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.

June 2016

Hello, GB fan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Lizzius (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployed Golfer

He is a banned user, check his talk-page. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note and am acting on it now. -- GB fan 19:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Good work. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is now using IP addresses on the Project MKUltra article. HealthyGirl (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the article to my watch list. -- GB fan 22:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radyo Kabayan CSD

I know my CSD hit rate sucks, but you didn't think that:

The unsourced, excessively detailed biography of the owner spanning six years, his educational and professional history, a bunch of nicknames, and two different countries;
The article creator claiming the logo he uploaded as his own work;
The entire article being created in five edits, and;
The editor doing nothing else on WP for 2 years besides watch the article,

was substantial enough evidence that he set the thing up in the first place? I know I didn't elaborate all of it, but everything but #2 should have been readily apparent from a quick perusal of the article and the author's contrib history. I'll AfD it, but if you could explain to me why this wasn't a slam-dunk, that would be helpful in the future.MSJapan (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how if you take all the evidence you can surmise that Jagan21 is Francis Ray Cecilio. There are other possibilities though. It could be someone who is a fan of the station and learned about Francis Ray Cecilio's back story that way and created the page. As far as the uploading of the logo, I have seen many images that editor's have uploaded claiming it is their own work, but with a little searching it is found on the internet attributed to someone and the uploader just took the easy answer.

Looking at A11 it requires a plain indication that the article creator is the person who made/coined/created it or someone they personally know. There is no plain indication that Jagan21 is Francis Ray Cecilio or that they personally know Francis Ray Cecilio. If you have any questions let me know. -- GB fan 11:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:EmilyREditor

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ya ok --Varun ☎ 13:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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)[reply]

Green Bay Packers WikiProject

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)[reply]

Konami 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]