.  It did not appear that you were advocating any change to the article, it appeared that you were just critiquing the show and explaining how the show does not agree with real life and that is not an appropriate use of the talk page.  If I misunderstood what your objective of the comments and you were advocating a change to the article, I apologize and you are welcome to readd the comments.  If you have any additional concerns let me know.   GB fan  talk 18:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa vandalism
Hi GB fan, the false information (in the Iowa article) that you cleaned up was put there by me. I want you to know that I the owner of this account did not do that. My friends keep trying to hack my account and it looks like they did. I guess I shouldn't have gave out my password (oops!). I also wish to keep Wikipedia free of nonsense. Thank you, Xavier The Second (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not in an Edit war
I am not in an edit war I am trying to edit the apage and it keeps deleting it. Everything I am saying is fact or true. Who is deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesos214 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are in an edit war. Multiple people have have reverted the additions you made.  Please see the history of the article, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Reggie_Brown_(wide_receiver)&curid=1927335&action=history  You have now reverted an additional time, please discuss it rather than reverting the information.   GB fan  talk 03:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just explain it to him nicely, instead of threatening to block him. He is new, he doesn't know Wikipedia 1,000,000,000 policies and procedures. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't threaten to block him, I don't even have the ability to block him. I just placed the standard message on his talk page about the three revert rule.   GB fan  talk 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. GB fan  talk " Or, perhaps, explain to him what he has done wrong, instead of using a template meant to warn vandals? Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So I explained that he may be blocked for disruption if he continued down the path he was taking. That template that I used is not one for warning vandals it is one for explaining the three revert rule which he violated.  His actions were not vandalism and I never called the edits vandalism.   GB fan  talk 04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi GB fan,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

USACarry.com
Why do you say that USACarry.com is not a helpful external link and a blog? It is not a blog but a site that contains open and concealed carry information by state. There are maps and other resources. There is no blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahman (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the front page of the site, it is a forum site. please see WP:ELNO especially #10.   GB fan  talk 18:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why is http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ listed? This is just a paid member based magazine and forum site. USACarry.com is free but it is more than a forum site. Have you seen all of the info here?

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html http://www.usacarry.com/list_of_ccw_instructors_by_state.html http://www.usacarry.com/list_of_gun_ranges_by_state.html http://www.usacarry.com/list_of_gun_stores_by_state.html

If http://www.usconcealedcarry.com is going to be listed which doesn't offer ANY free information, then I would think USACarry.com would be listed for providing the most up to date maps and concealed carry information by state there is on the web right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.128.51 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, http://www.usconcealedcarry.com has a link right on the homepage to Forums which links to their forums at http://www.uscca.us/forum/index.php. This also goes against #10 that you listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.128.51 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right the other external links on probably don't belong either. I have removed them also.   GB fan  talk 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So even though a site has tons of up to date information on the exact subject, it won't be listed because it has a forum? That doesn't make a lot of sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.128.51 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with my assessment you can bring it up on one of the talk pages of the articles either, Talk:Open carry or Talk:Concealed carry in the United States and look for input from other editors. Another place you can request input is at the External links noticeboard, External links/Noticeboard.  If other editors disagree with me then I go with consensus.   GB fan  talk 01:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will post it there. One thing I notice is that someone on this talk page used usacarry.com, the site in question, to backup information on a subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States - Under Hawaii Information is wrong.

Yet you won't list it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahman (talk • contribs) 01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew-Lee Potts
Hi

I'd like to know why did you remove the Andrew Lee Potts fanclub external link on the Andrew-Lee Potts page.

The fansite has a huge amount of information about the actor including vary rare data.

There's no illegal links there nor material. The work done there is very serious.

We've already contacted Andrew Lee Potts himself and we're waiting for an answer, since we intend to officialize the fanclub.

I think that the fanclub link would be of great help for the visitors of the wikipedia. Since not all information available there is here.

I hope you revert your undo action. I didn't want to do it myself without talking to you first.

All the best, jessymeyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessymeyer (talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline on external links has a section on links to be avoided. In this section #11 says that most fansites should be avoided.  The only fansites that should be included are those that are written by recognized authority.  Based on my review of the site and the information you have provided above, this fansite is not one written by a recognized authority.  Hopefully this answers your concerns.  If you need further explanation let me know.   GB fan  talk 01:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

removal of opencarry.org link
Hi GB Fan,

I put a comment on the talk page for Open Carry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_carry#Removal_of_OpenCarry.org_link

I suggesting not removing that link. I think removing ALL the open carry external links makes that article have less value, and of all the ones people have added, that site has the most information (especially on state-by-state legal issues), and also gets the most traffic, according to Alexa.com.

