User talk:GB fan

User page Talk Links Sandbox Dashboard

This user is the owner of one other Wikipedia account in a manner permitted by policy and it is registered with the arbitration committee.

Please note: If your message is related to a disputed edit, the best thing to do is open a discussion on the talkpage of the article instead of leaving a message here. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Wikipedia is a community effort. Let's use this community component. Thank you.

September 2015

I saw this diff [1] that you made on User:Orangemoody. Where you used Twinkle to revert my edit. My edit was not vandalism, but if it was a mistake. I'm sorry. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that the edit was vandalism because it wasn't. It wasn't a mistake on your your part. It was a mistake on their part. They implied that they were a sock and I blocked them for it. Later it was determined by a check user that they weren't part of the sock farm and were unblocked. I just restored their userpage to the previous state. I apologize if I left you with the impression that I thought you had vandalised the page. Twinkle can be used for non vandalism edits as long as an edit summary is left. I left an edit summary but I could have left a better one. -- GB fan 15:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't know that. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 06:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

TPConnects

I own TPConnects and noticed that the same is deleted. Could you please restore the page. regards Rajendran V Co Founder TPConnects management@tpconnects.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.17.160 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, because of the way it was created it will not be restored. Since you have a conflict of interest you should not create the article, but you can request it be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- GB fan 22:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mike Honda

Thanks for your reversions on that page. Those edits are clearly being done by one of his opponent's supporters, and they're definitely not neutral in tone. Since I'm one of Honda's more visible supporters, I'm not comfortable reverting the edits myself, so I appreciate your diligence. JGriffithSV (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Machine Head - Imperium

Thanks! The redirect Imperium (song) → Imperium (disambiguation) is even better. But you forgot to the talk page "Talk:Imperium (song)". 213.151.215.195 (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

now done, you do know that you could have done it. -- GB fan 11:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for suppressing it! Loraof (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

yw -- GB fan 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dayramir Gonzalez

I'd like to recreate this page. I've already been sent the source code and I'm not at all related to that paid sock farm. I did read an article about this particular subject being caught up in the controversy and knew I could rectify it.--ProverbialElephant (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, like the deletion notice says there is nothing to stop anyone from recreating the article. -- GB fan 23:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but being that I'm a new account and this page has a history of paid socks I figured it would be better to say something.--ProverbialElephant (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand that. I saw that you say on your user page that DeltaQuad knows your previous identity. So I was not concerned. -- GB fan 00:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The role of an admin

Then what's the point of the ANI, 3RR and other noticeboards? Clearly, we have different ideas of what an admin is. I think an admin is someone who is entrusted by the community to carry out "behind the scenes" actions such as file moving, talk page protection, blocking of wrongdoers, etc... While you clearly think they are given the tools to only get involved in incidents which benefits them or their friends. You also make no reference to the IP or the "quality" of his/her edits. They spent the whole of yesterday vandalising Edmund Payne and nobody did anything about it. You obviously think that this behaviour is acceptable as you, and others, have seemingly done bugger all about it once it was brought to your attention. Classic administrator stuff. Cassianto^Talk 07:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The role of those boards is for editors to raise concerns to admins. Then the admins that patrol those boards evaluate the situation and take what they feel is an appropriate action. That action could be blocking, page protection, deletion, warning or possibly nothing at all. Admins have been entrusted by the community to make the appropriate decision. So to me it looks like we have the same idea of what an admin is. I do not understand why you think I believe admins only get involved in incidents which benefits themselves or their friends. I only use my tools to benefit the project not myself or my anyone else. No I didn't make any comment about the IP. The only reason I didn't comment was that I was responding to your complaint about the non-action. When I looked at the article in question I saw the IP had been vandalizing the article. I also saw that when I commented that the last time the IP had edited the article was an hour and a half before I commented. I looked at their talk page and saw that the IP had not edited since the last time they had been warned. It did not appear that a block was necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Looking again this morning it appears my assessment was correct as there has been no more vandalism. Their behavior was not acceptable but by the time I saw it there was nothing to do. -- GB fan 11:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, I have been thinking about this a little more and I have a question for you. Do you believe that if someone reports another editor at one of the admin noticeboards that the admin should follow the recommendation of the reporting user or do you believe that the admin should evaluate the whole situation and base the solution on the whole situation? -- GB fan 13:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that if someone is reported, at either an official noticeboard, or personally to an involved/non-involved admin, then the matter should be looked at, assessed, and action taken accordingly. Clearly my ideology is different to yours. Cassianto^Talk 14:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, just like no one can force you to edit an article, no one can force a specific admin to take action. For example, I do regular sweeps through WP:RFPP. I will leave the occasional report untouched because I think it's not a clear cut case for protection or a decline, either in terms of disruption or level of activity. I will wait to see if further activity takes place or another admin, with a different viewpoint, can handle the report. Similarly, sometimes I am asked to look at a contentious issue and block "one side". I rarely get involved because it seems the reporting editor just wants to bypass the normal conflict resolution processes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't the case here; the IP was a blatant vandal and should've been blocked, regardless of the hoops that needed to be jumped through. I bet if the IP had've upset someone by using a mild profanity, they would've been blocked and thrown off the project in a heartbeat. Cassianto^Talk 15:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So when should have this ip been blocked? As far as I can see no one ever reported then to an admin board. You reported a non admin to an admin board for not blocking them. In this particular case when should they have been blocked and who should have blocked them? -- GB fan 16:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any difference in our ideologies. If a user is reported, then an admin looks at the information available and makes a determination on the proper course of action. Those actions can involve protection, blocking, deleting or no action at all. -- GB fan 16:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Presumably you've looked at the IP's diffs that I provided at ANI? If you did, then maybe then would've been a good time to do it? Or maybe you think vandalising articles is the right thing to do? Cassianto^Talk 19:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

