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 AVS Video Editor[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of AVS Video Editor. 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.

Jonathan Irwin[edit]

Hi, most of the references on the page have a "Missing or empty |title=" tag. Is there any way of fixing this? Thanks. 109.255.120.83 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at the first citation, you will see a line that says |title=Who We Are That is the code that gets rid of that message. You will need to look at each citation and determine what the appropriate title is and add |title=appropriate title to the citation. -- GB fan 20:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Ta for reverting my oopsie edit at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysopping process. Unintentional. I was scrolling through the revisions on my iPad, so the big thumb syndrome struck once again. Moriori (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

NP, that is what I thought happened. It has happened to me a couple of times. -- GB fan 21:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Gerard Lima[edit]

I am wondering why the page I created Gerard Lima was deleted. It is a credible page containing 100% real information with media coverage supporting the page. I have seen other pages for people who have less information and credibility stay up on your site. What would it take for my article to remain up and not get deleted. Is there a way for me to appeal the decision and have the article put back up?--Gerad Lima (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the page because there was no indication what is significant about you. Starting your own production company so that you can write, produce, direct and act in your own movie means nothing unless it is noticed by reliable sources. Some page you should read:
If you can confirm that you have read these and still think you meet all the requirements, I will restore the article as a draft and then others will review it before it is restored as an article. There is a way to appeal the decision. You can ask for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- GB fan 19:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nrwairport RfA request: comments[edit]

Thanks for your contributions concerning this editor; I hope the editor uses this opportunity positively and works towards the values the wiki-community has established. Some of his userboxes are a little dubious, while they have very little wiki-legality or meaning, but the accomplishments can be validated easily.(Regushee (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC))

Hopefully they will listen and improve. -- GB fan 23:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GB fan, I too came here to make a comment acknowledging that notice is being taken of this editors activities. User talk:220 of Borg#Proposed deletion of Bikram Samvat is where my involvement started, and may be of interest. I too queried the editor about their userpage claims. Regards, 220 of Borg 00:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, today I removed a PROD tag that Nrwairport had put on a user page that contained completely innocuous content. I've seen him claim to have made over 100,000 edits with a previous account and then later claim he made 500,000 edits which was challenged by other editors (discussion here, since deleted from talk page). Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Last I looked it read 50,000 edits, and the reviewer icon I queried has also gone. Curiuoser and curiuoser! Too bad you aren't 'Alice' or I could say things about following the white rabbit, to see where it leads! Getting hard to believe that someone with so many edits could make so many mistakes. I'll be surprised if this doesn't end up at WP:AN/I. 220 of Borg 01:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@220 of Borg:, If you go through the user page history, you'll see the claim of edits has been as low as 2,000 to as high as 500,000...all in the same day. I would just like to know his previous account name. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not surprised. AGF, I'm wondering which banned user they are. I hope I am wrong, but .... too much of this sort of crap goes on. We may have already lost new editors because of their tagging of totally allowable newby users' pages as 'advertisements' or 'promotional', with only a name, date of birth and their school/university attendance (or similar). Now to bed many hours late for a nap before 'real life' crap to do! Sigh. 220 of Borg 02:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I have spent a little bit of time looking through some of their talk page history and saw the 500k edit claim. That is not believable. -- GB fan 02:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Concerning User:Nrwairport, if he isn't completely turned off from contributing to articles and establishing a positive reputation, I did find this, Wikipedia:Mentorship, and no, I'm not volunteering.(Regushee (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC))
Quite frankly, this user's contibutions, which appear to be mainly new page patrols, are so arbitrary it looks like either plain, old-fashioned trolling or a compromised account being used by a vandfal. See my comments at: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nrwairport. Please follow all the links in that post. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Page history to be restored[edit]

Hi GB fan! Back in March, you kindly deleted the article Kateřina Kramperová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as the tennis player, at the time, was not notable per project standards. However, after winning the women's doubles competition at the 2015 Advantage Cars Prague Open this weekend, Keroks (talk · contribs) has re-created the article, which now meets the requirements. I was wondering if you would be so kind, again, to restore the page history as the article had, as far as I can remember, a fair few edits before being deleted half a year ago. Would you do us the honours? Many thanks in advance! Jared Preston (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done, all the history is back in the article. -- GB fan 11:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Super, cheers! Jared Preston (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Afzol Hussain Page deletation[edit]