Thanks! Eliza

ElizaBarrington (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

my 3rd revert
There, I did my 3rd revert--but without the drug reference. This process isn't easy for me--using an express computer in the library. Try not to make it unnecessarily harder.192.30.202.21 (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is still contentious and unsourced. The information only belongs if there are reliable sources to verify the information.  I am not trying to make anything hard, contentious material about living people must be sourced to reliable sources or it just doesn't belong.   GB fan  talk 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How about these? CBC "In late 2004, in the most unexpected turn yet, Caribou was born out of the ashes of lawsuit enacted by ageing punk rocker Handsome ‘Dick' Manitoba. In surely one of the most bizarre trademark lawsuits in recent years Handsome ‘Dick' sued Snaith for unlawfully using the name Manitoba - a name incidentally shared by one of Canada's ten provinces. Finding himself limited by the high-priced realities of trademark law, Snaith opted to take the high road and change his nom de rock to Caribou."  this "Snaith first started making music under the Manitoba moniker in 2000, but was forced to change it in 2004 following legal threats from Richard "Handsome Dick" Manitoba. He subsequently rereleased all the albums he'd put out as Manitoba after renaming himself Caribou in 2005."  this (CBC) "Speaking of copyright, pity Dan Snaith. When the critically vaunted electro-popper from Dundas, Ont., chose the moniker Manitoba, he thought he’d found a name that was just dull and unfashionable enough to escape trademark infringement. This year, Handsome Dick Manitoba of ’70s New York proto-punks the Dictators threatened Snaith with litigation. Although Handsome Dick has never released an album under the name Manitoba, Snaith was sufficiently intimidated to agree to drop his musical sobriquet. Seeking an equally anachronistic Canadian handle, he has opted for Caribou."  and here (CBC) "Though Snaith, who holds a doctorate in mathematics, currently resides in London, England, the soft-spoken sonic savant couldn't be more Canadian. Before naming himself after the regal beast whose head graces the quarter, Snaith was known as Manitoba. He put out several releases under the provincial moniker before American rocker Richard "Handsome Dick" Manitoba sued him for stealing his professional surname. Rather than wasting his time on legal battles, Snaith switched pseudonyms."  192.30.202.15 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 24 hours have long since passed. In a bit over 24 hours--likely 72 hours--I will revert if you don't respond. Have a nice weekend.192.30.202.11 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not had time to look at anything. I have been spending most of my time in the ER/hospital. My suggestion at this point is to add the info with the sources. Fom the info above it looks like you have good sources. I or someone else might come back later and re-look at the info later. In the future it would be better to add this kind of info to the article talk page rather than a users talk page, so anyone interested in the article can evaluate the info.  GB fan  talk 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be as quick as you. :-D Very well. Thank you; and best wishes. 192.30.202.11 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw what you've done. Thanks for the effort. :-D 205.189.194.251 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all. Thank you, Zhang He, D12000, and Ronhjones for your attention. If you did nothing else, I'd be grateful to all of you. Next, 66.65.94.122 and his likely sockpuppet, Richeye, did it again. Is a blocking and protection possible? Thanks. Note, again, you might as well reply to me here as my IP is that of a Library computer.:-) Thanks again.205.189.194.250 (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point there isn't enough to block anyone or to protect the page. The best action is to continue to watch the article.  Hopefully they will start to talk and explain their actions so we can understand why they are removing the content and sources.   GB fan  talk 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He started to actually type styff in the Caribou vandalism.70.54.181.70 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that, but if it is done from the IP then blocks are notmally short in the period of hours to days. Most admins will have a hard time blocking Richeye since there has only been one warning ever given. If they continue, escalating warnings should be given to show that we have tried to engage them in conversation and they refuse to discuss the changes.  I have left a message on the IPs tak page asking for an explanation.   GB fan  talk 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The vandalism continues.  ::About the Caribou and Dick Manitoba vandal and sockpuppet I’ve asked this question:  How do I deal with this edit fight?  I’ve also pasted this message on to the following talk pages: User talk:Dl2000 User talk:MuZemike User talk:Richeye User talk:Ronhjones User talk:Zhang He, and, of course, User talk:66.65.94.122.70.54.181.70 (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My first suggestion is to calm down. Your current attitude is not helpful.  People are watching the article and reverting.  You should be civil to people even if you do not agree with their actions.   GB fan  talk 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have calmed down. (Actually I forked Caribou (musician) to Wikinfo.) I have added to my help desk question.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's me, User talk:70.54.181.70 again--back on the library computer. (Might as well reply here now. :) Thanks again for your help. The article has been protected and the non-IP socks have been blocked. Here's a song that shows a bit the way I feel. Sook-Yin Lee's Beautiful 2:47 You might want to minimize the screen 0:18 to 0:40 into the video, but the song's good. Cheers. 205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Barry Young (radio)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Barry Young (radio). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Barry Young (radio). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Motte-and-bailey
I had reverted one act of vandalism, and noticed that several of the previous edits (but not the immediately preceding one) were "creative." While I was contemplating how to fix that (new at RC) the same editor added two more. At that point, I decided to enable Twinkle. Thanks for fixing that mess. :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, it gets easier with practice, and sometimes there is plenty to practice on. Twinkle helps in that situation also.   GB fan  talk 02:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