For example Gilliam blocked, on sight, this IP for vandalising a talk page without the need of a second, third, or fourth warning. Maybe you should take a leaf out of their book. Cassianto^Talk 19:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have looked at them and explained in my very first post to this section why I did not block the IP. The IP you linked above is a completely different situation. First Gilliam did not block the IP for one edit. The block by Gilliam was after a series of 13 edits in a very short time to 3 different articles. They also blocked when the IP was currently editing. The IPs last edit was at 0152 and two minutes later Gilliam blocked them. The current block on the IP was based on a single edit, but again was when they were currently editing, again 2 minutes after they made their last edit. I didn't see the edits made by the IP that started this discussion until an hour and a half after they stopped editing. The other two admins were protecting the project from someone actively editing. The one we are discussing had already stopped causing problems when I first became aware of them -- GB fan 22:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I give to you the administrative barnstar for doing good work on the various admin noticeboards. Always remember that complaints are as certain as the sunrise, you cannot please everyone. Your work is appreciated. Chillum 20:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -- GB fan 22:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OS question

Hi, can you please take a look at this? The second paragrah in the body concerns me, but it's in a gray area, at least for me, and I'm not sure if it requires action. I haven't even rev/del'd it. Please let me know if you do not believe any action is necessary. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You must be enjoying your Sunday. Messaged the team.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been away from my computer for a couple of days. I see that someone answered the OS OTRS ticket. -- GB fan 22:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Dei Fratelli

Can you please userfy if this is tomato sauce company. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It is about the tomato sauce company. I can not userfy it because it is a copy of this. -- GB fan 23:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

OK good to know, is there anything useful in its history and when was the article created? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It was created a little over an hour before I deleted it. There is no relevant history. It was created with a direct copy of the website, then marked as a copyright by CorenSearchBot. The the creator made 3 minor edits then blanked the page. It was then marked as G7 by another editor. -- GB fan 23:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/722

What is this for? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a very common edit summary of this sockmaster. -- GB fan 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Heathen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Heathen. Since you had some involvement with the Heathen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Natg 19 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Guppy

I notice you deleted Nancy Guppy as non-notable. I'm a bit surprised. The (stubby) article mentioned her as a regular on one long-running Seattle television show and host of a current TV show about the arts in Seattle. It didn't mention her theater work (e.g. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960418&slug=2324723) or her recent role organizing a pretty important art exhibition (http://www.king5.com/story/entertainment/television/programs/new-day-northwest/2015/08/24/musician-portrait-project/32291015/), and it didn't go into as much detail as it should, but I would think there was enough there to establish notability. Being from the same city as her, I could be biased, so if you stand by your earlier view, I guess I won't try to revive an article, at least not now. However, I'd appreciate it if you at least re-read what was deleted and give this a few moments consideration. ~- Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I still do not see the notability or significance but I might be wrong. I have restored the article and will look to see if I can find anything to improve the article. -- GB fan 11:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Message left on my talk page by Andy Dingley

here, no idea what this is about, I have no knowledge of this whatsoever, in fact I rarely edit anymore so this just seems like a mistake to me. Since it appears you are involved with the Riventree talk page could you see what it's all about and remove the warning from my talk page? Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Polyamorph, back in 2010 you created the page User talk:Riventree with a welcome message. Today Riventree added content that was an attack and Andy Dingley tagged it for speedy deletion. Andy should not have notified you. He probably just didn't uncheck the box to notify the page creator. I see you have already removed the message from your talk page. -- GB fan 11:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, that explains it! Sorry to bother you, cheers! Polyamorph (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. -- GB fan 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Newton F.C.