This Is my Personal Bio Page and im totaly new user of wiki please fix this or help me out to create my bio on wiki like this and that u delated i copied and edited from someone else bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhmmdah (talkcontribs) 18:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You should not be creating anything about yourself. If you are notable, then someone will create an article about you. Wikipedia is not a webhost to create your own personal website. Do not recreate the page again. -- GB fan 18:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Lookagain deletion[edit]

Hi

The reason I created the lookagain page was because the current Look Again page was titled incorrectly. The brand name is Lookagain without a space. My intention was to redirect the Look Again page to lookagain once the content was copied over. Is this not allowed or is there another way of changing the page title?


Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Look Again Otto (talkcontribs) 09:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There is another way and that is to move the page to the new name. -- GB fan 10:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

New York senior hurling team[edit]

Hello. I checked to see if it was supposed to be redirect, but I couldn't tell. Thanks for fixing it. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw it originally and saw a redirect. Then after I declined the speedy delete, I realized the actual REDIRECT wasn't there and added it. -- GB fan 14:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you help me please?[edit]

Hey!

I understand that Wikipedia is a free forum and we all strive to provide as much accurate information as possible. I often end up editing a lot of articles on India, since I hail from there, and also because these pages have a lot of inaccurate data based on unverified sources, false information, and a lot of grammatical, spelling and syntactical errors. Over the past few days, this one user named Bongan has been undoing my edits without understanding them! For someone who talks like this "I thing u are not follow Wikipedia protocol", it is obvious that he is not going to understand a grammatical correction on a page. How do I report something like this? I don't want Wikipedia to suspend my account because of a miscreant reporting every edit of mine.

I saw your recent edit on the Afghan Church, a page where I had made some corrections in the past, and you seem to be a fair editor with a balanced head. It would be great if you could help me. I don't know much of HTML or Wikipedia's policies, but I know the basic stuff necessary for me to make basic changes to an article. On the Afghan Church page, I didn't add or remove any information, just restructured the sentence correctly and corrected some errors. The aforementioned user undid that and reported that as adding "unsourced content". On another article, the Jag Mandir, I had removed a photo, he undid the same citing my removal as invalid. The reason for removal was that it was in fact the photo of the Taj Lake Palace [and on its page], and not the Jag Mandir. He undid my edits on Sinhagad again citing some ludicrous reason, when it was just a correction of a sentence's syntax and spelling. I don't have any vendetta against him, my only concern is that my edits, if they are right, shouldn't be undone, and most of all, my account suspended because someone reports me without understanding what is being said by me. It would be great if you could help me or review the edit as a neutral third party. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronakshah1990 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I only got involved because of a speedy deletion request. This is not a subject area or article that I want to put any time into, sorry. I see you have already posted at the Tea House. Another place you can ask for help about India related articles is at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. -- GB fan 19:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, there are multiple people that are trying to get the editor to slow down and think more about the edits they are making. Hopefully they will back off a little. -- GB fan 19:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

Billy Mckay[edit]

You are oblivious to the mistakes in the Billy McKay article. Will somebody please research the last name McKay because Mckay besides being incorrect is also a lazy way to spell the surname, e.g. I choose to spell my surname as Mueller, instead of Müller (except the press may refer to him as Mueller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.23 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 22 August 2015‎

It might be, but if that is the way he spells his name that is how we spell it. If you disagree go to the article talk page and discuss the change. You can initiate a move request using the process at WP:RM. -- GB fan 00:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

should I consider being given admin privileges?[edit]

Hi, as an admin, you have given me something to consider recently, especially after the User:Nwrairport incident. I've been on Wikipedia for 8 years (...really?...has it been that long?...) adding originally to automobile articles, but then branching off to Japanese cars originally, then further delving into Japanese topics and cultural oddities. I do find myself researching, and then adding, a Japanese perspective when appropriate. Being an admin, and what that entails, didn't seem to be a consideration.

With the Nwrairport event, I did think about what I could have contributed earlier in this editors disruptive edits, and maybe have guided this sooner, or at least contacted the admin community sooner. Luckily, the wikicommunity intervened somewhat rapidly, and further prevented this editor from "biting" novice editors, which is what Wikipedia is really about; a safe place to learn and add to articles.