input needed
hello GB fan - hope i'm in the right place, and that you won't mind my barging in with a request. you took an interest in some issues at the Pop music article a while ago, and if you have time, it once again needs some input here. and/or: i've posted an "eyes-needed" type announcement on the Music project talk page, but if you can think of any other fora where that notice would have a chance of getting attention from music-orientated editors, that would be very helpful - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Create Synchronicity
Hello!

I saw that you reviewed my article about Create Synchronicity. Could you please point me to things that need to be changed for it to become a valid article? I'm quite new at writing articles, and I may indeed have sounded a bit over-enthusiastic.

Thank you, Cfpcompte (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Anne Firth Murray
I just wanted to let you know that I added some references and removed the references required tag you left. I will be adding more. Hope that's ok with you.

Blinglee (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dab error - Bucks
Regarding - why on earth would a US sports team be the intended target? The sentence reads "East Berks and South Bucks Branch, covering the High Wycombe, Amersham and Windsor area", so it's clear that the context is geographical. The "Bucks" in question is a common abbreviation for Buckinghamshire. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have been distracted and had that in my clipboard when I did those two and didn't double check what I pasted in.  GB fan  talk 12:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship    proposal was  started  on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the  existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working   compromise, so CDA is still largely being  floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the  RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and  Neutral, with Comments  underneath), this RfC is still essentially a  'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD for Requests for adminship/Kirachinmoku 2
Bearing in mind that is my RFA and i am asking for it to be closed and voided, would you like to rethink removing the tag?  Kira Chinmoku  ( T, ¤ ) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can ask for it to be closed as withdrawn, you can even ask for it to be courtesy blanked, But not deleted.  You are not the only editor with substantial edits to the page so G7 does not apply.  You can go to WP:MFD and ask for it to be deleted, but I can almost guarantee that it will not be deleted.  GB fan  talk 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Issue Which I Brought Up On The Bill Clinton Talk Page Was Concerning Illegal Spyware
The investigation I am doing concerns the way one of the the administrators was was able to identity a person from a public computer. A public computer almost always has strict privacy protection, and it would very hard for a person to be able to identify a user beyond the IP address without having good hacking skills. That is what I discussed on the talk page and if I find out that there was usage of illegal spyware, there will be arrests.70.13.18.78 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC) The reason I have you this is because I wanted you to know why I made those comments; not because I was blackmailing or committing entrapment. I also want you to know that if you, or any other administrator, ever decided to use illegal spyware for identifying people beyond IP addresses, it is impossible to cover your tracks.70.13.18.78 (talk)


 * So I was correct that the post had nothing to do with how to improve the Bill Clinton article. That talk page is only supposed to be for discussion on how to improve that single article and nothing else.  GB fan  talk 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes You Are Correct. But So Is This comment from JpGordon's talk page that I copied: live in Hennepin County, and Hennepin County Libraries have the same IP address. You told my friend he the was the same user who made a comment on the Bill Clinton talk page, and he was not. Daily, at least 300 people use these computers. Also, my home area has many Bill Clinton supporters, so don't assume that he was the only one who didn't see the Bill Clinton article and wanted to comment on a bad piece of content he saw. You also never know when a person will create a new account from a shared IP address, and you cannot automatic tell who the account because of the shared address The comment on the page was very offending and prejudice I suggest next time you look to see if IP addresses are shared before you tell people they are the same person, and respect the good faith policy.Tyyp (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We're fully aware it's a public computer; we're also real good at recognizing people pretending to be multiple users when they're actually the same person. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.13.18.78 (talk)


