This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:GB fan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:A new name 2008)
Jump to: navigation, search
User page   Talk   Links   Sandbox   Dashboard    
System-users.svg 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.

Deletion review for Richard Kountz[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Richard Kountz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldizzino (talkcontribs) 03:32, 8 June 2015‎

Eldizzino, Thanks for the heads up. Just for future reference, at the top of WP:DRV in the Purpose section it says: "Deletion Review should not be used when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination." If you had asked, I would have restored the article as a draft so you could work on it. If you want the content back as a draft, let me know. -- GB fan 10:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Operation Northwoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think I now added my source correctly. I am new to Wikipedia, and don't know if I did it right. I linked a cite that contains the actual operation northwoods documents, and after reading them, the documents specifically state on many occasions that people are not actually to be killed, and are the actions are to be staged. Please get back to me if I did not cite it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAismisunderstood (talkcontribs) 17:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty particular about sources and what is and is not considered a reliable source. I took a quick glance at your source and what I saw did not look like a reliable source. The page I linked to talks about what is and is not a reliable source. Also, Wikipedia generally reflects what secondary sources say about the article subject, so if others generally say "commit" vs "stage", that's what the article should say. Ravensfire (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
And before we go to far, this discussion is probably best located on the talk:Operation Northwoods talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey GB fan, I now put in a pdf of the declassified documents for my source. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do, I am new to wikipedia. Thanks for your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAismisunderstood (talkcontribs) 02:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC) This is the source I most recently used. It is the operation northwoods declassified documents. It specifically on multiple occasions supports my edits. Do I need to give exact quotes from the document. What else do I have to do to get my edit through without getting reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAismisunderstood (talkcontribs) 13:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I added a discussion to the operation northwoods talk page. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAismisunderstood (talkcontribs) 13:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read through the documents. The wikipedia page does not accurately sum them up. Also, what editor were you talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAismisunderstood (talkcontribs) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about you interpreting the primary source. -- GB fan 14:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of social networking websites[edit]

Hi GB. Thanks for keeping a constant eye on this article. Mizabot does not appear to be working on the talk page. I don't understand the first thing about automatic archiving - perhaps you could look into it. Otherwise manual archiving might be just as effective, I have had this page on my WL for years. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why it wasn't archiving. Looking at the parameters, it should have archived four of the sections. I have archived all but the latest section. -- GB fan 11:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

New Hampshire Wing Civil Air Patrol Page[edit]


I am wondering why you deleted the New Hampshire Wing Civil Air Patrol page. I am thinking of remaking it if that is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adm.tang (talkcontribs) 19:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Adm.tang, I deleted it because the the article creator and only editor, Topboy 111 blanked it. They created the page and then less than an hour later blanked it. When the creator and only significant editor blanks an article we take that as a deletion request. If you would like the content that was in the article when I deleted it, I will restore it to your userspace so you can look at it and use it if you want to. Let me know what you want to do. -- GB fan 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I would like too see it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adm.tang (talkcontribs) 22:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I have restored it. It is available at User:Adm.tang/New Hampshire Wing Civil Air Patrol 2 since you had already created User:Adm.tang/New Hampshire Wing Civil Air Patrol. -- GB fan 00:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Urgent admin action required[edit]

Hello GB Fan.

Sorry to disturb you, but there is an issue that requires immediate admin action. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps adding unsourced content to Türkvizyon Song Contest‎ and Türkvizyon Song Contest‎ 2015, despite being advised to provide a source. I have acted in good faith and checked the internet to see if there are sources to verify their addition, just in case they do not know how to add citation. Alas there are none. I have reverted/rollbacked their edits and issued vandalism warnings to the IP, but they keep reverting such actions - a total of 8 times now. The IP has been reported to AIV and I have requested semi-protection to be placed on both articles. But I feel it is all for nothing as they continue to vandalise the articles. Is there anything you can do to help? Much regards, Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the IP has got the message finally as they have now ceased editing. What a relief! Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Good to see it has been handled. -- GB fan 14:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

AVS Video Editor[edit]

Dear GB Fan,

You have deleted the article AVS Video Editor referring to the discussion dated 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVS Video Editor (2nd nomination). However, the fact is the new article was not a simple recreation from the previously existed page, it was a completely new article with another content that meets the wikipedia guidelines of notability and has good references to reliable sources. The article was created through Articles for Creation page, was reviewed, approved and moved from Drafts page to Articles by a wikipedia editor. Please see Portal:Poland/New article announcements AVS Video Editor started on 2015-06-15, score: 20. Please specify why the article was deleted now and what is needed to recreate it. NeviRom 14:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner on this. The deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVS Video Editor (2nd nomination), was closed 4 months ago on 17 February 2015, not in 2010. I looked at earlier deleted versions and there did not appear to be any significant improvements from the version that was deleted after that discussion. -- GB fan 13:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. I do not quite understand what is wrong with the article. The content of the page is now completely different: there is a good description of the interface of the program, service it provides and the process of the development of the program (its history) since 2003. Concerning the sources, there are published books, journals and university researches. The editor who approved the article and moved it from draft space to articles has not given any recommendations on the improvement of the page. Please recommend what I need to do to improve the article so it can be recovered, if possible.NeviRom 13:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
First you should talk to the admin that closed the deletion discussion, Missvain. In that explain what has changed since the deletion discussion. If that discussion does not satisfy your concerns then bext you can raise your concerns at deletion review. -- GB fan 13:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your mistaken block of me instead of the other editor[edit]

I accept your apology but my previously clean block record is now spoiled. Could you not expunge it altogether, rather than just cancel it and draw a strikeout line through the incorrect block notification? -- Alarics (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is possible to delete the block log from public view but it is not allowed, see Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Log_redaction for explanation. You can remove the block notice from your talk page or if you want I can remove it but it will be forever in the page history. -- GB fan 13:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi. No worries about this. Personally, I would leave the IP comments there as evidence of the socking, but it's your call. They're certainly drawing attention to themselves, if nothing else! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I left a message on their original accounts and on the sock account's talk page telling them what they need to do. The best response right now is to Revert them, Block them and then Ignore them. The evidence of socking is in their contributions list and all the IPs are documented on the sock puppet investigation page. -- GB fan 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Jose de Segovia Barron[edit]

Hi GB Fan,

Maybe I wasn't able to prove the relevance of this writer but please let me try again saying that there's no person with such relevance on Protestant community in Spain than Jose de Segovia Barron. He is probably the Spanish alternative of CS Lewis on United Kingdom or Francis Schaeffer on United States and it's also relevant for English speaking community because he studied and he is even teaching in Welwyn, UK. Why if Lewis and Shaeffer has a Wikipedia page, this Spanish writer can't start its page?

What about a more structure page like this?:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca (talkcontribs) 15:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

hat you have presented here and in the deleted article has no sources for any of the information. The most important part of any article is the sources. We determine what subjects are notable by the sources. If sources that are reliable and independent of the subject of the article have written about the subject in a significant manner then we say the subject is notable. Without any sources it is hard to say he is notable. -- GB fan 00:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)