User talk:GB fan

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

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

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.

Thanks for noticing the vandalism

Hello, and thank you for noticing the vandalism on the page Alexander Grande, but i think it is very unnecessary to delete it, and i would therefore tell you to set it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetal99 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't undelete Alexander Grande. Go play your games somewhere else. - GB fan 11:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro Edit

Hi , I am new to contributing. I linked to a Youtube video to add the trivia information that he plays the violin on Ben Shapiro's page is this against the rules ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneather (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it against the rules? Maybe depends on the YouTube video. Is it needed that he played violin when he was 12 years old? No, it is just trivia. - GB fan 21:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filter question

Can you take a look at filter 722? Is it still needed? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was still active. I don't think they are still active and looking at the hours they are false positives. It can go away. - GB fan 10:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adhoora

Hi, regarding your removal of the speedy deletion tag from the article, I want to say that the article is a hoax. No such announcement has been made by Karan Johar (you can confirm by gooogling), and the source attached to the article is non-existent, which the author of the article has also done at Anushka Sharma's article. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A G3 (hoax) tag is a lot different than an A11 tag. I responded to the tag that was on the article at the time. There was a clear claim to significance in the article and that is enough to survive speedy deletion under A11. - GB fan 15:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gill Fielding

There's no part of G4 which says that it doesn't apply with MFDs. There was a discussion about the subject's notability a year ago that decided they were not notable. True it's unusual for notability to be decided at MFD rather than AFD but that was because it was only sent there because of the endless rounds of AFC the article had gone through at the behest of paid editors. None of the sources are new. IMO at least, it's pointless bureaucracy to have an AFD, especially given that the editor who created it is obviously not a new user. SmartSE (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but if you restore the G4 tag rather than taking it to PROD or AFD I will not remove it and let another admin decide. - GB fan 11:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Frigo

Hi, I was recently contacted by Alberto Frigo. He was not satisfied with the Wikipedia article I wrote about him and asked me to either update it or delete it (which alas is not possible). I am trying to update it more thoroughly now. I noticed you deleted some text yesterday. I understand your point - I will base my future writings on more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turekka (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turekka, you say you created the article Alberto Frigo. The page history says that Alberto Frigo created the article. Alberto Frigo also uploaded the image used on the article and said that it is his own work. So if you created the article and also created the image used on the article but are not Alberto Frigo, as you imply above, there is a problem with the User:Alberto Frigo account. First we need to have an answer to the the question:

Did you create the article or did Alberto Frigo create the article himself?

After I understand that we can move forward. - GB fan 11:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, most of the article has been created by myself. I am planning similar articles on other media practitioners. We are now in touch so that Frigo can upload images from his own project (e.g. the one with his equipment and so forth and many more to come to explain the various components) and help me with sourcing (which I am now doing on my sandbox). If this, based on your suspicions, cannot occur, you ought to assist him with the total removal of the page as he initially requested and contact him here: http://2004-2040.com/30_we.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turekka (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what suspicions you think I have. I was trying to clear up the inconsistencies between what you said in your initial post here and the article history. You said you wrote the article about him and the history said that it was created by someone else. I asked if you created it? You answered that question. Was never suspicious about anything just confused. - GB fan 15:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. I will try to improve the page and then move forward proposing new pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turekka (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Beals

I figured that they probably would be unrelated, but when I came across this edit filter, titled "CheckUser Sock block", I thought it'd be good for someone to at the very least check it out... Thanks. 172.58.40.66 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision Deletion

Greetings,

I came across a sports page to simply correct an edit a friend had jokingly made, but I was not able to successfully retrieve the original information. I believe the page will be reverted in the next few days or so. Therefore, I deeply apologize for the inconvenience. If you could just permanently delete the latest two edits made on 13:49 and 13:34 February 12, 2017 (revisions) on this link below, then that would be great:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Denver_Broncos_season

Highly appreciate your work. Thanks.Broncosfan071858 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the article but the revisions do not meet any of the revision deletion criteria. - GB fan 16:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but there was identifiable information not supposed to be posted in that article (like that IP address), in which, I prefer not to be made public. As I was trying to make a quick fix, and did not intend for any vandalism. Was there somebody else whom I could contact to have the IP address removed from the article?

One criteria I found:

Non-public personal information about a real individual. This could be private information about you or others This includes a telephone number, an address or location, the name of a workplace or school, other online and offline identities, a date of birth, accidentally disclosed IP addresses, and (subject to oversighter judgment) other information of an identifying nature.Broncosfan071858 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. I have removed the ip address so it is no longer visible. I didn't realise you did the first edit and then created an account and did the second edit. - GB fan 22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julen Edelman

Hello; I realized the person was not attempting to be Julian Edelman, but being only one letter off (and pronounced pretty much the same) it could be confused with him and the username policy states "Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person." Should they not at least post some sort of notice indicating they are not Julian Edelman? 331dot (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a good idea. Not doing it or discussing it is not a reason to block them. The name is not a blatant violation of the username policy. At the top of WP:UAA are the instructions for the page. #1 says "This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked." The instructions, WP:UAAI, say "Real names are not violations. Unless a user is using someone's real name in a misleading way, there is no violation. Real names do not fall under the promotional criterion." In this case we have no reason to believe the name is not their real name as they are not using it in a misleading way. There is nothing to do at WP:UAA with this name at this point. If they start editing Julian Edelman then there may be a case. - GB fan 15:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your explanation. I have observed in the past usernames blocked for being too similar to that of a notable person, even if they weren't impersonating them per se (I can't prove it) but perhaps occasions where I have seen that were done in error. Again, thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J Costello

Thank you. This is my first new page creation (previously I only edited existed pages) so I need to figure out how to do citations better. Meanwhile I'd prefer if page be left offline (unpublished). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliguspedia (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can put the article in draft space if you would like so you have time to work on it. - GB fan 23:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aidayoung

I noticed you deleted the redirect page "Weixinism". Rightly so: "Weixin Shengjiao" did not exist, as it was a draft waiting review. Now "Weixin Shengjiao" has been moved online by an editor. I am recreating the "Weixinism" redirect page. Thank you Aidayoung Aidayoung (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right

Sort of jumping between my work here and non-wiki life a bit too hastily today. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my page?

I have no way of reconciling the page that had references and citations to plausible media and credible sources. This seems to be a form of bullying as there's no justification or explanation. Please explain