 * I am not sure why you need to tell me what jpgordon said, I didn't say it. I haven't touched the Bill Clinton article since 19 Mar or the Talk page since 25 Feb until today.  Both of those were just reverting vandalism.  I can not find any place on the article or the talk page that I told anyone that they were the same person  GB fan  talk 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Review
Hello, GB fan! I just wanted to let you know I gave you a review that you can find proof of here. The Utahraptor (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Suicide Methods page:
Why wouldn't we want the same header/redirection for assistance with suicide as the main article itself? its NPOV, as it would need to be to be on the main suicide page...108.3.8.225 (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to look throught the talk page archives to see the reasoning for the consensus on the page. After reading through the archives, if you still feel the note belongs bring it back up on the talk page and try to change consensus. I personally do not have strong fellings one way or the other on this topic, but do feel that consensus should prevail.  GB fan  talk 10:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ocean Strategy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ocean Strategy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

hello
I made a correction on the jonas brothers page and you said that i had to make one more edit. I made a correction on demi lovato's page; do you mean one more than that? thanxTelecasterization (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You should now be autoconfirmed and be able to edit semi-protected articles. If you are not able to, let me know and I will try to help get it fixed.   GB fan  talk 00:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mari Ayukawa
You nominated this article for deletion? Of course I don't doubt your good will but please be more prudent for topics you're not very familiar with. Ciao! Behemoth (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever made a mistake? I did when I made this edit.  I fixed my own mistake when I removed the BLP Prod tag and the warning from your talk page about a minute later.  When I reviewed the article I missed the imdb link in the infobox.  I noticed it just as I hit submit on Twinkle, so I immediately went back and fixed my mistake.   GB fan  talk 22:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Star of David
There is nothing barring the image from being there. It is not a Swastica, it is a Star of David showing a religious affiliation!20:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is part of the manual of style. In the icon portion of the Manual of Style it says:
 * Do not use icons in general article prose
 * Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing navigational or layout cues outside of article prose. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.
 * We don't decorate articles with icons that serve no purpose that ccan be handled by the prose. Please stop adding the Stars to the articles.   GB fan  talk 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They do serve a purpose - they show an affiliation just like an American flag, Nazi Swastica, or any other icon that speaks more than words! If you and FAT&Happy would assume good faith, there is a larger picture that I am creating (under WP rules, no POV), and I can't be distracted with assumptions and negative reactions. The Flag of Isreal has the same iconic star, should I remove any "stars" from the article on Isreal? Or Swasticas on Nazi Germany? You'd revert that action based on the history of the symbol and claim it was not distracting. Same case here!Victor9876 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The stars do not belong in the prose at all. If there was an American flag, Israeli Flag, Swastica or any other symbol stuck in the prose like that I would remove it from there also.  They do not belong.  If the star is in an appropriate infobox it would belong, but it does not belong stuck at the end of a paragraph the way you are adding them.   GB fan  talk 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhh! I see. O.K., I'll put them in the info boxes. Thanks!Victor9876 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say that these stars are appropriate in the infoboxes of these articles. I do not believe it is appropriate in the articles you are adding the stars to.  The people are not notable for this affiliation, they are notable for other things.  These do not add to the encyclopedic nature of the article.  My comments were generic comments in response to your arguments above.  21:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) That's right you didn't! But you didn't say the other objections as well. Now I've lost faith in your ability to communicate and you can take this to an AN/I if you want. I'll just boldly do what I think is a contribution and you can complain all you want as long as a fair hearing is held! We apparently have different opinions and that's O.K., or are they generic differences? Who knows for sure? You call them decorations, I call them symbols?!?!?!Victor9876 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you talk about taking this content difference of opinion to AN/I. There is no incident that an administrator need to take care of.  If any discussion needs to take place it would probably be on the MOS icon talk page.  If you feel strong enough to put those icons back on over the objections of 2 other editors that have removed them, that is where I will ask for additional opinions.   GB fan  talk 01:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it! That way there can be constructive dialogue, instead of reverting and miscommunication.Victor9876 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As of the writing of this, 3 more editors have agreed that those icons do not belong. Now that you have explained your intended use of these Stars at the Icon talk page there are additional concerns. The information you are wanting to add appears to be original research.  That information does not belong unless reliable sources have discussed the significance of having jewish chairman of the federal reserve.  Even then it would not belong in the articles of the individual chairmen as you have started putting it.  If it belongs anywhere it would belong on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve page.  I also see you have added the Star to at least one Secretary of the Treasury also.  My suggestion is to find the article you want to add this info to and start a discussion on the talk page and get consensus for the info prior to adding it to the page as this info is contentions and will most likely get reverted unless you have extremely good sources.  If you want someone to review your additions before adding them I am willing to review them and let you know what I think.   GB fan  talk 15:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I have struck the discussion with an explanation. My intentions were not taken because (I feel) there needed to be a broader explanation, and thus, personal prejudices came into play. So to avoid further misunderstandings I struck the text and explained why. I will review all of the insertions I made to remove any that have not been reverted. I appreciate your offer to help in the future and may call on you if I have a concern after this experience. Perhaps WP should remove the "be bold" suggestion or at least include "at your peril" on the main page. LOL! Thanks again and feel free to remove or close the request at MOSICON. Regards!Victor9876 (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After further complications with another editor reverting my stiking of the request and remarks, may I come to you and ask that the entire posting be removed? If I do it, there may be allegations of impropriety and lead to deeper waters. I would prefer not to go there and accept that the discussion should never have been brought. Please advise. Thanks again!Victor9876 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can not remove the entire conversation because it did happen. What I did though is collapse the conversation so someone would have to click show to see the conversation.  Hope this is acceptable.   GB fan  talk 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

