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.

User:EmilyREditor[edit]

This editor has requested that his user and talk page be deleted. The discussion is present here User talk:DragonflySixtyseven#Hey there. Delete them Varun  07:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As Iridescent told you on your talk page, We don't delete user's talk pages and we don't delete user pages unless the user asks. Some IP asking is not enough to say the user asked. If it is them they need to log in and ask for their userpage to be deleted. -- GB fan 10:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
ya ok --Varun  13:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I was actually in the process of writing a RFPP. You would think people would pay attention to 'This is currently in dicussion on the talkpage' before changing something in a site-wide policy... but noooooo. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers WikiProject[edit]

Hi GB fan! I have noticed you editing Packers articles lately (and your username!), so I just wanted to let you know that I have restarted the Green Bay Packers WikiProject. Come check out the page and if you are interested, add yourself to the active member list! I have done some work to get all of our articles assessed and add some new tools. Please feel free to post on the WikiProject's talk page or on my talk page if you have any questions! Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Konami edit[edit]

Hello, GB fan. I see that you reverted an IP editor's change to the article "Konami" yesterday. Since I am unable to view the nature of the edit, nor even the editor's edit summary, I guess that you revdeleted the edit.

While I have no doubt that you are justified in reverting the edit, it would have been helpful for you to leave a message on the IP editor's talk page, both to "inform" that editor (for what it's worth) and (more usefully) to flag that IP address as a potential source of unwanted edits.

Your edit summary indicates "spam", but I am not convinced that spam alone is suitable justification for revdeletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the need to edit the IPs talk page in this instance. The editor was probably already gone from the IP by the time I reverted the edit, so no need to warn them to stop. This appeared to be a one off edit from what is probably a dynamic IP and marking the IP as having one bad edit is not useful. There is nothing to say the next editor that uses the IP address will also be a problem. The edit was unambiguously advertising that had absolutely nothing to do with Konami. The edit and edit summary fall under RD5 using deletion reason 4. -- GB fan 11:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That's an excuse for laziness.
The deletion policy is specifically for articles that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. It is not relevant to content within a notable article. Criterion 5 refers to articles that are being deleted (i.e. "under deletion policy"). It is unclear to me why revdeletion should be required on an article being deleted anyway. I suspect that it may be a holdover from an outdated/deprecated situation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It was not laziness, It was a decision on my part to not place any warning as none is required. I look at the specific situation and make that decision every time I do something. RD5 says that revision deletion can be used anywhere that deletion policy allows deletion. I made a determination that the edit should be deleted. If you don't think it should be allowed in this situation propose a change. Until it is changed, I will continue to use RD5 as stated in policy. -- GB fan 13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

New thread[edit]

please at least stop doc from censoring me in the thread about him censoring me.68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop calling people racist and people will stop removing your posts. -- GB fan 11:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

FC Golden State Force[edit]

I am writing to ask you to rescind your PROD of FC Golden State Force. You say that as an amateur team, they do not meet the criteria for club notability. However, the notability guidelines for clubs do not exclude amateur teams, so I don't understand your reasoning. Further, as a member of the PDL (whose members are eligible for the national cup competition -- U.S. Open Cup), and as a current participant in their league's championship playoffs, FC Golden State Force is going to be playing in the Open Cup next year, which guarantees their notability status under the guidelines you cited. Please reconsider deletion. Thank you. --2602:306:3730:E2C0:7DAC:C1A9:FD9A:EE94 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been restored on demand as this was deleted via WP:PROD. -- GB fan 10:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

SWB[edit]

I reverted your edit to SWB because Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA is a redirect page to Wyoming Valley. DAB needs to go to a relevant page directly, in this case there is no page for Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA or even Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, hence the link is Wyoming Valley. Ex nihil (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

DAB pages do not need to go to the relevant page directly. Actually it is very common for pages to use redirects so that the link corresponds to what the DAB page is. In this case SWB. Your edit summary was correct that we don't using piping but it was incorrect because there was no piping. The way I left the page is correct. -- GB fan 00:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • GBfan have a look at MOS:DABMENTION, which handles this case. Piping is disguising the target page under another name, in this case we have piping (Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA hiding Wyoming Valley. However, there is another problem; the link to Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA itself goes to redirect page, which in turn redirects to Wyoming Valley, there is actually no page at Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA MSA. This means we have two problems that need fixing. Piping is permitted under certain circumstances such as linking to a sub-section, or where it is clearer that way. A dab cannot link to redirect page. Change it by all means, I am not going to get into an edit war, I shall leave it somebody else, but please have a very good read through MOS:DAB, which is very long and tedious but is the received wisdom of the Wiki world. Ex nihil (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You should read MOS:DABPIPE. It explains what the difference between piping and redirects is. The next section explains when redirects are appropriate. This situation here is one of the times when redirects are appropriate. The article title is Wyoming Valley but the lead says that the area is also called Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Metropolitan Area. -- GB fan 01:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Dodd[edit]

Very disappointed at the deletion of one of my articles due to vandalism by another user, won't stay here and argue, just lodging my severe disappointment, I expected better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceHockeyHero (talkcontribs) 21:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

IceHockeyHero, I assume you are talking about the article Matthew Dodd. You are correct, I should not have deleted it the way I did. I have restored the article. -- GB fan 23:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)