User talk:GB fan

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

---

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

User page Talk Links Sandbox Dashboard

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.

Ok then

Fine I won't attack anyone. I just want to know why my page keeps getting deleted. Dave Antonini (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It keeps getting deleted because it does say anything about why the band is significant. You should read WP:ikipedia:Your first article. You should also read Wikipedia:Notability (music) it discusses how Wikipedia determines if bands are notable. GB fan 01:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

So my band's not notable? Try telling that all my loyal fans and adoring groupies. Dave Antonini (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

To be notable according to the guidelines here, multiple reliable sources must have written about your band. you should also read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. GB fan 01:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Guess I'm gonna have to find something else to edit about. Dave Antonini (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk page blanking

As I understand it, this user blanking their entire talk page goes against WP:REMOVED - editors specifically aren't allowed to remove "declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block" from their own talk page, presumably to stop people from wasting too much admin time by repeatedly deleting and reposting weak, failed requests. The editor is welcome to delete the surrounding discussion, but the declined requests should stay until the block is lifted. --McGeddon (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand what the rule says. I also know there is possibly more going on here and we are not hurting anything by having that page blanked. Two admins have indicated that it is ok for the page to be blanked. Please leave it blanked. GB fan 18:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The other admin also thought it was okay to change the user's talk page template from "considering retirement" to "retired", which I don't understand, but sure, I'll leave it blanked if you think the benefit outweighs the potential confusion. --McGeddon (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do think the benefit outweighs the potential confusion. Thank you for leaving the page as is. 44robby left the retired banner up when they reverted this last time, so we can accept that they consider themselves retired. GB fan 21:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The dust has settled now, but it looks as if 44robby later asked (I assume off-wiki) "why did you change it to retired?" because he "didn't understand" why he had apparently been forcibly retired for blanking his own talk page. Proactively "retiring" a blocked user (who still has every right to appeal the block) with no explanation just seems inappropriately confusing for everyone else. Admins can block users and lock talk pages, but a retirement template always means that "this user has voluntarily chosen to retire", doesn't it? --McGeddon (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Then you should talk to the person who changed that, not me. GB fan 00:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I did: the admin told me to "stop fussing", claimed that 44robby had somehow "insisted" on it, and ignored my request to change it back for clarity's sake. 44robby clearly hadn't "insisted" on anything, as he posted the next day asking why the retirement template was there. I was just hoping for a second opinion on whether this was an unhelpful and against-policy thing for an admin to have done.

If we have an admin who mistakenly thinks that "indefinite" means "permanent", that an indefinite block equals "forced retirement" and that it's therefore helpful to paste up "this user has voluntarily retired" banners on talk pages of indef-blocked users (was the decision for an "enough of this crap" talk page protection from User:Ohnoitsjamie affected by the fact that the talk page apparently said "I have retired and am no longer active, but I still want to complain about another editor"?), then I think that admin's understanding of blocking and retiring needs to be corrected. --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I felt that page-protection and the "indefblock" template was a simple solution to the issue so we could all stop wasting time with it. The user had a pretty entrenched case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so entertaining further unblock requests was pointless. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Jordan Agro

Please recreate Jordan Agro it's beginner artists and all everything about Jordan Agro on [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitsalexey (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no claim to significance in that article. Your statement that "Jordan Agro is an beginner artist" confirms he does not meet our notability guidelines. GB fan 13:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry, about the mis-understanding. It may be a little late, now for me, to express me myself, but I wanted to say, I acknowledge my mistake, and I hopefully would not let it happen again.

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem GB fan 11:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Australian wrestling AfDs

I thought I should let you know that the wrestling AfDs were requested by banned User:Justa Punk, and that he was admitted that the IP belongs to him here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied at WT:AFD GB fan 00:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ttongsul

"decline speedy delete, none of the speedy delete criteria listed apply to this article, please consider listing at WP:AFD if you feel it is not notable" None of the criteria applies? If you read them you'd figure that they full well apply. However, I've marked it AfD as you suggested. Although in my view it's horrible this kind of racism (on an entire culture) isn't reason enough for a speedy deletion alone. Ryohka (talk • contribs) 05:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria are very stringent and for articles to be deleted under them they must meet those specific criteria. If the criteria do not fit completely then they can not be used to delete the article. You marked the article with three different criteria.

WP:G1 In you nomination for G1 you wrote: "Patent nonsense: implausible theories, fictional material, coherent non-English material" If you read the criterion, those things are specifically excluded. The last sentence of the criterion says This criterion says: "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." Based on your comments about the article you can understand the article, so this criterion does not apply.

WP:G10 You wote: "article suggests Koreans alone would ingest fecals (?)" The article does not suggest that Koreans alone would ingest fecals, it discusses that this has a long history in China and Korea. Then on User talk:Phoenix7777 you wrote: "I hope you notice it is close to racism" If something is close to racism that does not mean that the article was written purely to harrass Koreans.