James Polk Vandalism
Just a heads up, I didn't vandalize the James Polk page, my isp provides me with a dynamic ip address, my wikipedia account is user:warrush. 70.166.236.54 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that you, as in warrush might not have vandalised the James K. Polk article, but 70.166.236.54 did vandalise the article. I warned the person behind the IP at the time but it does not appear that they got the message and you got it instead.  Since you didn't vandalise the article disregard the message and continue to edit Wikipedia.   GB fan  talk 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mckopd
Sorry about that; I'm keeping a bit of an eye on him, too. I can leave him to you if you prefer. Half Shadow  00:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Continue to watch also, doesn't make any difference who reverts him.  GB fan  talk 00:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Fried
In regards to the jerry Fried page why do you keep saying there are no sources when there are 2. One of which is the Township webpage. Benjamin1414141414141414 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I only said that there were no sources once and that point there weren't any sources on the article. The last thing I did to the article was to readd a speedy delete tag that says there is no assertion of importance in the article.  You as the original author removed.  According to the policy on speedy deletions the original author is not allowed to remove a speedy deletion template so I readded it.   GB fan  talk 20:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Audrey Kitching
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Audrey Kitching. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Audrey Kitching. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Chrucky
GB fan, you have not verified yourself as an authority over me, other users, or Andrew Chrucky; you have not explained why you think Andrew Chrucky meets criteria for deletion; you have not shown your efforts to verify the references for the claims made in Andrew Chrucky. You must therefore explain yourself thoroughly.

Sincerely, Jfeen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfeen (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right I have not verified myself as an authority over you or anyone on Wikipedia, because I am not an authority over anyone on Wikipedia about any article. I am an editor of Wikipedia just like you.  No editor has anymore authority over an article than anyone else, we are all equals here.  I have explained why I believe the Andrew Chrucky article should be deleted.  My rationale is on the Articles for Deletion page that I created to specifically discuss whether the article should be deleted or not.  You can find that discussion at Articles for deletion/Andrew Chrucky.  If you disagree with my rationale or you do not understand my rationale we can discuss that on the deletion discussion page.   GB fan  talk 22:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear; I am very sorry--I had no idea you actually posted reasons for deletion--I thought you just cited some ingenuine "criteria for deletion". I see your worries now--I am referencing some specific articles that support the two claims made in this biography. If there is anyway you can suggest that the relevant link to the actual discussions of why a user's article is being deleted be put on the talk page of that article instead of the generic message about its nomination for deletion, you should do that--it is much more constructive and much more user-frieldly. Thank you for your help and critiicisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfeen (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The link I gave you above is in the box that is at the top of the article. The second line of the box says:
 * Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page
 * If you were to click on the blue linked "this article's entry" in that line it will take you to the same page as I linked above. Also I left you a message on your talk page that explained that my reasons were on Articles for deletion/Andrew Chrucky.  I do not think we need to add an additional link on the talk page of the article also.   GB fan  talk 22:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A bot or someone just scalded me for deleting the Chrucky talk; I didn't think the discussion meant that much to you, but I guess you can keep it if you really want. -Jfeen
 * I keep all the substantial discussions from my talk page. The only ones I delete are those that are vandalism.  After the discussion has been on here for a while it will be automatically archived with the rest of the old discussions.   GB fan  talk 13:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide Social Networking
Hi, I have tried to add Worldwide Social Networking statistics and information in Wikipedia but the list keeps getting reverted and my article seems to get removed? What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.221.89 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 April 2010