Whadaya think, should I consider it? (Regushee (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

I will look into your history. I have not been intimately involved the RFA process lately. I do watch all RFAs. Give me a couple of days to review your history. -- GB fan 18:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Regushee sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I see lots of good work you have done. I don't see what a lot of the community looks for in an admin candidate. I do not see much interaction with the community. You have edited article talk pages 5 times, Wikipedia namespace 2 times, Wikipedia talk 1 time (duplicate of one of the Wikipedia edits}, and User talk 17 times. I also do not see much participation in deletion process. In your whole history I see participation in 3 AFDs, 1 RFD and (unless I missed something) no CSDs or Prods. I do believe you are a very good editor, but I do not believe you have the experience needed to pass an RFA. This is where the potential problem comes in. If you feel you would like to become an admin, you would need to change your editing habits, you will need to get more involved with the community. You should get involved in the deletion processes so you can show that you understand when pages should be deleted. Your edits should also show that you understand the policies associated with other admin actions such as blocking and protecting. I do not believe you would get enough support if you ran right now. Here is one person's opinion of what you need for adminship, User:Kudpung/RfA criteria. If you need clarification or anything else let me know. -- GB fan 13:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
GB fan Thanks for your honesty and researching my editing history. I was "on the fence" about pursuing an sysops role; I sort of felt that because of my years of contributing, that maybe I should add a few more responsibilities to my credit, not that becoming an admin is little more than adding a userbox to my page. As you may well have discovered, I seem to add the Japanese perspective on several subjects, while most appear to be one of their most notable international contributions; cars. I have added some information, and clarified some articles with regards to religion in Japan, but being careful not to promote original research on that very contentious subject. It appears that other editors with stronger ties to the wiki-community work on articles with a shared "Western-centric", or Occidental focus if you like, and encountering editors with a "Japan-centric" Oriental focus who are fluent in English is more rare, other than User:Sennen goroshi who is much better left alone. I would imagine many Japanese Wikipedians contribute regularly on Japanese Wikipedia, but rarely add to the English equalivent articles. Editors with ties to the community are also recognized and rewarded for their efforts, along with notoriety on their talk pages (barnstars, kittens, and so on). I guess this is my way of reaching out to the community in a minor fashion, without inviting some unwanted attention from trolls looking for some action.(Regushee (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC))

Regarding Speedy deletion of articles related to Church of South India[edit]

Hi GB Fan ,

I have recently seen a flurry of edits in Wikipedia pages related to Church of South India and tagging for speedy deletion and disputing neutrality by user named Bongan .The user has tagged Church of South India pages with following tags POV, advert, original research, peacock, self-published and unreliable sources. In the Church of South India around 15 references to various books written by independent authors / researchers has been provided already during the time of tagging .So I had removed the tags .

Also regarding the various dioceses under Church of South India most of the pages has been tagged for speedy deletion by Bongan.The diocesean pages are not wriiten like an advertisement and wherever applicable book references / links to independent news URL has been quoted.Some of the diocesan pages does not have independent references but the articles are posted from a neutral point of view only Tagging for speedy deletion /advertisement defeats the purpose of Wikipedia is grossly unfair.

Request like minded editors support in this issue Thanks --  en:User:jibin_net

Odd Edit[edit]

AKS.9955 refers to the the edit war, as well as you, in a totally different and unrelated arena "Requests for adminship" HERE.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted[edit]

Hi GB Fan,

hope your well...

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond to the deletion...

I understand why I think the page was deleted, was it the bio from LinkedIn.

look forward to hearing your response.

D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmagroup (talkcontribs) 01:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not allowed. For an article to be on Wikipedia you need to be notable. Basically that says there needs to be multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Your personal linkedin is not reliable, not independent and does not provide significant coverage. Also Wikipedia is not here to help you increase your exposure. Also you should not be writing about yourself as you will have a hard time writing in a neutral manner. Some pages you might want to read are: Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- GB fan 01:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Done and Understood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmagroup (talkcontribs) 01:47, 27 August 2015‎:

Deletion of Jolon Mamytov[edit]