WP:A11 For A11 to apply it must be obvious from the information in the article that the person who wrote the article either made up the subject of the article or they personally know the person who made it up. Since the article claims this has been done for over 1000 years, the person who wrote could not have been the person who came up with the idea, nor could they have known the person who did.

Humans have done lots of things in the name of medicine over the last couple of millenium that today we can't beleive it would even be tried. Reporting on those things is not racism or attacks. Is this true, I don't know but it had enough that I believe the proper course of action is to have a discussion to see what others know. GB fan 09:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved the following two comments out of my comments above. General comments: You tried to invoke speedy deletion criteria. The speedy deletion process is for articles that unambiguously meet the strict criteria laid out. If the article does not meet those strict criteria admins should not delete the article, because the community has stated we can only delete them if the meet them. GB fan 12:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• WP:G10
  • Even if it isn't purely written to harass Koreans, it's existence is based on harassment (try to refute that properly). This fulfills WP:G10 very well. Ryo «message me» 12:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I can not refute that the original concept is based on harassment. That isn't what the speedy deletion criterion is about. The speedy deletion criterion is about an article whose mearly existence is nothing but disparagement or harrasment of the subject. If there was an article that said that Koreans eat feces then that would qualify under WP:G10, but in this case the article describes what appears to be an historical medical treatment that has been written about by other people. GB fan 12:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
      • As the resources are doubted in the AfD proposal and they have previously been doubted in the original page's talk by independent people. Considering most/all resources are made up, or certainly not Korean. The original page says "Ttongsul, or feces wine, is a Korean traditional medicinal preparation made from feces, particularly that of humans". Correct me if I'm wrong, indicates that Koreans did or are creating/ingesting feces wine, aside from its inexistence. The only remotely "real" record indicating such was a Chinese book, Chinese medicine respectively. But as I previously said, it is pointless to discuss whether a WP:G10 is given or not, if the admin thinks it isn't. You have the upper hand, mate :) Ryo «message me» 13:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• WP:A11
  • it sadly isn't obvious to people viewing it from afar, that's why I'm trying to point out. However, if you have the slightest clue about east Asian history records you'd know what kind of a deep rooted conflict exists. As I've written on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ttongsul, I can't change the fact that you do not see a fulfillment of any of the stated speedy deletion criteria. So we'll just pull through with the AfD proposal :( ...you may delete this section after you read this if you want to! And no I haven't seen this until I read your explanation on the AfD project page, since I haven't received a mention alert. Ryo «message me» 12:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    • If it isn't obviously made up by the original author or someone they know then the article can not be deleted under A11 as that is the strict rule for this criterion. Ryohka, I don't usually ping someone when I respond to a conversation they started on my talk page. I believe if they want to see my response they will either watchlist my talk page or check back to see if I answered. GB fan 12:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect reading of policy for deletion of Manseren_Manggoendi

Speedy Deletion can only be done once. meatclerk (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Battery dying. I'll get this again later. meatclerk (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have the correct reading of the WP:Proposed deletion policy. Read the Objecting section of the policy, specifically the paragraph under item #4 that starts with "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a . . . " GB fan 01:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ryan B.Martin: Deletion as to why?

Why did you delete the page i was working on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Nobodyknows (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it because the article was about a real person and the article did not explain what is significant about that person. It had two sources, one did not mention him at all, the other mentioned him and said that he has an office next door to and works with someone who is notable. Notability is not inherited from working with or being close to someone notable. After you have read our notability guidelines, if you think he meets them let me know and I will restore the article to your userspace so you can work on it. Then when you show that he does, we can put it back into the article space. GB fan 17:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Bob Buckhorn

hey there i'm trying to make edits to Bob Buckhorn's wiki page wondering why you are deleting the factual edits i'm making? i'm doing this on behalf of him.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zararahim (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Zararahim, you are adding personal information about living people and not providing any reliable sources for that information. We take all biographies of living persons seriously and require information to come from published reliable sources so that other editors and readers can verify the information. GB fan 13:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your help with IKEA. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks GB fan 20:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A7 Draft Space

Apologies, another admin had told me that all CSD criteria apply under draft space, know for the future :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 01:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Solarra, maybe I am wrong, who told you that all CSD criteria apply to the draft space? GB fan 02:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My mistake Martijn Hoekstra told me that all 'G' criteria apply to the draft space, somehow I inferred that applied to 'A' as well, knowledge for the future, again, thanks :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 02:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Silly question, how is an article in which the only content is "Hi" not patent nonsense? ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 12:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Solarra, a better question for you to answer is how is "Hi" "incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history"? While you are answering that question please remember the last line of WP:G1, "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." GB fan 12:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)