 * I have removed your entry twice because Worldwide Social Networking does not have an article. Like I explained in the message I left on your talk page, the consensus id that all entries on that page must first have an article to show that the website is notable.  If we did not have that in place the article would have hundreds of non-notable websites listed.  If you feel that the website meets the general notability or the website specific guidelines then an article should be created.  As an editor who is editing under an IP address you do not have the technical ability to create an article.  To create an article you have two options. Either create an account and log in or use the article for creation process  If you have any additional questions let me know.   GB fan  talk 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Anthony McGowan
Hello GB fan, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Anthony McGowan has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary ' (had ref, I added another) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for feedback: Call this a home? campaign for safe rooming houses
Thanks for tidying up those links. Bowl4u (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome  GB fan  talk 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping out at the WP:FEED desk. Now that the Article Wizard directs new editors there, it has been challenging to keep up with the new requests.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was really backed up for a while. It looks like it is getting better.  I will continue to hang around and work on it.  Your welcome and thank you for everything you do there.   GB fan  talk 23:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback Patrol
I haven't contributed as much to Requests for feedback as I would like, because I stumbled across Category:Requests to move a userspace draft with 242 largely ignored requests. I've knocked off about 60 of them. I'm looking to find a more organized way to address feedback backlogs here. I hope you will contribute some thoughts. -- SPhilbrick  T  19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete Article?
My article Lewis Machine and Tool Company is up for debate for deletion. If you do feel that this company is notable, please join in on the debate. Thanks--Iskor12 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding another reference. Here is a link to the deletion discussion. LMT deletion discussion--Iskor12 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Coastal artillery page
Hello again, GB fan. Since you were the one who helped me get going on my first article, Fort Andrews, I thought I'd stop by and let you know I've now finished it off. Slow going, since I needed to understand things like image formatting and GPS coordinate placement by trying things out.

I'm also about to launch a series of other pages related to Coast Artillery which are still under my User page: Corrected_Firing_Data Depression_Position_Finder Whistler_Hearn_Plotting_Board Base_End_Station, and Plotting_Room

I'm not sure how to "promote" them when the time comes.

Thanks again for your help. Pgrig (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw the work you put into it and initially it is looking very good. I have not gone back through and reread the whole article yet but it is on my list of things to do.  Articles are not really promoted, they are actually moved to a new name.  To move one of your articles, open the article you want to move and at the top towards the right you should see a triangle pointing down,  If you point to it a menu should appear and you should see the word Move.  Click on that, a page will come up that allows you to put in a new name and an edit summary.  After you enter the new name and your reason for moving, click move page.  The article will now be at the new name.  If you need anything else let me know.    GB fan  talk 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

USAA
Thank you for your reasoned support for WP:RS in the article, USAA. A calm voice always helps! Student7 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

stackjones
please stop editing factual material on stack jones page.

you are removing well-known and factual information -- information that is cited and having several wikipedia pages referring to the same material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stackjones (talk • contribs) 09:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

please note that you have a high level of vandalism warnings, none by me, clearly this means your conduct is not acceptable.