I see you deleted Jolon Mamytov like 8 minutes after it'd been tagged for speedy deletion. I assume that the issue is not necessarily that he is not noteworthy, but that the lack of citations gave no evidence that he was noteworthy? I simply hadn't managed to put any citations up when I created the page (via translation from the Kyrgyz wikipedia), but I can cite whole books of his works, and other sources that discuss his works (as done on the Kyrgyz wikipedia page, which was interwiki-linked, iirc—had you taken a look at that?). If this would be valid criteria for evidence of his noteworthiness, would you be able to provide the deleted content for me to restore and add sources to? (If the issue is indeed that the person does not meet the criteria for being noteworthy, then I will volunteer to assemble a list of hundreds of other pages to be selected for speedy deletion based on similar criteria.) —Firespeaker (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue with the article is neither lack of of being noteworthy nor lack of citations. The issue is that there is no credible claim to significance. All the article said is he is a famous aqyn known for his love songs. That is not a claim to significance. I have restored the article as a draft. You can find it at Draft:Jolon Mamytov. -- GB fan 10:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring it as a draft. I've added a bit, highlighting his achievements and recognition, and provided a source that corroborates the information (aside from the various books about him that are listed, which I do not have time to verify at the moment). It's not a great article, but hopefully it now meets expectations of a "claim to significance" (which I understand similarly to noteworthiness) as a stub. If you believe it needs more work before it's acceptable, let me know. Otherwise, could you restore the page? (Once it's restored, I plan to link a few other pages to it.) —Firespeaker (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Or I guess the procedure is actually that it gets submitted for review now? —Firespeaker (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The article looks good now. I have moved it back. -- GB fan 11:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Arthur[edit]

Arthur (season 20) please please please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:100:4da9:71e7:44ca:fcd9:afd4 (talkcontribs) 23:21, 1 September 2015‎

You need to explain what your request is. -- GB fan 00:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing my page[edit]

I want to remove my Wikipedia page for a number of growing harassment issues and you keep putting the page back up. Do I need to go to my local police about this?? JSantoliquito (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To begin with it is not your page. It might be an article about you but it is not yours. No one owns any articles on Wikipedia. There are very specific reasons that an article can be speedy deleted, those can be found at WP:CSD. This article does not meet any of those criteria. If you want to go to the police that is your prerogative but before you post anything about that again you should read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Some admins might feel that your post above is enough to block you. -- GB fan 14:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Attacks[edit]

You redacted some attacks [1], but not these similar unsolicited personal attacks [2] occurring earlier in the same Talk section. (Did you not see them? Or do you pick & choose? Can you explain please? Thanks.) IHTS (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't pick and choose. I didn't read the conversation, I saw the last post the ip made and it was an attack. I removed it and looked right above it and saw more of the same. Reacted those and moved on. I should have spent more time and looked at the whole conversation. I am on a mobile device right now so it is hard to do much editing. Will look more when I get on a computer. -- GB fan 09:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
OK thank you. p.s. Please note also User talk:Dennis Brown#Kingshowman. IHTS (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G7[edit]

In regards to the this edit, blanking of any page, including userpage can be considered request for removal. See: WP:USER#Deleting_your_user_page_or_subpages. Alternatively, please point to a policy reference showing otherwise. --Melmann(talk) 10:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In the link you provided in the header of this section it says, "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request." I added the emphasis on userspace page. This guideline that you linked to contradicts the deletion policy at WP:G7 and should probably be changed. -- GB fan 10:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

I saw this diff [3] 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)

Removal of BLP on Cardiak[edit]

No regards, GB fan, but when you took off my BLP tag on Cardiak, I thought the project was unsourced. How do you know it was referenced? Answer me back. DBrown SPS (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the BLPPROD for two reasons. First, the BLPPROD policy only applies to articles of living people that were created after March 18, 2010. This article was created July 13, 2009. Since it was created before March 10, 2010 the policy does not apply. The second reason is that the policy says it only applies to articles that do not have any sources in any form. When you tagged it the article had two sources, this in the lead and this in the external links section. Even though neither one of those two sources are independent and reliable it does not make any difference, THe policy just says if the article has any source in any form that verifies any of the information in the article that is enough to stop the BLPPROD from being added. If the article does not have a source at and a BLPPROD is added then a reliable source must be added to remove it. That is an inconsistency but it has been discussed and remains in the policy. -- GB fan 00:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)