Why have you deleted Newton F.C. when I mentioned twice that the club is notable having played in the FA Vase? Kivo (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just saying that they are notable twice because they played in the FA Vase does not make them notable or even significant. I look at what the article says and determine if I can find anything that shows significance. Before deleting I looked at the FA Vase article and compared it against what the Newton F.C. article said. Newton F.C.'s best performance according to the article was getting into the second round. According to the FA Vase article the current competition consists of 6 rounds, if it was the same back in the 70s and 80s they did not get very far. Again, I don't know how the 70s and 80s competition compares to the current one but with 535 being accepted in 2013-14 it does not sound like it is a claim to significance. I also looked at the National League System article and compared that to the FA Vase article. FA Vase says that the competition is for teams playing below Step 4. That means that Newton F.C. was somewhere in Steps 5 through 7, again that is not a claim to significance. If I missed something let me know. -- GB fan 12:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Any club that has competed at any round of the FA Vase OR from Steps 1-6 are deemed notable - Newton have done both. Kivo (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say that? -- GB fan 14:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Here, here, here and many others. It's a general consensus in the football community on Wikipedia. Kivo (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree that it says that, but I will restore it with the speedy deletion tag still on it. You should make your case better on the talk page as to why you think it is significant. Another uninvolved editor will look and decide. -- GB fan 19:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Covina and Mateo

Why did you delete the page Covina and Mateo? The page was not finished. The artists have had many requests to get a wikipedia article created. Their significance meets the standards for what is accepted under the Wikipedia guidelines for significance and importance - but the page was not given an opportunity to add all relevant information. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsretsam (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it because the page did not make any claim to significance. If you think it is notable please provide me with a couple of sources that provide in depth coverage of them. -- GB fan 21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I need the content back from the page Covina and Mateo that was just deleted please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsretsam (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you need the content back? -- GB fan 21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify why I asked the above question, a draft that is more fully developed than what I deleted was already in place when I answered the above messages. User:Scottsretsam/Covina and Mateo -- GB fan 10:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Unddeletion of Ryan Skyy

Hi, I am an OTRS volunteer. We now have a ticket for this article namespace, VRTS ticket # 2015081610008205. It seems everything is now in place, copyright issues have been dealt with, etc. Can this article be undeleted? Please advise, and ping me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 00:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

KDS4444, Since this is part of the Orange Moody sockpuppet investigation and the text the article was originally created from is available, I will not restore the content. As the edit summary says the article was deleted without prejudice to recreation. Any editor can use the text and recreate the article. -- GB fan 10:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then can you help me out a little and point me to where the text exists? It just looks to me like it has been deleted, but maybe I am not reading it right (also: I am not overly familiar with the Orange Moody business— I've given it a cursory once-over but not studied it in depth). Please advise, when you can. Thanks again! KDS4444^Talk 14:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

KDS4444, It is available at http://www.ryanskyy.com/bio/ The initial deletion reason was a copyright violation of that page. This is what the OTRS ticket you mentioned above was about. If someone wants to create an article based on that and independent reliable sources, they can. -- GB fan 14:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag - need some more info

To avoid future confusion I need some clarification about a message left regarding speedy deletion for the Andre Marin article. It said "do not rread". Not sure what this means? Think it might have been a typo but can't figure it out. I also had already read the information from the link you provided before, but will read it again. I must have missed something. I recently checked the page and it looks good, I'm really happy with it. I probably won't need to go back and do any more editing. Thank god. It was a mess. CheckersBoard (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You must be talking about the first sentence of the message I left on your talk page. If you are, you have a typo in your version here. I wrote, "Do not readd the speedy deletion tag to André Marin‎ again." What I wrote is readd not rread. I was telling you to not to add the speedy deletion tag to the article again. -- GB fan 11:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Pakistani

I will ask you again, are you a British Pakistani? --112.79.38.168 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? -- GB fan 16:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a bias in favour of Pakistan. If you are a British then read these pages; what they do to your girls: Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, Rochdale sex trafficking gang, Derby sex gang, Oxford sex gang, Telford sex gang, Murder of Kriss Donald, 7 July 2005 London bombings --112.79.35.122 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)