since the information that is being provided for stack jones page is accurate and factual, and that you have no information to add to this page, only continuous deletion of factual information, which is now bordering harassment, you are being warned to stay away from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stackjones (talk • contribs) 09:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded on Talk:Stack Jones and User talk:Stackjones  GB fan  talk 10:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stack Jones
An article that you have been involved in editing, Stack Jones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your name is being used in vain...
...can you guess who by? Clue: User experience feedback --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up.  GB fan  talk 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Gill clan article
Thanks for your feedback GBfan. Nevertheless, I believe something needs to be done about the situation, as I have described the unbecoming actions this user has taken while here. It has used multiple IPs so I deemed blocking less practical. Not to cast aspersions, but I'd like a check if this user is a sockpuppet, or if not, some sort of block as I've warned him several times. The article is shoddy enough without aggressive posting of badly written OR; other users have reverted its edits while it was still operating under numerous IPs.3swordz (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now there is nothing on their talk page, so you have no evidence that you have warned this editor. A sockpuppet investigation  could show that it probably is the same person, but the duck test suggests it is the same person.  I suggest you try to discuss this on the talk page of the article.  There does not appear to be any attempt at communication between the two of you other than through edit summaries and that is not a very good way to explain your side of the situation.  Hope this helps.    GB fan  talk 14:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also you are getting to the point of violating the three revert rule also. Please discuss don't revert.   GB fan  talk 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. Would posting a few warnings on its talk page as well help, as for behavior and OR?3swordz (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have warned them about the three revert rule, that is the only thing I know of to warn them about at this point.  GB fan  talk 14:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to bug you with this continuously GBfan, but I thought you ought to know that user:Sikhgill001 has also spammed the Saini people article and had that spam promptly reverted by another user. And he's ducking the discussion on Gill (clan) and again brazenly reverted without explanation. Your patience with him is commendable (can't say that for myself), but I think this is going to be a continuing trend. It's an aggressive OR/spam account. I'd started a discussion on the page, and just gave him an official warning for past and continuing conduct. Just to let you know; we'll see what happens. 3swordz (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Amyas Godfrey
To quite what you linked to: "To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the prod blp until the biography has at least one such source. If a prod blp has been removed then: 1. if no such source has been provided, the tag can be re-added. When practical, revert to the original expiration date" - the "source" is not even close to being "borderline" reliable, it is a fansite that distributes illegal content and must not be linked to per WP:COPYRIGHT. You are not helping anything by removing this BLP Prod when the article does not, in fact, have any reliable sources. I also encourage reading the ANI thread about this, rather than blindly reverting based on one editor's false statements at WP:ER. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not blindly reverting per anything. I looked at the article and believe there is a reliable source on the article and removed the BLPProd in good faith.  I am not going to argue with someone who does blindly revert everything I did including removing the maintenance tags I added without addressing the issues I raised.   GB fan  talk 12:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted your inappropriate removal of the BLP prod and your relinking to an inappropriate site. The BLP issues are the issues and the tag already covers the unreferenced problems. I never said you did not act in good faith, only that you didn't look at the whole issue first, nor examine the claimed "source". It happens. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You did just above say I did not act in good faith, you said; "rather than blindly reverting based on one editor's false statements at WP:ER" (emphasis mine). Blindly reverting implies that I was not acting in good faith.   GB fan ' talk 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you took it that way. To me, its saying you showed too much good faith in his comments, and perhaps overlooked the ANI issues. Whether your own view of me colored your response, I don't know, but again, I had no doubt that you were acting in good faith. In either case, thank you for resolving the issues by redirecting it the same as Chris Bickford‎. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I misread what you were saying.  I don't really have a view of you, honestly, I can not remember ever seeing your name around before this.   GB fan  talk 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I Made a Movie
OK GB FAn, how do I create a page for the site imadeamovie.com? I keep trying and it keeps getting deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizzo41 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can not find where you tried to create the article so I do not know why it was deleted. My suggestion on how to create the article is to read the essay on creating your first article.  The next thing I would suggest you do is read over the notability guidelines, both the general notability and the web specific guidelines.  These two guidelines will tell you what people are looking for when they evaluate an article to determine if the subject is notable enough to have an article here on Wikipedia.  Once you understand the notability guidelines it is time to start writing the article.  Personally, I would suggest creating the article in your userspace, such as User:Rizzo41/Imadeamovie.com.  If you create it there you will have time to work on it without other editors jumping in and possibly nominating it for deletion soon after creation.  Next, after you get an article that you believe shows notability with reliable sources, I would suggest you ask someone who has been around for a while to review it and see if they can offer any suggestions on how to improve the article before it is moved to the mainspace.  You can come back here or post to Requests for feedback where volunteers check on new articles and try to help make them better.  I know this got to be pretty long, but I hope it helps.  If you have any questions let me know.   GB fan  talk 19:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Feed
Hi,

If you get a chance, please look in on WP:FEED - trying to clear down the backlog and then, hopefully, sort things out a bit better. The discussion on the talk page is still ongoing, but the main thing for now is working on the outstanding requests, to clear it down. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

feedback needed on feedback idea
To GB fan,Fetchcomms, Chzz and Captain-n00dle

I'd like some feedback on a thought I have to address most of the remaining items in Category:Requests to move a userspace draft. I could be bold and just do it, but I'd like some reaction from some of the more experienced contributors to Requests for feedback.

As background, I stumbled across the Category about three weeks ago. It contained 242 requests, some going back to November. (This discovery is what prompted me to work on a proposal for a Feedback Patrol.) I've been working on cleaning out the backlog, and have it under 75 at the moment. The good news is that over 170 have been addressed, either by moving when appropriate, or a message to the editor when substantial work is needed prior to a move. The bad news is that I worked on the list with a triage mentality, moving the ones that were in good shape, sending a notice to the ones that were in very bad shape, and passing on ones where I wasn't quite sure how to respond, so the ones left are a little trickier than the ones I've processed.

In many cases, the ones left have some promise, but need some attention regarding notability and other issues. However, in many cases, the request is quite dated. If the editors last edit is a few months old, I don't see it as a good use of resources to spend time assessing notability if the editor is no longer interested in contributing. (Obviously, if you read the draft and want to work on it personally, you can and should, but in many cases, if the original editor isn't going to help, there's not much point in working on it.)

My suggestion is to pick a cutoff date, say one month, and if there have been no edits within the last month, send a note to the editor and ask if they are still interested. (Anything more recent should be addressed on an individual basis.)

Sample message:

You asked that userspace draft be moved into article space. We apologize for the extreme delay in responding to this request. We believe there are some issues that need to be addressed before moving this draft, however, we would like to make sure you are still interested in working on this before we review it in detail. In the mean time, we will remove the request. Please respond if you want the review completed, either by replacing the template, by posting a note at my talk page, or by posting a request at Requests for feedback. -- SPhilbrick  T  11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
GB fan - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you! 7 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
TFOWR 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrator
Is there any other article besides the Requests for adminship and Requests for adminship/Herostratus article to become an adminstrator? Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Herostratus is a current discussion regarding whether Herostratus should retain his adminship. That is the only purpose of that page.  Requests for adminship is the actual page where someone actually is nominated for adminship.  You might try reading Guide to requests for adminship.  That explains more about the process. You need to follow the instructions on this page, Requests for adminship/Nominate.  Hope this helps.  If you have any additional questions let me know.   GB fan  talk 17:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Signature design
When you sign an article, how does your signature have a design? Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you go to the very top of your page you will see a link that says My preferences. On the initial page you will see Signature with a place to add info.  Using HTML markup you can write your own signature.  Place the markup into that box and then click the checkbox under it.  This page, WP:CUSTOMSIG, also gives good information about customizing your signature.  Hope this helps.   GB fan  talk 06:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

non-admin closure
Hi. I do appreciate help in closing because I am not that experienced but I had only just speedy deleted the article and then got an edit conflict with you when I tried to close the AfD. I have therefore admin closed it instead. If you can just wait a few minutes to make sure the deleting admin is not already closing the AfD before non-admin closing it that would be better. Thanks Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, saw it was a redlink on todays list, saw it wasn't closed. So I went to the AFD and then to the article to see what the closing comments were.  After that I went back and looked up the templates to close it.  I actually waited 6 minutes after you deleted it to close it.  Maybe next time I will need to give the admin more time.   GB fan  talk 12:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is me you will need more than 6 minutes :). I was mulling over my statement. Polargeo (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem  GB fan  talk 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

moofi.woot.com?
Why did you remove my post of moofi.woot.com. It's not spam, it's a new woot site. for example: http://moofi.woot.com/moofi/yohoho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwayneam (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I removed it I misread what it said. It looked like you were saying that it was a seperate site.  Going back and reading it I see it is about a woot subsite.  I still don't believe it belongs.  The whole section is unsourced.  Also the way it is written is not how an encyclopedia should be written.  Statements like "(hi mom!);" and "Yes, you can sneak your lowlife pals in, but make sure they follow the dress code." make it appear that the section is a joke.   GB fan  talk 15:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK
Incase you missed it, I already did open a discussion, but just like the ANI thread, no fucker is bothering to comment, and apparently I am just a fucking moron for not understanding the wording. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you (NWO article)
Your recent reverts of vandalism over the past week at the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article are well-appreciated and they do not go unnoticed. Thank you. John Shandy`  &bull; talk 16:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing.  GB fan  talk 16:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RFA Thank spam
-- White Shadows There goes another day 17:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lee DeWyze
I reverted the IP editor again, but that para needs to be to a more reliable source than imdb. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page
I think you made an error. I've fixed it. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * you are right, I did make a mistake. Not sure what I was thinking when I did that.  Thanks for fixing it.   GB fan  talk 10:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation request for Windows 7
WhyteHorse1413 has made a mediation request for Windows 7. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know.  GB fan  talk 06:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Republicrat
I renominated this because I feel it needs a new AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)